Mark Greene notes the horrific story of the Afghan child bride who has become the face of women’s rights in Afghanistan, and wonders how much progress we’ve really made in women’s rights.
For those who say that women now have social and political equality, I would like to offer the following story from the Associated Press. It begs the question. Which women are we talking about?
The AP reported, “KABUL, Afghanistan — The in-laws of a child bride who became the bruised and bloodied face of women’s rights in Afghanistan have been sentenced to 10 years in prison for torture, abuse and human rights violations, a judge said Saturday.
The plight of 15-year-old Sahar Gul captivated the nation and set off a storm of international condemnation when it came to light in late December. Officials said her husband’s family kept her in a basement for six months after her arranged marriage, ripping out her fingernails, breaking her fingers and torturing her with hot irons in an attempt to force her into prostitution.”
To see the story on the Huffington Post go here. WARNING: GRAPHIC PHOTOS.
Some questions:
1) How does the treatment of women worldwide inform our American conversation about women’s rights?
2) How does the multi-billion dollar prostitution black market affect women both here and abroad?
3) Is the battle for women’s rights successfully completed or only just beginning?
4) Does the discussion of women’s rights in some way detract from the battle for men’s rights?
About Mark Greene
Sad situation, but I thought it would be honor killing, or an attack that was condoned. However, she as badly and wrongly this violent abuse was, it doesn’t seem to have been condoned. The perpetrators were rightly were charged, arrested, tried, sentenced, and sent to prison.
Sorry, trying to watch the Knicks. . .
Meant to say: “as bad and wrong as this abuse was, it didn’t seem to have been condoned. . .”
Does the discussion of women’s rights in some way detract from the battle for men’s rights?
Ideally it should not but unfortunately it does. However the only reason it does is not because the issues themselves cause the detraction but rather the result of people who use the issues for the purpose of detraction.
But at Eric is saying the violence against this girl does not seem to have been condoned. I wish had the link but I saw a story a short while back about a woman in India that was gang raped and as a result her own fellow villagers confiscated her property, charged a fine that basically broke her, and were trying to force her to leave the village. All done to the back drop of teasing, harassment, and bullying which including telling her to kill herself.
You, feminists, and the international media present stories like this from a deceptive angle. This horrendous incident of a female teenager being victimized is taken as proof of “brutality against women”. Meanwhile, the much more common instance of male individuals being violently victimized worldwide is never categorized as “brutality against men”. It is either outright ignored, justified, or taken as “human” tragedy.
So this is a horrid and sad story. But it is not indicative of Afghan society, Muslim society, or the position of women anywhere in the world. It is tragic that feminists and the western media choose to utilize personal tragedies like this in such a coldly propagandistic manner.
A) See question #4: Does the discussion of women’s rights in some way detract from the battle for men’s rights?
B) To prove that one gender or another is more brutalized GLOBALLY is not statistically possible. Why do you need to say that its men? Once you approach TENS OF MILLIONS OF HUMAN BEINGS being brutalized what difference does it make? Seriously.
C) And finally, what exactly is the “deceptive angle” here? What is the cold propaganda? Nothing in my comments or article diminishes the tragedy of brutality toward men.
“To prove that one gender or another is more brutalized GLOBALLY is not statistically possible.”
Statistics aren’t needed. It’s common sense. It’s how every society in the world has functioned and continues to function. Men are used as disposable utilities, women are protected as valuable commodities. That is human nature, unfortunately.
“Once you approach TENS OF MILLIONS OF HUMAN BEINGS being brutalized what difference does it make? Seriously.”
I agree with this sentiment completely. It shouldn’t matter at all. But you just wrote an article implying that more needs to be done on behalf of “women’s rights”. Why do you choose to specifically focus on women? Why are the concepts of “women’s rights” and “men’s rights” necessary at all?
“And finally, what exactly is the “deceptive angle” here? What is the cold propaganda?”
The deceptive angle is that women are specifically targeted for horrific abuse in Afghanistan and other Middle Eastern countries. Did you explicitly say this? No. But the continuous barrage of stories like this coming from western media outlets can only have the effect of outrage and anger directed towards the cultures and countries partaking in this supposed brutal oppression of women.
Joe Schmo, upon reading articles like this day after day, might get the impression that all Middle Eastern men are cruel, inhuman monsters and must be stopped from oppressing women (and children!) at any cost. This is how militarism, tribalism and feminism work hand in hand.
To answer your question:
“Does the discussion of women’s rights in some way detract from the battle for men’s rights?”
These are vague terms. If you mean “women’s rights” in the sense feminists use that term, then inevitably yes. By that definition, furtherance of “women’s rights” will lead to men being further killed, raped, beaten, imprisoned, and impoverished globally.
Mark you said
“B) To prove that one gender or another is more brutalized GLOBALLY is not statistically possible. Why do you need to say that its men? Once you approach TENS OF MILLIONS OF HUMAN BEINGS being brutalized what difference does it make? Seriously.”
Didn’t you just create a very good argument against your own article. If we can’t prove statistically that one gender or another is more brutalized GLOBALLY, then it stands to reason we can’t tell if something is getting worse OR better.
“Is Brutality Against Women Getting Worse?”
My article is essentially a series of questions. What it is designed to do is to explore people’s agendas and then create a conversation about the bias we all bring.
“Didn’t you just create a very good argument against your own article.”
Yes.
Mark,
What’s happening in Afghanistan is absolutely abhorrent -and a violation of basic human rights. But parsing the total lack of humanity in the developing world along gender lines and then using that division to extrapolate onto the status of women in the west is slight of hand.
When it comes to basic human rights in places where none exist, we do those people a disservice by elevating the suffering of one group over another.
“Does the discussion of women’s rights in some way detract from the battle for men’s rights?”
I fail to see how discussing the situation of women elevates them over any other group. Is it your suggestion that we can never discuss any identifiable group because it inherently elevates that group above others? If so, how can we discuss brutality toward men without elevating men unfairly?
