It's OK for men to hit us, says wives' poll in Turkey

[emad]

The Telegraph
(Filed: 22/10/2004)

More than a third of Turkish women believe they deserve to be beaten if they argue with their husbands, deny them sex, neglect children or burn a meal, according to a survey reported by the Anatolia news agency yesterday.

The survey found that 39 per cent of women said their husbands were right to beat them. In rural areas, the figure rose to 57 per cent.

As many as half of all Turkish women are estimated to be victims of physical violence in their families.

The survey and report come at a crucial moment as the European Union, which Turkey is seeking to join, has put pressure on the government to protect women.

In the Anatolia poll, arguing with one's husband topped the list of justified reasons for domestic violence, followed by spending too much and neglecting children.

More:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/22/wturk22.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/10/22/ixworld.html

Seem to remember someone saying that "Islam" mean submisssion.....

[Goldmund]

1. I still feel sorry for the 61 percent who have some self respect.

As far as the 39 -- hey, if they don't mind, why would I?

[Eloriel]

12. What an ugly sentiment

There's a reason the 39 percent don't "mind," and it's called internalized oppression. That means that they have been sold a bill of goods about their inferiority and worthlessness -- thanks to their whole society -- and believe it. You get told from the day you're born that you are worth less, inferior, and that others have property and other rights over you, it's very difficult (tho not impossible) to have a DIFFERENT view of things.

In the mid-1800s in America there were slaves who didn't WANT to be free. Same problem: internalized oppression.

It does no good to blame these women for their internalized oppression -- in fact, it enhances, supports and enables that very oppression. What is needed here is that the 39 percent have their "consciousness raised" -- so they begin to question "the way things are" and see other possibilities for themselves along with their right as human beings to a better, freer life. Of course, there will probably always be women who still support patriarchy's worst sins against women -- the Phyllis Schafflys and Anne Coulters of the world -- but the vast majority of women will choose equality when they begin to see their own internalized oppression for what it is.

[Goldmund]

16. I absolutely agree with you

But in the end, the men who abuse the women aren't all genuinely evil either -- analogously to what you said, they internalized the "oppressor", it crept in and became a part of their identity. They were told from the day they were born that they are worth nothing unless they find a woman to oppress.

I didn't say I _blame_ these women for their internalized oppression -- I said I didn't feel sorry for them. In my mind, they are an accomplice in the crime that is being commited; I don't see them as victims any more than I see the men who oppress them as victims -- the spritual bankrupcy those men suffer is no less damaging. Yes, I'm aware how un-PC that is, but I don't really care. I think the same aesthetic, the same spiritual process, that makes these men oppress the women, makes the women feel they deserve to be oppressed; it's two sides of the same coin, and they merely play different roles in that dynamic.

It is always so -- all of these social diseases that have been surviving for millenia are carried by people with a lack of capacity of introspection, self-examination, without an independent and aware value system -- in other words, the majority. And really, I think it would be arrogand to pity a majority of humanity. I don't. That's the way human beings and human societies are, at this point of their social and biological revolution.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

34. Yup. Our species is SLOWLY evolving beyond 'might makes right'

and women and children are only recently getting relief from the larger and more violent members of the human family, men who have abused those smaller and weaker for millions of years.

Unfortunately, while some societies have begun to evolve past this barbarism, others are centuries behind this inevitable curve of evolution as social animals who cooperate instead of compete for survival.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS THE ROOT OF FASCISM.
Terrorism begins in the home when men hit women and adults hit kids.

Thus the myth of 'authority' is perpetuated and leads to Dominionism which is the belief that 'Power is God's reward for Virtue,' literally 'might makes right.'

Domestic violence is no more valid a cultural trait than genocide and does not warrant respect, validation, or perpetuation.

"Who's to judge?..." Loving and caring humans, that's who.

[Goldmund]

35. Yes, but it's never quite so simple.

In this thread, we're talking about the 39% of Turkish women who think they _deserve_ to be oppressed. And this is Turkey -- I'm sure that in, say, Afghanistan, you'd have a lot higher percentage. Likewise, 300 years ago, you'd have a lot higher percentage here. And this is just a response to the question "Do your husbands have the right to beat you" -- even here, there are plenty of less dramatic, but no less reactionary vestiges of such sentiments.

Yes -- "women and children are only recently getting relief from the larger and more violent members of the human family, men who have abused those smaller and weaker for millions of years.". On the surface, that's true.

But I think the dynamics is a bit different. I think that in widely-present instances of cultural oppression, a major aspect of the battle isn't only between the oppressor and the oppressed -- but more importantly, between those who take part in the stage-play and those who refuse to play their designated roles. It is between those who rise above their assigned social identities, and those who are unable or unwilling to do so. To me, these 39% of women who think they deserve to be beaten aren't just victims, or even enablers -- they are perpetrators, in the same category as the men who beat them.

It is just as heroic to refuse to oppress as it is to refuse to be oppressed. We, as a society, glorify the Rosa Parks-es and the Spartacuses of the world, and rightly so; but we don't give enough recognition to the thousands of faceless men who refused to oppress the women in their lives when that was expected of them; the thousands of whites who pulled up chairs and sat down at tables designated for the blacks, or insisted on sitting in the back of the bus. We glorify those who stand up to oppression, and don't give the due recognition to those who refuse to oppress.

In my mind, being willingly oppressed is just as insidious as willingly oppressing; refusing to oppress just as heroic as refusing to be oppressed. The heroism is refusing to take part in the play, and that is, in the end, what changes the play itself.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

42. Hm. So your point is that allowing abuse is a partnership in the crime?

I can understand that intellectualization as in the saying "if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem." But that is "not so simple" either.