You are not asking if women have basic human rights in Afghanistan, you have brought into question whether they have EQUAL rights: “For those who say that women now have social and political equality”
An uninformed reader could only suppose that you mean to infer that men and boys are doing well in Afghanistan and the central issue is a matter of female enfranchisement. So if the world community has limited political and financial resources to dedicate to the people of Afghanistan, then your framework would cause those resources to miss the problem and ultimately hurt the Afghan people.
Secondly, you ask “How does the treatment of women worldwide inform our American conversation about women’s rights?” Its fairly transparent that your intention is to associate the experience of women in Afghanistan with the experience of women in the west while obfuscating responsibility for the statement by shrouding it in a question. Doing so, both diminishes the experience of Afghans while unjustly inflating the problems experienced by women in the west. Its not unlike Fox news asking “Why are Democrats waging war on Christmas”
Random,
You are trying to hang some agenda on me that I am flat out telling you I don’t have. Furthermore, what you suppose to be the assumptions of “uninformed readers” will not be what frames this discussion.
When I say equal rights, I immediately assume our discussion to be global, with the benchmark being the best of the best.
I will tell you what my agenda is though. The one I actually have is as follows. I want to end this idea that EVERYONE who mentions women’s rights is a feminist and is in opposition to men’s rights.
“I fail to see how discussing the situation of women elevates them over any other group?”
Let me help you “see”, Mark. If men are disproportionately the ones killed and brutalized in Afghanistan and similar places (which are the facts, according to reports we get here in the west), then focusing on the group that is least brutalized obviously does elevate them above the group which is suffering the most.
It’s like a story on a upper middle class white girl who didn’t go to college because her parents got divorced, and asking if this situation is getting worse – suggesting that we focus on that demographic (rather than minority males who are far, far behind white females.)
Now, perhaps I’m not informed and women are murdered and brutalized far more frequently than men in Afghanistan and similar places. If that is the case, then this is where the focus should be placed.
The problem is women ARE brutalized in these places. They are the disposable ones. Women in Saudi Arabia aren’t even allowed to drive cares. Abortions in India of female fetuses are increasing, because males are more valuable. The males, when of marriageable age, will receive a dowry from the bride’s family, even though that practice has been outlawed. Girls in some parts Africa receive far less education than the boys. They need to stay home to learn how to take care of the house and be a good housewife, but the boys may enjoy learning and more mobility because of their studies. Human trafficking is still a huge problem. When I was 6 I went to Washington D.C. with my family to see the monuments and learn about government. While we were there, we were walking through the Mall, and a man who ran a food cart asked my parents if I was their daughter and if they wanted to sell me. When my parents adamantly said no and looked absolutely horrified, the man changed his tone. “Only joking! haha!”
Saudi Arabia: True, women aren’t allowed to drive cars, men are forced to serve in the armed forces, noone is allowed opt out of their gender role. Not being allowed to drive a car isn’t exactly brutalisation, forced military service on the other hand…
India: Yep, women are aborting female fetuses who are less likely to be able to care for them in their own age, over here the preference is for male fetuses. Just to be clear though, do you consider abortion murder? If you’re pro-life, fair enough, if you’re not then it shouldn’t really matter to you. At least no more than western women favouring female pregnancies.
I think you’ll find that any war in africa has killed far far more men and boys than women and girls. Still think women are the disposible ones?
Your anecdote relating to human trafficking sounds alot more like a bad joke than a serious attempt to buy you. Actual reports of human trafficking are extremely rare, and proven cases are even rarer.
*over here the preference is against male fetuses.
I guess my point in all this is we can’t apply western social frameworks to places that lack all rule of law to begin with. Its akin to examining the holocaust and concluding “ahah, that gender went to the gas chamber later so they were clearly privileged in the concentration camps”
The fact that we’re trying to apply a feminist framework to the problems facing Afghanistan or Africa says more about our western decadence and obsession with frivolity then those developing cultures.
Some girls are “sold” to pay off debts, but I’m not sure if this is a women’s rights issue or a children’s rights issue. I remember one children’s activist lament the leniency shown to parents who abuse or kill their children. She noted that had that been done by a stranger, the outrage would be intense. I think that there is still some feeling that children belong to parents and are their property.
I’ll bring back my example of MGC. I hear that it can’t be banned because it would infringe on people’s religious freedom. Who’s religious freedom, the eight day old child, who might not choose the religion of his parents? I’m pretty sure that everyone broke one of the ten commandments at one time or another. That never kicked anyone out of Judaism that I’m aware of, but if you have intact genitals even though as an eight day old child there was nothing you could do about it, that sin is unforgivable.
“For those who say that women now have social and political equality” <– I'm a dude and I have to say that just watching my wife and girls here in AMerica, I know that there still isn't social and political equality. And of course it sounds like a far worse sitaution in some other countries (like the Afghan story above). I think things have improved here in the US since "Madmen" days, but there's still always work to be done!
You are not just a dude. You are a stand-up guy.
Congrats TB, you made a woman clap, Seriously.
Name me ONE THING in North America that I can do (As a man) that a woman can’t do that is illegal for her, iow, something that isn’t her choice.
Remember social equality has to come with social responsibility, if there is a ‘pressure’ by society to be a certain way, that doesn’t change the fact that it is still that person choice. As an example, “Women do most of the housework”, that is BY CHOICE (for the vast majority of people), it might be a social pressure BUT it is still a choice.
John, it doesn’t have to be illegal for it to be a systematic oppression.
When the vast majority of people in power are men, then women lack equal power. It’s simple common sense.
I know you’re going to fight me, and frankly I don’t care. The vast majority of America agrees with me and you know that, which is one reason you’re so angry. And there are many issues the MRAs carry that I agree with, but to say that women have equal power simply because they aren’t *barred* from anything legally is incredibly naive.
Do young black men have equal rights and opportunities as white men (or women)? Because most MRAs I know point out that the most underserved, oppressed and least–privileged group of people in America are young black men. And if you believe that, then one could argue that they’re not actually oppressed, and actually do have equal rights and opportunities, and political equality, simply because it isn’t illegal for them to hold the same power as a white guy.
Joanna: The problem with your statement is this
“When the vast majority of people in power are men, then women lack equal power. It’s simple common sense”
This assumes that the men in power are creating the power for those men NOT IN POWER and aren’t creating the power for women not in power.
Remember you are taking the less than 1% of men in power and passing that power onto all men and that simply isn’t the case, in fact, a case could be made they are passing that power onto women, via things like health care spending, VAWA, affirmative action etc.
I will give you credit though, my question was very bad, especially since I used legally. So, then, How about this.
Name me one thing that I as a man can do that you as a woman can’t do because I am given power by the MEN IN POWER. I await your answer
Legally, perhaps not.
But practically, yes. In real-life? Yes. It may be illegal to discriminate against women, but it happens all the time, and because the justice system is mostly male, our voices are less likely to be heard.
And now I’m out of this discussion. I’ve been in these conversations long enough to know that you all will never be convinced. I’ve stopped trying. What is obvious to the rest of the world is somehow not obvious to some of you. Many of you seem blinded by your fear, and incapable of understanding what women go through. And sure, many women can’t see what men go through, but I do. I hear you guys.
This makes me sad for you guys, mostly. I cannot imagine living with such fear.
Have a good day.
““When the vast majority of people in power are men, then women lack equal power. It’s simple common sense”
This only makes sense if the men in power discriminate in favour of men or if men were the majority vote.
There is actually a study somewhere showing that men are more likely to have a bias towards women than other men, while women they have an in group bias and women are the majority vote .
I don’t doubt discrimination happens against women, and men too. Hypothetical question, if the justice system is mostly male but those males see men as more violent, and worse as a parent vs females does that still mean female voices are heard less? No idea on the exact breakdown of what judges think but I wouldn’t be surprised if there are times where male voices are heard more and other times they’re heard less. Maybe areas of employment might discriminate more against women, and the stuff handling violent crime or child custody disputes could discriminate more against men?
I don’t see this world as 1 column of men win, women lose or vice versa, I see it as a thousand, hell maybe a million separate issues where power can be equal or in favour of one gender, one group, one people, etc. So like above men may win in the employment sector but lose in the criminality sector?
John Schtoll writes:
Joanna: The problem with your statement is this
“When the vast majority of people in power are men, then women lack equal power. It’s simple common sense”
*This assumes that the men in power are creating the power for those men NOT IN POWER and aren’t creating the power for women not in power.*
Exactly! When have you ever heard a politician (male or female) say: “I’m going to make things better FOR MEN”
Answer: Never. I’ve never even heard a sly code-word to this affect.
To say that the vast majority of CEO’s, judges and politicians are men and that ipso-facto they will make things better for men out-of-power is a fallacy.
If anything these movers and shakers are incredibly intolerant and impatient of lesser men and see homeless, ptsd afflicted, depressed, disenfranchised men as losers as since they climbed the ladder from nothing, they see any man who can’t as just running excuses.
However, when these same men in power look at women they see any greivance mentioned by the women of why they can’t ladder climb as legitimate and usher in multi-million & billion dollar programs for women only.
VAWA was passed in 1994. Men are 4 out of 5 victims of violence.
Clearly having men in power does not help men at all. By that reasoning all black men should be doing fine with the appointment of Obama.
John Schtoll
I posted a comment several paragraphs long about your men in power comment, but unfortunately it’s been deleted.
Why I have no idea.
BTW, Black men do have equal rights BUT not equal oppurtunities, don’t put them in the same sentence , they are NOT the same thing.
BTW, I am not an MRA, so please don’t try and lump me into a group I don’t belong to.
So, I will ask another question
What power do I have as a man, that you don’t have as a woman.
In case you ask, for a reverse, I will give you one.
“the power to control my reproductive destiny” is a power I do not have , that you have.
“When the vast majority of people in power are men, then women lack equal power. It’s simple common sense. ”
) but there is still A LOT of power in the hands of women. In fact recent stats I saw had 8million more female voters than male. There are articles on here recently with comments showing that women get far more benefits from the health-care stuff (not sure if true or not, I’m sure someone else can post the proof but I live in Aus which as far as I know doesn’t have these gendered differences in healthcare). Vawa is also commonly said to harm men and disproportionally help female victims of violence.
Well I’m sure someone may say this but wouldn’t making laws benefitting women and giving them privileges men are not afforded also tip the balance of equality more in women’s favour? Men are the majority in power (it’s still a small % of men though
So we can have a majority of men in power but they don’t actually have to be giving benefits to men, so simply stating most of the power is with men isn’t really how you think it is. Women have more voting power, women have more representation on equal rights vs men, I really would not be surprised if women had more rights in U.S.A based on what I hear about the country and it’s gendered laws, etc. The fact that more men are in power doesn’t really mean much to the majority of men who ARE NOT in power, who seemingly are not afforded the same benefits as the women so what power do they have? The power to vote someone in is huge and there are more females, on the average wouldn’t there be more power with females simply because they have 8 million more voters? That’s half my country, no small number, so I’m not sure if people who say “the vast majority of people in power are men” actually think about what power is especially for the average person who is not in politics. In politics alone, counting just the people who are politicians yes men have more power but what about the other men and women who aren’t in those jobs, who’s collective power is the ability to vote. If every woman at the next election voted for someone other than Obama, Obama would NOT be the next president.
I have a wife and two daughters as well. It’s great.
What do you mean by “political equality?” Legal or something else? In what way do your wife and daughters not have “political equality?”
What do you mean by “social equality?” In what way are they not “socially” equal?
I think that he is referring to the old boy’s network. I think it’s supposed to work like this. Men make up most CEOs and corporate officers. Part of the compensation package usually involves stock. Stock allows them to vote on who the board of directors are and the board of directors picks the corporate officers. The board of directors is often comprised by corporate officers of other companies and these corporate officers may serve on several boards. That sets up a quid pro quo. These corporate officers will direct the political activities of the corporation and of course result in assisting someone from the network. At least I think that’s how it’s supposed to work.