>"I think it would be arrogant to pity a majority of humanity."

Yikes. Sympathy and empathy are what's involved here and those are the most noble attributes of our species in my mind. You use the word 'pity' to indicate condescension or a superiority complex, not a very noble attitude. Do you really mean that?

You must admit that the oppressor has more culpability in the moral equation than the oppressed. That is "so simple." Internalized oppression, as Eloriel articulated, is STILL OPPRESSION FROM THE OUTSIDE. That is, it is inflicted on the individual by an unjust and inhumane culture.

Tolerating injustice is enabling it just as covering for an alcoholic's dysfunction perpetuates it.

This is a principle taught to families who help alcoholics function out of habit and altruism but don't see that it perpetuates the problem instead of solving it.

Interestingly, Arundhati Roy has made the point that non-government agencies (NGOs) are serving to perpetuate systemic abuses by applying band-aid assistance to the oppressed and needy which is not only an inadequate solution but reduces the threshold of intolerance for the crisis being addressed so that it is not prevented. The NGOs also draw the human resources that would otherwise be creating the change needed in the society.

Yes, both men AND women need to stop the cycle of domestic abuse.
I will agree with this if that is your point.

But remember, the women's liberation movement in this country happened in a culture based on egalitarian democracy and personal autonomy, a direct reaction against the authoritarian patriarchal culture of the European Christian Church-supported monarchies. (Nevermind that my sig. quote below is from 2002. sigh...)

The middle east is still mostly theocratic and patriarchal in its culture and this will make it harder for women to empower themselves with awareness of their own autonomy and personal dignity.

>"In my mind, being willingly oppressed is just as insidious as willingly oppressing; refusing to oppress just as heroic as refusing to be oppressed."

Here's the distinction from your point I'm indicating:
Internalized oppression means that you don't realize your being oppressed, not that you consciously accept it. Hence, the heroism of rebellion isn't possible, nor moral complicity in one's own abuse.

[Goldmund]

57. I'm saying something more than that.

"You must admit that the oppressor has more culpability in the moral equation than the oppressed. "

That depends on whether the oppression is cultural or political. While many forms of oppression (slavery/racism for example) have both cultural and political components, in this discussion we are concentrating on the cultural. And the difference is this: in the case of cultural oppression, there are no beneficiaries. While the slave-traders lost their source of wealth when slavery ended, the men did not lose anything with women's suffrage movement; to the contrary, they gained enlightenment. While the ownership class lost a huge amount of their wealth with successes of the workers' rights movement, and while Gandhi denied Great Britain a humongous source of resources -- Martin Luther King denied the whites of this country nothing, but instead offered them -- again -- enlightenment (if we are talking about the cultural aspects of the Civil Rights movement, and forget about the political for the moment). And I don't know of many men who feel their lives would be better if they were only able to beat the women in their lives.

And if we concentrate on the purely cultural, the willing oppressed is in my mind equally guilty as the willing oppressor. I hold the Dr. Lauras of our country equally responsible for the slow progress of gender equality as I do the Jerry Fallwells.

"Internalized oppression, as Eloriel articulated, is STILL OPPRESSION FROM THE OUTSIDE. "

Unless you are ready to assert that the 39% of the men who beat these willing women are genuine and pure evil, their role -- of the oppressor -- is imposed from the outside as well. They both step into the cultural shoes they were provided; they are both inter-dependent groups in this equation.

To put it simplistically: had these 39% of women who feel they deserve to be beaten been born as men, they would now be beating their wives.

"Here's the distinction from your point I'm indicating:
Internalized oppression means that you don't realize your being oppressed, not that you consciously accept it. Hence, the heroism of rebellion isn't possible, nor moral complicity in one's own abuse."

I would argue that the same applies to the men. They aren't conscious of being oppressors any more than I feel responsible for the genocide of lettuce I perpertrate at lunch every day. To them, they are playing roles in what they think is the natural order of things -- and so do the women who accept the oppression.

And my point is that the overarching crime here is the lack of questioning of predefined cultural values. And that, by the way, is why I consider organized religion -- which by definition discourages the questioning of the value system it asserts -- one of the most potent enablers of various forms of cultural opression.

[bloom]

88. So...

"Unless you are ready to assert that the 39% of the men who beat these willing women are genuine and pure evil, their role -- of the oppressor -- is imposed from the outside as well. They both step into the cultural shoes they were provided; they are both inter-dependent groups in this equation."


What is your excuse if they go out of their roles - if it is the woman beating the man?

Do you have the same "argument" - or does she become evil for not fitting the pattern?

[Goldmund]

91. If you think that...

...what I said consitutes an "excuse" you're totally, completely missing my point.

Your statement reminds me of when the Republicans try to say that attempting to make sense of the underlying social mechanisms that yield terrorism consitutes excusing the terrorists' actions.

[tlcandie]

45. I actually think you are right...

However, I do feel for all of them because they can't see the truth. They are all part of a drama which at any moment in time they can take their power back and change that decision.

No it isn't easy. Just like the black lady who said no to going to the back of the bus, but she did it!

Unless the women want the change it won't happen. In America the women decided when it was time to change...not the men.

Very well stated and w/o emotion. Two sides of the same coin.

"The heroism is refusing to take part in the play, and that is, in the end, what changes the play itself." Bravo!!!