That would be ridiculous as it excludes 99%+ of the population, and doesn’t account for many other critical factors.
Well, I can’t argue with you there. LOL Excluding 99% of the population from the decision making that effects us all is ridiculous. Shades of Occupy Wall Street!
You don’t undrstand how this works nor the many factors involved. Who the CEO is or isn’t doesn’t matter.
What’s more relevant are factors such as education. Who are and aren’t going to college? Who is most likely to graduate and least likely to graduate?
Who are most and least safe? Who are most and least likely to be unemployed? Who are most and least likely to be assaulted and murdered?
Also, CEO’s of publicly traded companies, unless they happen to also be majority owners are just overpaid employees who do what the board tells him/her to do. The board works for the shareholders. The shareholders can fire any or all of them. They typically don’t care about gender. They care about stock price. Period.
“Who are most and least safe? Who are most and least likely to be unemployed? Who are most and least likely to be assaulted and murdered?”
Who indeed. And who makes the most hiring decisions? And who runs the companies that crash our economy and cause widespread unemployment?
And who is most likely to throw and punch or shoot a gun at someone?
Who, indeed.
Those who care about those most likely to be such victims don’t callously and dismissively say quips such as “who indeed” and then proceed to ignore them as if they have no human worth.
Interesting questions in this one.
MEN make the most hiring decisions , they run the companies that provide over 88% employment, you use the term widespread unemployment but you fail to acknowledge that before this crisis, there wasn’t widespread unemployment, things were good and though I could be wrong, pretty sure those same men were making the decision then too, but of course they get no credit for that.
I will agree men are more likely to throw a punch or shoot a gun at someone but what MANY (not necessarily you) people fail to acknowledge that this hypothetical someone who is getting shot at or punched is more likely to be a man.
That should read 91.2% employment from April 2012 figures where unemployment is 8.2%
No agenda there.
1, Can’t answer this properly, I live in Australia. I do see cases where SOME western women use certain areas as proof women have less rights (even western women) whilst the reality is all rights issues are on a per country basis since they all have their own law. There can be similarities but for example selective service doesn’t exist in Australia but it does in U.S.A so on that particular topic men in Australia have more freedom and equality with women however American men have less equality than American women.
2, Again I am in Australia but I do believe we have less black market prostitution partly due to having legalized or decriminalized sex work. I can goto the brothel nearby where safe sex is mandatory, the workers are regularly checked for their health and should statistically be “cleaner” than the average woman here (since I don’t think those with STD’s can work there). I also believe they have the appropriate guards and safety is far higher.
3, The battle for men’s and women’s rights isn’t completed and I don’t think it ever will be as new things popup.
4, When governments support the fight for women’s rights but not men’s rights yes it does. When society itself focuses heavily on women’s rights whilst ignoring or thinking along the lines of “men have more power thus women should be focused on” or “men make the laws”, etc then yes there is a problem. Discussing it though isn’t a problem as long as we also discuss men’s rights, and all the other stuff in the world to fix so nothing is left ignored. When the lack of women’s rights in an arab country for example is used to do the whole “womengetitworse” stuff then there is a problem.
(Expanding more on 4)
From what I have heard of Afghanistan men grow beards, hide phones and restrict their behaviour quite a lot so the taliban doesn’t beat the hell out of them. I’m not sure if women get it worse there quite frankly, I can’t make an educated guess since I’ve heard of terrible stuff to both men and women. I will say though there are issues regarding both women’s and men’s rights there that need to be addressed and neither should really take precedence, both should recieve adequate attention but I mostly hear about the harm done to women.
I do think our society is ignoring a lot of stuff affecting men, there seems to be a great amount of focus on the harm to women, “the war on women” but quite a lot of ignorance to the harm men get. This could easily give the perception that women get it worse.
I have some questions
Are the men there more free than the women? Do they have a LOT of freedom or is it mostly a few in power than have the freedom?
Are the men also being brutalized in various ways?
I am basically wondering is it women in particular copping the extreme end of the stick or are women recieving one version of hell, and men another version?
We need to realize that countries, cultures, communities differ and it can range from women being oppressed, men being oppressed, to great levels of equality. If you want to talk about violence against women then do you also realize men still suffer the majority of violence? 4-6x more men die from violence than women but I think both are worthy of discussion yet what I see is focus on female victimization more so than the men. If we are working on a scale of worse = more focus than obviously males would be focused upon more yet we focus on women more, why is that?
(www.who.int/entity/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/DALY6 2004.xls – for the 4-6x more deaths stat)
Regardless of which suffers more, BOTH deserve full support, focus, attention. I find all of these issues are complex and impossible to say who suffers more because men in certain regions may suffer in X form, women may suffer in y form, both could be suffering equally just in seperate areas. Women or men may have heaps of equality in one land and in another be oppressed like crazy.
“If so, how can we discuss brutality toward men without elevating men unfairly?”
Define unfairly?
Now we all can post stats all day showing one side getting it worse but what is the common factor? Both genders suffer and discussing how they suffer shouldn’t mean one or the other is worse off whilst the other is to be ignored, we should be able to talk about each gender’s issues without detracting from the other gender. Me saying men die more from violence doesn’t mean the women in these situations aren’t also worthy of attention. You can have one country where women perpetrate more domestic violence against men and another where they are victimized more by men. Neither group is above the other, men get brutalized, women get brutalized. If there is a war on women then using the same logic there’s also a war on men.
It’s making me wonder if it’s really men’s or women’s rights and more human rights? Is this particular case about child brides or slavery and prostitution? Is it an issue that only affects women?
We have a lot of common ground here. Thanks for commenting.
No probs, these debates always tickle my curiosity. I wish I had access to a super database of deaths n crimes where I could search who is affected by what crime, what age group, race, hell even characteristics of their personality is more or less at risk. Humans are such a hugely complex system in this world but I find people want a simple “women/men suffer more” response when it’s more accurate to say “women of this age in this area suffer more, men of this age in this area etc suffer more”.
Wow…those are great questions that you ask, Mark…some of which have been subjects for some very interesting books:
(1) Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn discuss and answer some of Q#1 in “Half the Sky”…
(2) Rache Lloyd tackles Q#2 in “Girls Like Us”
(3) and (4) are touched on in Qanta Ahmed’s “In the Land of Invisible Women”….Dr. Ahmed probes the inside of Saudi society as a Muslim (although of Pakistani/British origins) and discovers that women, as well as men, are suffocated (each in their own way) in the Saudi world by the extreme religious police….she writes so beautifully about her sadness and rage at the injustices to both women and men in that oppressive world (which is put in weird juxtaposition to the alternate reality that she knows in the West (i.e.., NYC and England) …
Each of your questions are excellent….and are worth probing in depth…there are so many thousands of years of history that you are tackling with each question….
I think it’s difficult, if not impossible, to talk about 3.5 billion people as a single group with shared fortunes and misfortunes.
The idea that a professional woman in a modern capitalist liberal democracy shares a collective socio-political identity, far less a collective experience with a trafficked child bride in Afghanistan strikes me as fundamentally bogus.
According to various indices of development, globally, the status and welfare of women is going forward rapidly in a few places, crawling forward slowly in a lot of places and retreating badly in a few places.
In any context, asking what one individual story tells us about the global picture is always doomed to failure. I think it would be a mistake to answer any of your questions based on one young girl’s horrific experience.
It would be a similar mistake to look at the story of one woman in China who has gone from a peasant family to become a muti-millionaire with authority over tens of thousands of male and female employees, and ask what her story tells us about the status of women across the world.
Neither is typical, and I’m highly sceptical that it is possibleto have such a thing as a typical woman. (Or man, for that matter)
Any statistical research will produce different results based on how the valid data is defined. If we stick to Western Democracies, of course we’ll arrive at a very different set of conclusions. What interests me is why do some people want to keep the discussion of men’s and women’s right parsed out ONLY that particular way. Because I find it quite easy to talk about 3.5 billion people as a group with shared fortunes. In fact, if we don’t start doing more of that we’re all screwed.
What happens in Afghanistan doesn’t affect me but an issue like domestic violence in Australia does. People are probably always going to be most worried about their own life, health, etc which is neccessary but hopefully they can extend some support to other areas too. Would you spend most of your resources on some random country far away or your own country? Wouldn’t it be best to get your people up to standard and then sharing out the good will? Of course the great thing is that people can choose what to be an activist in and some will choose their own land, others choose different countries which helps to spread the awareness around.
Ask any cop how many different cultures he runs into in a day. People who are bringing their cultural norms into American or Australian cities. Our borders and our belief systems are permeable.
Good point. But is it the majority, would it affect as many people as say a sexist law? I guess it all depends what grabs peoples attention the most, what is the biggest priority for them. Fathers/mothers rights in a persons own country for instance would be higher in priority then the same in another.
It can also be we know western life better and thus feel more qualified to talk about it, I have no real idea on what it’s like in Afghanistan so I feel I can’t adequately discuss it in the power it needs. It’s kinda like black rights, I step back and let those who are experts take charge as I haven’t got much to add to black rights, but male or female rights I can add more in (seeing as I know many men and women, but know very few black people and thus I’m not exposed enough to get a true idea). I can still support equality though and will do what I can to help where possible within my means and resources, but some topics are more popular for me due to being personal experience (bullying for instance), directly affecting me or my gender in that area, affecting my friends or family, so I feel more confident in discussing it vs others. Make sense?
That is true but they can’t bring in their laws. I would never suggest that people must adopt my culture (are you suggesting that?), as if we’re superior; however, the government does demand that they adhere to our local laws.
What I’m saying is this. Western culture is permeable. As people move about the world, they bring their belief systems for better or for worse. Often better. Sometimes worse.
They still can’t import their laws.
Not sure I understand what the law has to do with whether or not someone chooses to brutalize someone else. That law might take issue with it after the event occurs, but its culture that governs whether or not the abuser feels empowered/permission to throw a punch.
At the risk of stating the obvious, if there are no laws and associated penalties against “brutalizing someone” it’s ever so slightly more likely to happen.
I would suggest, at the risk of stating the obvious, that who your parents are will determine whether you result to brutality far more than whatever laws might apply. People who express rage through violence could give two s**ts about the law.
If they don’t care about the legal consequences,why do perpetrators try to avoid apprehension?
Why do such crimes occur less often when it can be seen and the perpetrators ID’d?
Why do such crimes skyrocket when law enforcement is not present?
Mark, the point is, a country with laws against brutalizing people should not be required to further strengthen those laws just because another country, whose immigrants sometimes come to this first country, doesn’t have such laws. And that is precisely what is promoted with sensationalist titles like this articles, combined with attitudes that all 3.5 billion women should be treated as if they have a shared experience.
You didn’t talk about 3.5 billion people as a shared group, you talked about one girl in Afghanistan and posed the question is brutality against women getting worse.
IMHO, that is intellectual dishonestly, and almost rises to the point of “Have you stopped beating your wife yet” type of question. You pose a question, relay a brutal story and I am sorry but you lead the reader to conclude that is in fact getting worse. Posing questions, putting a story about brutality out there and the stepping back and claiming that you didn’t state an opinion is not good form
Well John, in the spirit of fair play, I would suggest you can’t engage in a discussion without first painting your opponent as devious or having a hidden agenda. There are plenty of people here answering the questions and raising new ones without automatically going into a binary debate mode.
“why do some people want to keep the discussion of men’s and women’s right parsed out ONLY that particular way. Because I find it quite easy to talk about 3.5 billion people as a group with shared fortunes. In fact, if we don’t start doing more of that we’re all screwed.”
For the same reason you don’t trim your hedges with a lawnmower. You can’t solve very different problems with the same tool.
Similarly, you can’t address the issues that women in Afghanistant with the same solutions as the women in DC. The problems are very different. Trying to do that is a total waste of time and energy.