[Garth Newman]

70. Its not called internalized oppression

The clinical term to the condition you are referring is actue trama induced altered-perception syndrome not internalized oppression. IO sounds like a term that would be used in a university Woman's Studies department to make the term "getting ones ass kicked repeadidly," sound scientific. It hardly captures the intricate neuro-disfunctionality and cognitive disintegration of someone who suffers long term tramas.

Incidently there is not a single credible documented incident of a former slaves who preferred to remain in slavery following the EP and the Civil War.

[rkc3]

2. News Flash - Bill O'Reilly is moving to Turkey.

It's not just the falafel anymore.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. Was this poll at gunpoint?

[TahitiNut]

11. Polled in front of their husbands, I'd wager.

:shrug:

[Flagg]

4. Isn't the telegraph some Murdoch-owned right wing rag ?

[emad]

6. No that's the Times. Telegraph was owned by Conrad Black

who got busted recently for milking the other shareholders of £400 million. Now owned by the Barclay Brothers.

[Flagg]

32. My bad.

[frankly_fedup2]

What is the point of your URL FLAGG? Do you have a hidden agenda?

I would like to know where you got the drawing with the soldier on his back. I would like to borrow it for my website. Is it yours or someone elses?

[Flagg]

33. Weird

it got changed.

It used to be something else entirely.

I'll remove it.

The drawing's from here. You can borrow it.
http://cagle.slate.msn.com

[napi21]

5. Every culture is different!

In some cultures, it is mandatory that a father kill his daughter if she has sex before marriage. In some, the woman must always walk behind her husband. We as Americans must learn to accept that other cultures exist, and that just because we think our way is the right way, not everyone agrees!

A much sadder story is one I heard from a caller on talk radio yesterday, who said she really liked Kerry, but she couldn't vote for him because she must vote for the candidate her husband chooses, and he chose shrub. When the host said she could vote for Kerry anyway because he would have no way of knowing who she voted for, this lady said she just couldn't disobey her husband like that.

[Eloriel]

13. Uh, no, we don't have to learn to accept the oppression of

half the world's population. I don't advocate creating wars over it, but there's a lot that can be done otherwise. For one thing, the whole world benefits when women are more equal -- education levels are higher, economic conditions are better, the countries tend to be more stable and the world is safer.

Somehow I doubt you'd be so sanguine about the matter if men were the oppressed half of the population.

It's a human rights issue, and it's disappointing to me to see anyone on DU simply shrug their shoulders about it.

[smirkymonkey]

18. Culture is no excuse for human rights abuse.

Customs are one thing. Murder, rape, torture and abuse is quite another. I think most human beings - regardless of culture - would want to live free of those fears if given a choice. I'm sorry, but violence against women is a human rights issue and it angers me when people just write it off as a "tradition."

South African activist, Bernadette Mosala once said "When men are oppressed, it's a tragedy; when women are oppressed, it's tradition."

[Steelangel]

53. I completely agree with you

*thumbup*

[undergroundpanther]

23. No

I can accept any culture
Abuse is not "culture" ,people..
NO ONE has the right to beat up another person,even if the person has been conditioned by tyrants to accept beatings..and say it is OK.I bet as kids they had to have that ability to say noto abusers beaten out of them so they'd submit to abuse as adults.
Anyone here who thinks on one side of their ass the US military torture was morally wrong at Abu Gharib,
while they hypocritically sit here and say it's OK for Turkish males to beat their confused conditioned wives for burning dinner because of cultural submission is a hypocrite full of shit.Women when they see through that conditioning sometimes get together and form groups to rebel and help other women rebel and they die for thier freedoms from household opressors. It's not much different psychologically from the American revolution where the founders and the minutemen fought against another opressive abuser,a political one,the tyrant King of England.

Torture,beatings, abuse rape of living beings is wrong... absolutely wrong evil,bad intolerable in any relationship or culture.Violence for authoritarian or other power-related purposes against those without power over you is ALWAYS a choice and it is WRONG.Domination with violence and coercion is NEVER good for anyone.Religion is no excuse to be a bully even idf some people rationalize thier own evil inside with religion..The witch burnings long ago in the Western world are as immoral and wrong as Islamic men beating women is today. Crimes against humanity are NOT a valid part of any culture.They are crimes against humanity for a reason,they cut across all cultures because they have NOTHING to do with culture.

I can't stand all these hypocrite moral relativists when it comes to abuse.It's on the Left and on the Right.Rightwingers think it's ok to beat thier kids(spare the rod..) And People ghere think it's ok for husbands to beat wives... Damn people can't you see it's just morally absolutely wrong for people to abuse people?


All cultures are OK to me interesting..

BUT: I draw the line at rape ,spouse abuse, pedophilia and cocerced torture. Any culture that condones these wrong things, be it turkey or the US military or any religion has a serious morality flaw and it isin fact supporting a sociopathic tyranny which is not part of a valid culture.Fascism is not a family value..I reject the rationalesof all tyrants to excuse thier abuses of people be they a male beating a wife in the home or government beating up smaller poorer counties with it's abusive army,or a mullah or Jerry fallwell All bullies are a problem for all people living under them.... NO person or nation has the right to be a tyrant.

I don't give a shit what culture someone is from, this abuse problem is not cultural. Any society that excuses or condones tyrants and bullies abusers are blighted with the same disgusting poison : which is bullies,enablers of bullies,and the hierarchical institutions thatdeliberately systematically and personally hurt people for no reason other than the desire tomake one submit.This moral sickness is in ALL cultures including OURS.
It's time to take out the bullies sitting on top in all cultures in every place they set up a fiefdom,at work at home in the church or school.Take power and the illusion of authority away from all the Bullies misusing it!
You can do this without destroying culture. You teach people how to feel sensitize them,help people become aware of bullies and the problems they cause and teach them to refuse and resist..As you give them emotional support,safe places to be,(asshole free places to klive for instance where no authoritarians,narcissists or abusers are allowed) and offer them tangible resources and protection to free themselves and each other.