“What interests me is why do some people want to keep the discussion of men’s and women’s right parsed out ONLY that particular way.”
Because, I feel attempting to play off the tradgedy of a child in afganistan to try and ganrer yet more action in favor of women in a country where such policies as VAWA exist and are abused to such an extent is dangerous. Where does it end? If/when women make up 95% of CEO’s in US companies, will this still not be deemed enough because only 30% elsewhere in the world are? Should the policies of another country where we have no control really dictate further change in ours where we have already implemented policy to fight that very issue? If not, then why the attempt to parse it internationally as a single unified group/experience?
Its probably the same ratio as in other countries — most brutality is against men and women are relatively protected from it.
We need to move away from erasing the suffering of humans caused by human problems, by focusing on only that of women.
1) How does the treatment of women worldwide inform our American conversation about women’s rights?
It really doesn’t. There are too many variables. Women do not have equal rights in some countries, such as Saudi Arabia, but they have superior rights in Europe and North American.
2) How does the multi-billion dollar prostitution black market affect women both here and abroad?
It has no effect on the vast majority of females here in the US but no doubt affects a statistically small subset. Abroad, many young girls are victimized, particularly parts of developing Asia.
3) Is the battle for women’s rights successfully completed or only just beginning?
Women have at least equal or superior rights in the west, with the exception of going topless. (more work needs to be done in that area). It’s in varying stages of development elsewhere in the world.
4) Does the discussion of women’s rights in some way detract from the battle for men’s rights?
In the west, yes, where (as I indicated said above) majority women are the most advantaged, protected demographic there is, and males, especially minority males are the least advantaged, most discriminated against demographic there is.
I gotta put this out there …. Given how I have seen Christians blasted because of their beliefs and perceived opinions of women’s roles in society and the family … 99% of Afghanians are Muslim, I guess I have to wonder why the Muslim faith isn’t being questioned. The reality is that the women who are being abused are abused (as some see it) based on their religious beliefs. It should also be noted that the Muslim faith is the fastest growing religion in the USA. Where does that put us in 50 years?
Tom. There is no evidence that Muslims abuse women any more or less than Christians or Hindus or any other religion does. None. If its happening in Afghanistan its because the place is just brutal for everybody. A better question would be: are Muslims brutalizing people in Western Democracies? All evidence is that they are being victimized, profiled and harassed. Not the other way around.
I know a lot of Muslims personally. Both here and abroad. They are wonderful parents and wonderful people. Seriously, if you knew the folks I know, you’d admire them as much as I do.
You forgot atheists. Their track record is no better.
I’m curious Mark, given your above comment questioning why we would want to parse out men’s and women’s issues by world region, in specific, this comment:
“What interests me is why do some people want to keep the discussion of men’s and women’s right parsed out ONLY that particular way.”
One must likewise wonder why you feel the need to parse out the religious issue in relation to world regions? Perhaps you can answer your own question.
Here’s my feeling, Tom B.
It sounds to me like you’re saying that when one person questions the act of one particular Muslim family’s violence, he is saying that all Muslim families are like this.
But not once did Mark Greene say that. He asked about worldwide violence against women.
My gut feeling, Tom, is that you believe that Muslims are violent, and that you fear for America because of our willingness to admit Muslim people. I suspect you have found this hypothetical situation you propose here to be a great way to get other people to get on board with what I believe is racism (yeah, yeah, argue that Arabs/Muslims are not another race, that there are only 3 races, I’m talking about the practical use of the word, which encompasses people of color who are not specifically Asian or Black).
Nobody in this conversation asserted Muslims are more violent except for you. If you believe that, own it. If you don’t believe that, you may want to clarify.
To me, what you’re saying is propagating hate, but cleverly done. If I’m wrong, feel free to correct me.
BTW I’ve lived in metro Detroit, where there is the highest population of Arab/Muslims outside of the Middle East, and I would say anecdotally that there is absolutely no evidence of this being a violent culture.
“Let me help you “see”, Mark. If men are disproportionately the ones killed and brutalized in Afghanistan and similar places (which are the facts, according to reports we get here in the west), then focusing on the group that is least brutalized obviously does elevate them above the group which is suffering the most.”
I guess my question is this. How do we quantify “focus disproportionately?”
Is any mention of women’s rights already too much by virtue of the discussions thus far? Do I need to get permission somehow to mention women’s rights? Who do I get permission from?
Mark
I think the issue might be more to do with propagating the myth that women as a group are more exposed to violence and brutality than the others – when the reality is its men and children that are most at risk.
“There is violence against women in the world.”
WHERE in that sentence does it say women are more exposed to violence than men?
You bring this subtext and you place it into my sentence. Literally. You open up my sentence and you put it in there. Then you point at it and say, “Look what I found.”
So what you are saying is that every single instance must be taken separately, uniquely, without context of any other story? For example, we can see in the video of the Egyptian woman in the blue bra, a man getting the beatdown right beside her. But we can not extrapolate from the fact there was outcry, rage and story after story about that poor poor women, but the man beside her never got a second glance, that says nothing because none of the individual stories on the issue specifically said something to dismiss him, they just acted like he didn’t exists. That doesn’t say something to you?
That’s the problem with your argument mark, is that you didn’t specifically and overtly say women are exposed more, but when yours is only one of many that say women suffer YYY, sitting alongside an almost empty roster of the men suffer XXX, that silence on men speaks volumes. And while you personally are only one more added to the pile, to the men who see this, those straws are getting pretty heavy.
Is any mention of women’s rights already too much by virtue of the discussions thus far? Do I need to get permission somehow to mention women’s rights? Who do I get permission from?
It should not be but to some people it is. And I think this is an extreme reaction to feeling the reverse. Not to stoke old flames but there are those that seeom to think that in order to talk about men’s rights and issues one must get permission from women’s activists. Or even more interesting some hold the opinion that the only way a valid men’s movment can be made is if it is done under the approval of feminists or at least feminists have a heavily influencing voice in said movement. And mind you this is being done after literally decades of feminists telling men that men have no busines trying to take leadership roles in feminism.
So after a long time of having women’s activists trying to call the shots on men’s issues it makes sense that some men are just fed up by this double standard and are turning it back on them. Doesn’t necessarily make it right but it does explain how it came to be I think.
Thanks, Danny.
I feel like I keep stating the obvious. Here, you’re in essence asking the meaning of the term disproportionate.
If the vast majority of victims of brutality (in Afghanistan, in this case) are male but 100% of the concern over victims, based on gender, are female, that’s disproportionate. 100% of the focus goes on a minority of victims and 0% of the focus on the majority of victims. That, by definition, is disproportionate.
You can do whatever you want. No peisdipn needed. You can focus 100% of your attention on 1% if you want, but it’s still disproportionate.
“If the vast majority of victims of brutality (in Afghanistan, in this case) are male but 100% of the concern over victims, based on gender, are female, that’s disproportionate.”
100% of the concern is over women? Really. You can read my mind? Because if, for some bizarre reason, I happen to give a damn about boys and men dying in Afghanistan, then you’ll have to revise your stats to 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%
This kind of hyperbole does no one any good.
I make no claim to know anyone’s thoughts. But, I can read. You expressed no concern at all here. Although you had every opportunity to at least mention it in one sentence.
You have no obligation to have or express any concern. I’m just pointing out that none is expressed here.
Here is a multi nation study onto patterns of DV, in case anyone that’s interested.
The patterns were the same in western and Muslim countries, female partner more often dominant and more often physically violent.
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf
edit – I should have mentioned the rates, the rates of DV are the same too.
There is no evidence that I know of, that Muslims are more likely to engage in DV. I lived in a Muslim country and have citizenship there, and some of the things people tend to believe about muslim culture irk me.
1) I do not think we can treat people from different countries and cultures as homogeneous. Each group has different experiences that happen for different reasons, and we need to acknowledge that.
2) Firstly, prostitution does not just affect women. Countless boys and men are part of that multi-billion dollar prostitution black market, both in the States and abroad, and their experiences are just as horrific and deserving of recognition. Secondly, much of this comes down to a lack of resources, a lack of local support for stopping these crimes, and a lack of punishment for those who commit such crimes. That said, there is a tendency for people, particularly liberals, to exaggerate the rate and prevalence of sex trafficking and prostitution of women (these people tend to forget that boys and men are also victims).
3) The is too vague a question. How do you define “successfully completed?”
4) To the extent that discussion of women’s rights takes precedence over the discussion of men’s rights, yes it does detract from the battle for men’s rights. For example, in Afghanistan boys are sold and kidnapped to become bacha bazi or dancing boys. These boys are forced to dress like women and dance for warlords and officials at parties. After the parties, the boys are raped and sometimes traded to other men. I think GMP ran one article about bacha bazi last year, yet ran several articles about women’s plight in Afghanistan and other wartorn countries.
As I see, the problem is not talking about women’s rights, but failing to talk about men’s rights or treating men’s rights as less important (which is all the more curious given the proposed focus of GMP). Thousands of boys are being sold, prostituted, and raped in Afghanistan (ironically because we deposed the Taliban, who banned the practice of bacha bazi), yet we only talk about what happens to Afghan girls.
Very well stated. Thanks for adding to the conversation. I agree with a lot of what you’re saying.
Dang it. Once again the title of the article doesn’t match the content, but once again I fell for it. It hooked me and I read the article waiting for that question to appear, but it didn’t. I don’t like the disconnect, but I have to admit that the editorial policy towards headlines is working, so I don’t know why one would ever give it up.
Regardless, I’ll address the titular question anyway. There is clearly ongoing brutality against women. But, how would you ever determine if it was getting _worse_ out there in the world?
You know, we could have a perfectly useful, perfectly productive, engaging discussion about current problems even if the problem WASN’T getting worse. A situation doesn’t have to be worsening or an epidemic in order to talk about it. What seems to be happening on this site and elsewhere is a competition over which current problem is getting worse the fastest. If it’s not getting worse, then it just doesn’t seem to matter?
It’s a handy rhetorical attention-grabber to say something is getting worse, and it’s a big temptation if you’re trying to grab readership, but that doesn’t make it true.
“4) Does the discussion of women’s rights in some way detract from the battle for men’s rights?”
When the few spaces men have to discuss issues that concern men, have matters of women’s rights raised instead, then yes the discussion of women’s rights detracts from the discussion of men’s rights. It creates a dialogue where the concerns of men are related to women and their comparative situation.
I’d like dialogue about men, by men, for men, that only concerns men. It would be a refreshing change. Unless men are only defined by our relationship with women, which I do not believe is the case.
Transhuman: You hit another one out of the ballpark.
Transhuman: Just read your post and something kept ‘bugging’ me about it.
I read this line
“It creates a dialogue where the concerns of men are related to women and their comparative situation”
Something about that sentence IN MY MIND kept wondering if something was missing. Then it hit me on how I feel about this
“It creates a dialogue where the concerns of men are ONLY related to women and their comparative situation”
That is what bothers me most about this site and a large number of their articles.
Hi John, I’m the publisher of The Good Men Project and what I hear you saying you are saying is that you are bothered with the way we talk about things here.
First, I’d like to remind you that The Good Men Project is a community driven site. If a “large number of articles” are not to your liking, there are actually two things you can do. 1) Write your own post that we will run. or 2) Build a platform yourself that reaches 4 million people from scratch. We started from 0 also, less than two years ago, with not much more than a handful of people that shared our values. It’s possible.
We have over 6,000 articles on our site. Of those, at least 2/3 are by men, about men. First person stories of men and their experiences is our hallmark. Only 20% of our contributors are women. The problem is — the articles that are about gender are the ones that get the most comments. So if the only posts you ever read and comment on are about gender, your perception of what we write about “most” is apt to be skewed.
If you would like to do #1, please email a submission to lisa@goodmenproject.com
We do not allow repeated critical statements of The Good Men Project itself, as it creates an environment of complaining instead of forward progress.
thank you.