[Busywhiskers]

26. I agree. It seems sort of intolerant to impose...

..our notions of right and wrong and what constitutes the abuse of human rights on other cultures. From what I've read, Islamic teaching allows wife beating but puts limits on how badly they can be beaten. Who's to judge if this is OK. What standard of morality, (if I may use that loaded term), are we going to apply? How far do go to impose our views on the Turks? Shall we now invade Turkey?

[Eloriel]

27. Read post 23

An EXCELLENT response to your sexist and appalling nonsense.

And how utterly ridiculous -- we've never invaded ANYone because of how they treat women in their "culture." Nor has anyone suggested that. Yeah, George Bush used women's rights under the Taliban as a supporting reason for the war, but he didn't mean it and he promptly abandoned them. Women in Iraq are far worse off than they were before the war -- sharia is being imposed on them in some areas as we speak, whereas they were free from that repression in the past.

From what I've read, Islamic teaching allows wife beating but puts limits on how badly they can be beaten. Who's to judge if this is OK.

Actually, the term "rule of thumb" comes from the same stupid, misogynist notion in the West. It used to be okay under English Common Law for a man to beat his wife IF the branch he used to do it weren't any larger in circumferance than his thumb.

And I'll bet that if women were the ones administering the beatings to men, you'd have a different view of what is and is not "okay." It's WRONG to beat people. Period. Didn't anyone ever tell you that? What makes it remotely okay or tolerable or acceptable if the people being beaten are women? UNBELIEVABLE. "Oh, no matter, it's only women being beaten."

Do you SEE how utterly sexist your attitude is? You can't possibly think it's in any way acceptable without also believing deep down that women are inferior, somehow "less than," including less worthy of being protected from harm in their own fucking homes. You may not think those thoughts consciously, but the beliefs are clearly there.

[Busywhiskers]

31. Post 23 was not a response to my....

"sexist and appalling nonsense" as you put it. (Now you've hurt my self esteem.) It was actually posted before mine and I did read it and found it judgmental and culturally insensitive.

Secondly, your "rule of thumb" is hoax. See the following:

http://www.debunker.com/texts/ruleofthumb.html

[smirkymonkey]

68. The "Rule of Thumb" isn't the fucking point.

The point is, that it is WRONG to beat and/or kill someone just because she's female. Are you really that thick or are you just a freeper troll trying to stir things up.

[Atlant]

29. Actually, Islam *INSISTS* on murder for certain infractions.

> From what I've read, Islamic teaching allows wife beating but puts
> limits on how badly they can be beaten.

Actually, Islam *INSISTS* on murder for certain infractions (for
example, adultery*). It's the husband's (son's, etc.) duty to kill
an adutlterous woman. Some limit, ehh?

Atlant


*I'm fairly certain it also insists on this for "honor killings" where
the woman in question was *RAPED*.

[Goldmund]

37. We should really quit it with the "Islam" shit

Because Christian theocracies were no better, to the contrary. We're talking about books written 2000 years ago for the purposes of governing a savage civilization.

[barb162]

38. look at facts; you use past tense for Christian theocracies

can you use past tense for the Islamic theocracies? No. Why not?

[Goldmund]

43. Because the part of the world where Islam is predominant...

...has, for complex historical reasons, developed in this way at this particular point in history. If you take the snapshot of 1000 years ago, the Christian societies were those who routinely abused human rights, while the Islamic were progressive in comparison. A thousand years from now, who knows.

The reasons that it ended up being like that are many and they are complex. To associate it with Islam exclusively is analogous to associating it with any other incidental and circumstantial factor -- like, for example, the fact that the Islamic societies are oil-rich in huge disproportion to the rest of the world. Maybe it's all that oil that makes people disrepect human rights? You know, maybe the fumes come up from the ground and hit the brain?

[barb162]

47. yes a 1000 years ago Islam was more progressive. Then history

shows they stayed at that plateau and christians kept moving on, becoming more progressive. Factors that allowed the Renaisssance, Enlightenment, etc in western civilization didn't occur in Islamic societies. ANd IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OIL. I think it has a lot to do with Islam itself.

[Goldmund]

48. You didn't get my oil reference

I am saying that the fact those societies are Islamic is a pure coincidence -- unless you prove otherwise. I listed oil as another circumstantial factor that could just as validly be said to be the reason for this as Islam.

[Atlant]

50. You should spend more time reading the Koran.

> I am saying that the fact those societies are Islamic is a pure coincidence

You should spend more time reading the Koran.

It would explain to you why Islamic societies act the way they do,
because everything barbaric that they do is explicitly called for
in the Koran or the various hadiths that interpret it.

(BTW, the Christian bible is no better, but most modern people
simply ignore huge swaths of it where it calls for killing this
offender or that offender.)

Atlant

[Goldmund]

52. If the Christian bible is no better...

...and if western societies were no better when they gave the Bible the same place that the Islamic societies give Koran, then why should I spend time reading the Koran?

The main difference here is between theocracies and representative republics, not between Islam and Christianity.

In this part of the world, our progress is largely due to the fact that we have been able to banish Christianity from our form of government; to now claim that this implies that Christianity is more tolerant than Islam is absurd.