@John and Transhuman … yup.
No offense to any of the women who have written some great articles but my initial attraction to this site was that it appeared to be a site for men by men. Although it does tackle and address some men’s issues, there appears to be an agenda that I haven’t quite been able to put my finger on. Mark has written some interesting articles yet this particular article is clearly concentrating on “women’s rights.” 1,2,3, and 4 is about “women’s rights” around the world much less.
Transhuman, are those my only two choices? 1) Talk about men only among men only or 2) be defined by my relationship with women? Seems self defeating to frame this conversation about being a man in these kinds of binary ways.
It’s not a zero-sum game.
If we talk about issues surrounding women, that does nothing to diminish the issues we write about that are exclusively about men, for instance right now on the Good Feed Blog there is a post about Mariano Rivera and another about NFL and head injuries. Then there are three gender-neutral posts (international elections, the ballot issue in SC, and the science behind storytelling).
If you don’t want to talk about women’s issues, just go ahead and don’t read those. If it says “women” in the title, feel free to ignore it, and spend some time on the posts that talk exclusively about men. There are a lot of them if you look.
Joanna,
I think the issue is that Mark’s column falls in line with a very large narrative in western media outlets that basically says extreme muslim culture = oppression of (only or mostly) women.
This is wrong. These cultures oppress *everybody* not just (or mostly) women.
This leads to a distorted view of what is happening, which will lead to a distorting funding of the problem.
I could see this ultimately leading to something very similar to human aids anti-rape organizations turning away prisoners of war in Africa who were victims of male on male rape and minimizing the issue in their reports because they are afraid female rape victiims will lose funding.
Or the World Food Programs giving away several millions of tons of grain to disaster-struck haiti, but only to women.
Let me know if you find that place. I would like to spend some time there.
How we view violence against women in the west from the perspective of one headline. YES, I agree this is just one example. BUT IMHO, it shows just how the media will report this type of ‘crime’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/08/british-woman-arrested-dubai
Notice the headline
“British woman arrested in Dubai after reporting rape”
First, yes, the headline is TRUE, but it also leads one to believe she was arrested for being raped, when in fact she wasn’t. She was arrested when the authorities found out she had sex outside of marriage , and just for good measure her fiance was also arrested for the same thing AND guess what the person she accused of rape was also arrested for illegal sex as he claims sex was consentual.
“1) How does the treatment of women worldwide inform our American conversation about women’s rights?”
Depends how it is covered. For example, in this particular case, where, as Eric pointed out, the victimization of the women was wholely condemned and punished, it should show that women’s safety is taken seriously, even if not every single instance of it can be prevented before it happens.
Of course, when such events are sensationalized, the outraged public and political reactions ignored, all in favor of trying to paint the fact something happened to a woman that was unpleasent as representative of everyones attitudes towards women (presumably that would include all those people who are outraged, all those who rightly investigated, prosocuted and convicted the perpetrators, and all us discussing the matter, including yourself? or are these just exceptions, and if so, where is the evidence of such?), it actually does a lot of damage. It undermines women’s confidence in the justice system, it creates divisiveness, and it distracts from real issues. Furthermore, it makes rational people wonder what they really expect from the world in order to NOT be seen as condoning violence against women*** and worst, irrational people try pushing through completely insane and unconstitutional laws that strip away due process and equality under the law. So really, how does this inform us? deseptively and dishonestly.
***Serious, this is my question to you. If an example of a single girl being brutalized, and the perpetrators of that brutality are rightly tried and convicted, is seen as somehow representative of violence against women getting worst(???), what needs to be done to reverse this perception? Utter and complete thought control?
“2) How does the multi-billion dollar prostitution black market affect women both here and abroad?”
Multi-billion dollar prostitution black market? Where’s this figure come from? I know there is an issue with human trafficing of both genders (it’s a shame people seem to only care about one gender, so focus solely on a segment of human trafficing (sex work) and even then, not fully as it ignores male victims), but I also know the level is often overblown for the purpose of gaining political funding/clout and attention. 10,000 sex slaves were supposedly supposed to be trucked in for superbowl, but nothing of the sort was ever substantiated.
“3) Is the battle for women’s rights successfully completed or only just beginning?”
Depends what you mean by women’s rights? and this is the sticking point of the whole gender debate. Ensuring women have the same access to opportunities men have HAS been successfully completed in the western world and in fact, it is men who are coming up short on the rights list (reproductive rights and equality under the law being the two main ones that actually are RIGHTS). The problem is, when we discuss women’s rights these days, we are no longer discussing actual rights, but privileges (like getting birth control paid for). The problem is, in most cases (particularly sexual assault and domestic abuse, despite technically being non-gendered in actual statistics), there is no end goal. How can one be successful at acheiveing a goal when no reasonable goal has been set? The only goal ever set is to “end” it, but that will never happen, can never happen, without absolute control over every mind. Is that what equality for women will look like, brain dead male drones incappable of lifting a finger without permission or command? Still won’t stop these issues because women too, are cappable of commiting violence, regardless of how some pretend otherwise. After all, this girls mother-in-law and sister-in-law were both involved in this girls brutality.
“4) Does the discussion of women’s rights in some way detract from the battle for men’s rights?”
Again, depends how it is done. The above story very much does so, by using an example of violence committed, yet condemned, as somehow representative of something worldwide (including western nations), and gendering it. It creates a divisiveness where none should exists. This draws attantion away from addressing all cases of victimization. Furthermore, what the implications of this mean is harmful to men, because, as I asked above, if condemning this kind of thing isn’t good enough, what is and how do we accomplish that? And what does that lead to for men, who are far too often portrayed as the perpetrators, and how doesn’t this kind of extreme focus on women NOT overshadow male victims? You must also ask, why is this getting attention and not men’s issues? Does not the laughter of the women on “the talk” regarding the severing and mutilation of a man’s penis, demonstrate acceptance of violence against one gender far more clearly then the mere existance of a female victim who received justice once her victimization was discovered? Yet we choose to focus on the girl.