[barb162]

81. I was in southern Spain a few years ago and visited the Alhambra

in Granada and the Great Mosque in Cordoba. The Europeans were basically far behind the Moors until 1200-1300ish. But the Europeans caught up really fast in the late Middle Ages and kept up that pace. The Arabs basically stagnated for HUNDREDS of years. One of the things the Arabs did when they were at the height of their power was they had a pretty free society and they had Jews and Christians living pretty freely in their societies and everyone seemed to learn from each other (at least in Spain). There were some famous philosopher and scientist Jews who rose to high ranks in Moorish Spain. I think when the Arabs went to a closed society, only Islam is right attitude, Sharia law, etc., they completely stagnated.

When one notices that the Arabs don't allow non-Islamic people in Mecca, my response is can you imagine if Vatican City or Italy didn't allow non-Christians in Rome? There is an enormous amount of intolerance in Islamist societies, just enormous. Will someone explain why I can't visit the Kaaba but a Moslem can walk into the Vatican? Vatican City is a theocracy but will allow anyone from any religion on its grounds. This example demonstrates Christianity is in fact more tolerant than Islam. Somehow Christianity opened up, but Islamic societies closed up and became intolerant in some strange ways over the last several centuries.

[DuctapeFatwa]

58. The Koran explicitly calls for 4 male witnesses to the act of penetration

in order to charge someone with sex outside of marriage, for which the penalty is 100 lashes, for both parties. Lashes are also the penalty for anyone who charges someone with sex outside of marriage but is unable to produce those witnesses. Elsewhere it says no more than 10 lashes ever for anything. Like all sacred texts, it is more useful to read it in its historical context.

The Bible, for instance, is very specific about the procedure for selling one's daughter into slavery, and places no limit either on number of wives, nor sets a minimum age for same.

The Koran says have 4 if you can treat them and care for them all equally. That fine print, again.

Could you repost the hadith, complete with sources, that mandates honor killing?

[barb162]

79. How do you account for the fact that Islamic societies, from

let's say, 1200-2000 AD basically showed no progression. Oil was not in the picture until about the last 50 years. Maybe there is something backward- looking to the glory days in these societies? Or maybe the very closed, strict rule nature of their societies? Sharia law?

[barb162]

83. the one thing that is common to the societies is Islam and its

delightful little offshoots like sharia. Then the closed up, intolerant, stagnant etc., aspects all just work together in lockstep. Turkey was forced out of the stagnation by military. The secular aspect of Turkish government made it more modern than other Islamic societies.

[PassingFair]

69. I think it has everything to do with public education...

and a movement AWAY from superstition.
Away from dogma, christian or otherwise.
Perhaps we really are growing up.
About time...

[Atlant]

49. Operative word: "were"

> We should really quit it with the "Islam" shit" because
> Christian theocracies were no better,...

True, but it's not the 1400s anymore anywhere except in the lands
where Islam rules. Generally speaking, here in the lands outside
of Islam, we no longer burn witches, kill adulterous women, kill
religious backsliders, amputate the hands of petty thieves, or do
any of the things that Torquemada would have been so happy about.
So the operative word in your post was "were".

Atlant

[Goldmund]

51. See post #43

And let me add -- this is the same as saying that since blacks score lower on SAT scores in average, the color of skin must be associated with intelligence.

This kind of flawed thinking is how all racism, chauvinism, etc is justified -- make the circumstantial into the causal.

[DrWeird]

67. Actually, no.

In the modern Bible it still says you're supposed to beat your wife and your slave and murder homosexuals. And it still happens, right here in the good old USA.

[barb162]

82. ah Torquemada, now that guy was a real case

and an example of how when Spain became a closed society (intolerant)to non-Catholics, Moslems, etc., they started stagnating too. But noone noticed as all that gold was rolling in from the Americas.

[DuctapeFatwa]

40. Could you post the Surah for that, please? Or could you be referring

to a pre-Islamic custom or a shaky interpretation of a hadith whose strength is debated by scholars?

On edit: I couldn't find even a shaky hadith, but I did find this article which may be useful to those interested:

Due to recent media attention, the problem of “honor killings” has come under increasing global scrutiny. In various countries throughout the world, particularly in the Middle East and parts of South Asia, women who bring dishonor to their families because of sexual indiscretions are forced to pay a terrible price at the hands of male family members. Attempted murder and other forms of corporal punishment have been reported. The most severe manifestations of punishment affect only a small percentage of women, even though the notion of family honor and shame is extremely important in most communities of the Muslim world. Women from other faith groups may also be subject to similar attitudes from within their own communities in those countries. Clearly, the prevailing view that devalues and belittles women is derived from sociocultural factors that are justified by a distorted and erroneous interpretation of religion, especially of Islam....

Islam is clear on its prohibition of sexual relationships outside of marriage. This prohibition does not distinguish between men and women, even though, in some countries, women are uniformly singled out for punishment of sexual crimes while the men, even rapists, may be treated with impunity. In order for a case to even be brought before a Muslim court, several strict criteria must be met. The most important is that any accusation of illicit sexual behavior must have been seen by four witnesses; and they must have been witness to the act of sexual intercourse itself. Other forms of intimacy do not constitute zina and therefore are not subject to any legal consequences even though they are not appropriate and are considered sinful.


On the other hand, a woman falsely accused of zina has in her support the Qur’an, which spells out harsh consequences for those accusers who are unable to support their allegations with four witnesses. The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was known for his clemency, even if the accusations met the criteria, for he recognized the seriousness of the matter. In addition, there is no evidence whatsoever that he condoned any form of retribution that singled out women and he was swift to ensure that those accused of any crime received due process to guarantee justice.


Unfortunately, the legal safeguards to protect women and men from indiscriminate and unlawful enforcement of presumed Islamic injunctions have been forgotten. Indeed, the legal system and law enforcement agencies including police officers and prison guards, have been implicated in the perpetuation of the problem by their willful lenience towards men who have carried out an assault in the name of “honor” and by their abuse and denigration of women who stand accused.


http://www.mwlusa.org/publications/positionpapers/hk.html

[Atlant]

54. Working on it...

I don't have a citation at hand; I'll research this.

In the meantime, I'll bore folks with some statistics. These
come from the UNICEF web site:

In 1997, some 300 women were estimated to have been killed
in the name of "honour" in one province in Pakistan alone.
According to 1999 estimates, more than two-thirds of all
murders in the Gaza strip and West bank were most likely
"honour" killings. In Jordan, there are an average of 23
such murders per year.

Thirty-six "honour" crimes were reported in Lebanon
between 1996 and 1998, mainly in small cities and villages.
Reports indicate that the offenders are often under 18 and
that in their communities they are often treated as heroes.
In Yemen as many as 400 "honour" killings took place in
1997. In Egypt there were 52 reported "honour" crimes in 1997.

Atlant

[DuctapeFatwa]

60. Happy searching! sacred-texts.com is a good site, plus see post 58

I predict you will find that regardless of where or what faith, when religion and culture collide, culture wins.

Here's a recent article about women in Tibet

[DuctapeFatwa]

61. And the link in post 40 has a very simple and accessible explanation

of why honor killings are Un-Islamic, for those interested.

[barb162]

95. I am glad you posted that and it sure doesn't bore me. I will bet

stuff like this is highly underreported

[Goldmund]

36. How ridiculous

The "cultural sensitivity" you preach is also a standard of morality, and thus you're self-contradictory. You just think that this particular standard sits higher in the hierarchy than human rights do. And if you ask me "what are human rights?" -- well, we can argue about whether or not it's a human right to be able to walk nude in the street (I actually think it is), but I won't argue whehter or not the freedom from violence is a human right.

Also, your very argument is a logical clusterfuck. Because, hey, say I'm judgemental. Who are you to judge if this is OK? How insensitive of you to attack my insensitivity.

[Busywhiskers]

63. I didn't mean to suggest..

...that being culturally insensitive and judgmental is good or bad. Some people seem to enjoy it. I was just making an objective observation and certainly in doing so I was exercising judgment, (shame on me)(Oops...I did it again).

As to whether or not freedom from violence is a human right I would point out that 10,000 years of history seems to argue against it. Freedom from violence would only have meaning if humans have more significance than being the result of time, matter and chance. Absent some moral context, one sack of biochemicals beating another sack of biochemicals really doesn't make much difference, does it, except in terms of individual preference.

[Goldmund]

64. It doesn't make any difference to the universe -- that I agree with

But I neither have the power nor the will to speak for the Universe. I am a sack of biochemicals with a congenital aversion to being beaten up by another sack of biochemicals -- and this I have in common with other sacks of biochemicals. None of these sacks of biochemicals had any say in their coming to existence, nor in their ingrained tendencies, such as the instinct and the will to survive; if that existence is a right, than so is the freedom from violence.

[Busywhiskers]

65. The death rate is still.......

....100% (assuming that past results are indicative of future performance). So much for any "right to existence".

[Goldmund]

66. You're getting semantic on my ass

[napi21]

46. Thanks. That's my point! Why are OUR standards better than

everyone elses? There are many cultures who believe the US is very wrong for embracing the death penalty, but we don't give up on it, do we?

[Goldmund]

59. Good example

Let me join those cultures who believe the US is very wrong for embracing the death penalty.

Hm... waittaminute... I'm from the US... Something doesn't fit here, does it?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

62. And now, a picture of a Formula One car:

[bloom]

86. I think it is time we join the civilized world.

RE: "There are many cultures who believe the US is very wrong for embracing the death penalty, but we don't give up on it, do we?"

[icymist]

30. But this is a culture that wants to join Europe as part of the West.

Turkey can't have it both ways...the benefit of the EU and keeping it's oppression of women.

[emad]

94. Religion is not the same as culture. Islam means submission.

Koran specifically allows men to beat their wives with "up to 100 blows". Seem to remember this was last discussed on DU in the context of an Iranian woman reported to have asked a family court judge to permit her husband to whack her only once a week as opposed to 24/7.

Despite the cultural differences between religions, the femminist movement has made it abundantly apparent that pe
ople confuse GOD with RELIGION.

Religion is a man made artifice centred on a male God. Its whole raison d'etre is the subjugation of the masses through brainwashing and fear-driven threats of eternal damnation for non compliance during earth life.

Islam, like Mormonism, demeans women by claiming they are obliged to share their husbands with up to at least three other wives and justifies domestic abuse by saying it is God-ordained through historical "holy" books.
That really sucks.

[DuctapeFatwa]

96. self-deleted

why bother.

[frankly_fedup2]

7. Well, there are policemen in Ohio who love to brag about how it

is LEGAL to hit a woman open handed . . . like a slap. However, if you hit a woman with a fist, then it is considered abuse.

I've always meant to look that up to see if there is such a law.

Regarding your post; however, is confusing. I remember after 9/11 and learning of the Taliban, some American Muslim Women say that they wear a burka because all women are considered to be so beautiful that, according to the Koran, women are Allah's gift to the man she marries. That is why only he should see all of her beauty. She is to be cherished like a perfect rose. (This is not verbatim and do not quote me, I just remember something like this said because they could not understand why the Taliban were so restrictive of the women).

Come to find out that the Saudis are much worse then even the Taliban. The Saudis must love their women much, much more (yeah, whatever). The Saudis are our great allies too. (yeesh)

I felt it was a bunch of huey the first time I heard it too. Sorry, no URL but I'll look. I just remember something like this being said after 9/11.

[Eloriel]

15. This is one example of HOW men have snookered women

to accept their own oppression willingly -- get them to think it's a benefit, or compliment, etc.

When men were trying to deny women the vote in America, the argumentation went along the lines of how fragile and delicate we were, and that the "coarseness" of politics would ruin and destroy us, etc. And of course there were all the other velvet-chain arguments we continued to hear during 2nd Wave Feminism, such as how essential our jobs as the "heart of the family" are and that that elevated and vaunted position would be at risk if we were allowed to vote or have a wider role in society.

This is the same shit: dress up the chains in velvet; flatter us while enslaving us.

[NashVegas]

20. "only he should see all of her beauty"

Never read the Koran, so I'm curious. Did that prophet just say "should," or did he say, "there ought to be a law?"

[Atlant]

8. Every progressive should read "The End of Faith"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393035158/qid=1098459102/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-6429596-5997718?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Atlant

[Kolesar]

17. I'm loving this Harris interview

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/feature/-/542154/102-6345411-2599330
This is new territory for me.

[On the Road]

9. Maybe Some of Them are Like Martha Mitchell

wife of attorney John Mitchell under Nixon. When her husband smacked her once, she said: "It's the first time I've gotten a response out of him in years."

[Eloriel]

28. I can't imagine why you posted that

It's not funny, and it serves to actually promote domestic violence and other violence against women by trivializing and normalizing it. Domestic violence is NOT just another form of "communication."

Martha Mitchell was a sad, tragic figure in our political history -- but if SHE wanted to joke about or make light of such a thing, that was her right. Your repitition of her comment here, without any qualifying language about how tragic and misguided it was and how wrong it was of John Mitchell to have done it, is appalling.

It's not funny, it's not a joke, those of us who have worked on the issue of domestic violence and all violence against women are not amused.

[On the Road]

39. I Apoligze

[JohnOneillsMemory]

56. I think that was a very cogent posting, not glib at all. (even if intended

to be such.)

That is the heart of the matter, as you know, Eloriel. Too many women DO accept abuse as a normal form of communication. You know how hard it is to convince many abused women not to accept it. So many women desperately accept cruelty as attention, just like children!

Our species is abused and terrorized as children and that's why abuse is accepted as normal from lovers or our government.

Hitler knew this and wrote about it in Mein Kampf:
""The masses of the people prefer the ruler to the suppliant and are filled with a stronger sense of mental security by a teaching that brooks no rival than by a teaching which offers them a liberal choice. They have very little idea of how to make such a choice and thus are prone to feel abandoned. Whereas they feel very little shame at being terrorized intellectually and are scarcely conscious of the fact that their freedom as human beings is impudently abused

...physical intimidation has its significance for the mass as well as the individual...For the successes which are thus obtained are taken by the adherents as a triumphant symbol of the righteousness of their own cause; while the beaten opponent very often loses faith in the effectiveness of any further resistance."-

[livinbella]

10. I find this poll very hard to believe

I did lots of business with Turks and their families
and I have never once seen or heard mention of this behavior
as a norem I don't believe this poll.

[Eloriel]

19. Just how many American families are you aware of that

have domestic violence going on? It's kept secret -- the women are ashamed and humiliated and the men (these days at least) know in their heart of hearts it's wrong (and illegal) and as a rule don't go around bragging about it either.

When 2nd Wave Feminism got rolling, women spent a lot of time talking among themselves in "consciousness raising" groups. As a result they figured out that domestic violence and many other problems they thought unique to themselves as individuals were instead widespread, systemic, and that the systemic oppression they suffered is a political reality. This is where the term "the personal is the political" came from -- they came to see that their personal, private woes were really part of a larger pattern of societal oppression.

[Tropez]

14. I have a girlfrield who like to be bound and beat. Is that okay?

[Forkboy]

25. I worry about people like that

And I worry that you have to ask if it's ok.

[Tropez]

77. It was a joke. We are set and have a great time. :)

[Busywhiskers]

73. Its Ok....

...as long as you only use your open hand or a stick no thicker than your thumb. Have fun. :nuke:

[Fleshdancer]

21. What a horribly written article!

Why not stress the MAJORITY of women who DON'T think it's right to be treated like punching bags?

Domestic violence is a human rights issue. The notion that such violence is ok because the victim was raised to believe it doesn't make it acceptable. And again, the majority of the women said differently so what purpose does this article serve but to further deepen the religious wedge? I ask as a woman living in a Christian majority nation where domestic violence also occurs.

[NashVegas]

22. An Example of Why a One-World Government Can Never Work w/out Genocide

and / or repression. We are simply too different in our cultures and our prism of reality. Everyone in DU, the Americas and Europe may see this poll for the shit it is, but do we really have the right to control a populace? Can we possibly do so without creating even more strife? If Turkey wants to join our little group that badly, then I guess so. But what about those who don't? And even that still looks a little too much like Master & Servant, IMO.

[geek tragedy]

24. This has nothing to do with Islam.

There are Christian countries/societies with equally abysmal records.

[Busywhiskers]

75. For example?

I can't think of any. Can you?:shrug:

[geek tragedy]

84. My fiancee works in domestic violence in NYC.

I could name quite a few.

[Busywhiskers]

97. Well then.. maybe you could check with your fiancee....

...and you could both come up with an example or two of Christian nations or cultures that officially condone wife beating. I cannot think of any. You say you can name quite a few. Help me out here will you.:dunce:

[geek tragedy]

98. Coptic Christians from the Mideast.

I could go on--there are others from the western hemisphere where domestic violence is horribly common.

[Busywhiskers]

99. So I am wondering...

...are the Coptic Christians known for wife beating or are you just picking them because they are middle eastern and you are assuming that they are wife beaters? I can find documentation to support religious leaders in Islam condoning wife beating. Is there any similar support in the Coptic community.

There is plenty of domestic violence in the west, but I cannot think of any western nation where it is condoned by government or religious leaders.

[Porcupine]

85. I would guess Greece or Ukraine....

would have similiar responses to such a poll. It has nothing to do with religion.

[Sparkle]

41. Too many beatings have turned them into looney bitches.

How asinine!

[Goldmund]

44. You're lucky you're female

The sensitivity police would make mince-meat out of you otherwise.

[really annoyed]

72. Yeah, Because Jokes About Abuse

Are always a LAUGH RIOT! :eyes:

[bloom]

87. Welcome to DU!!

and I don't blame you for being "really annoyed" ..... esp. if you chose your name in terms of this discussion.

[camero]

55. So why aren't we invading Turkey?

Since we invaded Afghanistan to free women.

[Steelangel]

71. Everyone, read #18's post in this topic

or click: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x924256#924342

Enuff said.

[MADem]

74. Skip the RELIGION, CUT TO THE POLITICS!!!!

Turkey, the shining example of DEMOCRACY (well, not quite) in the MIDDLE EAST (well, not quite, but close enough). That is the way weewee plays it, anyway.

Worst. pResident. Ever.

[Psephos]

92. Religion...politics...what's the difference?

They're both about applying a set of fervently-held beliefs to actions and practices.

Look, as the cover story in Time Magazine puts it, we seem to have a "God" gene that makes us need to worship higher powers, and build religions to give us a structure in which to do so. From what I can see, politics have become the religion of the postmodern age.

Before you hit the flamethrower button, think about it. Many posters here are stridently anti-Christian, which is a suspiciously religious behavior. (I haven't seen the inside of a church myself in many years, although I really don't mind if someone else wants to.) You can pick any thread at random here, and see exactly the same kind of true-believer responses and thought patterns that are evident in, for example, fundamentalist Christians or strict Islamics. Every event is filtered through the context of the inviolable core beliefs and texts. People who are diehard politicos regularly use the language of dehumanization and hatred when referring to their opponenents, just as (fill in your favorite religion here) did to the (fill in the opposing religion here) back in the day. It's scary.

As I see it, in political religion as well as in traditional religion, there is a set of "truths" that shape the world view, propel the believers to harsh moralizing about those outside the "religion," and create an agenda for righteous actions to punish the heathens.

I couldn't really care less about the dictionary definition of religion. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, to me, it's a duck.

Someone said that hatred is the anger of the weak. I would amend that to say that hatred is the anger of the religious. We can do better.

Flame me if you must. I don't mind.

[kodi]

76. so, the most advanced islamic majority nation beats their women

until the muslim world accepts that their women have the same human and economic rights as those their men demand, they will remain behind the industrialized world.

[MADem]

78. Kinda tells us what is in store

...if the fundies get ahold of our gubmint, dunnit?

[DeadManInc]

80. It's OK for men to hit us, says wives'

I find it hard to believe that they filled out the poll without spousal supervision.

[bloom]

89. "Rape a 'way of life' on Pitcairn"

Rape and child abuse were a way of life in this place because some men decided THAT was the culture THEY wanted and THEY were the ones in charge. It became their "culture" - for over 20 years until the British authorities put the perpetrators on trial - as it is one of their "territories". So what if it wasn't?

With the arguments we've seen here - it sounds like some here would accept it:

One - on the basis of "culture" & Two - because they were just playing their "roles" (and yes - some girls growing up with this "accepted" their lot in life).

:argh:



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3705988.stm


Young girls on the tiny UK colony of Pitcairn were treated as sexual playthings and rape was a way of life on the island, a court has been told.

Seven male islanders, including mayor Steve Christian, are facing 55 charges of rape or indecent assault.

Dave Brown, the second to stand trial on the island, is accused of assaulting a series of girls as young as five.

Prosecutors told the court that he felt able to abuse his victims whenever he wanted.

Mr Brown, 49, is accused of assaulting girls over a period of 21 years from 1970.

In total, he faces 15 charges - two of gross indecency and 13 of indecent assault.<\i>

[despairing optimist]

90. October surprise: Turkey shuns EU, becomes 51st state before Nov. 2

A Rove wet dream, I know. All those battered, submissive wives would have scored in the red column. Now all that may happen is the whole West Wing ends up in a Turkish prison instead.

Ah, would that it were so.

[Divine Discontent]

93. my head hurts

reading all the discussion! perhaps it's just the sugar rush from the giant chocolate bar I just devoured... anyhow, beating someone is wrong, they've been told it's alright as they grew up, they just need educated they are important, just like minorities who are treated bad, gays, crippled, eldery.


click 'image' for a good laugh!