We - The Sanguine Feminine - are the daughters of those whom you didn't manage to burn at the stake.
Image: above text in Chiller and French Script fonts, very light purple colour on very dark purple matting. Woman with darker skin and brown hair bound to two wooden pillars on a burning pyre with a cat and a newspaper at the base. Background is purple twilight with waning crescent moon punctuated by dark trees. Footer text: "Image adapted from art by FrenchFox - http://frenchfox.deviantart.com." Freedom to Be's logo superimposed at bottom right corner. Text inspired by an article at http://www.salon.com/2013/10/31/what_witches_have_to_do_with_womens_health.
Showing posts with label women. Show all posts
Showing posts with label women. Show all posts
Saturday, 1 November 2014
Tuesday, 23 September 2014
When You Are No Longer "Democratic"
You know that you have utterly failed in your identity as "democratic" when you start telling women how to dress.
A posting to the Facebook discussion group "British Muslims for Secular Democracy" of the Standard (UK) news article "Camden School Bans Muslim Teenager from Taking A-Levels Because She Wears the Niqab" evoked a variety of responses. Some were supportive of a woman's right to choose how she dresses her body. Some stated that legal bans are less desirable than pressure to abandon face coverings from within the Muslim community. Most, however, completely lost sight of the fact that it is women and women alone who should be deciding what to do with their bodies - and that includes clothing - and supported legal bans of face coverings for women.
Leighton Evans: "My opinion is this. It's not compulsory so she cant claim religious discrimination and should work to to the rules of the college. Fit in or f off."
Yay. Plurality Fail.
Marina Mahbub: "Thats true there are muslim schools so she could have gome there. Its not practical to wear niqab for things like exams"
Abz Hassan: "It's a good idea to impose the ban, she could be wearing google glass or anything under that covering. She knew what the dress code was, but was hoping the school would buckle and provide special treatment I guess. Doesn't work like that. Not in this country anyway."
A very typically patriarchal response: "Oooooo, she could be wearing ANYTHING under that (or nothing all)!" Also, nation as a monolith.
Imogen Louise Rahman: "Leighton it's not an obligation. Sunnah is not obligatory but is important"
Leighton Evans: "I must try wearing a balaclava and demanding only males speak to me next time I have an interview. Quite rightly I'd be told to fuck off."
And an example of the oh-so-endearing "Why can't men have special privileges, too?" whine. Yay patriarchy.
A posting to the Facebook discussion group "British Muslims for Secular Democracy" of the Standard (UK) news article "Camden School Bans Muslim Teenager from Taking A-Levels Because She Wears the Niqab" evoked a variety of responses. Some were supportive of a woman's right to choose how she dresses her body. Some stated that legal bans are less desirable than pressure to abandon face coverings from within the Muslim community. Most, however, completely lost sight of the fact that it is women and women alone who should be deciding what to do with their bodies - and that includes clothing - and supported legal bans of face coverings for women.
Leighton Evans: "My opinion is this. It's not compulsory so she cant claim religious discrimination and should work to to the rules of the college. Fit in or f off."
Yay. Plurality Fail.
Marina Mahbub: "Thats true there are muslim schools so she could have gome there. Its not practical to wear niqab for things like exams"
Abz Hassan: "It's a good idea to impose the ban, she could be wearing google glass or anything under that covering. She knew what the dress code was, but was hoping the school would buckle and provide special treatment I guess. Doesn't work like that. Not in this country anyway."
A very typically patriarchal response: "Oooooo, she could be wearing ANYTHING under that (or nothing all)!" Also, nation as a monolith.
Imogen Louise Rahman: "Leighton it's not an obligation. Sunnah is not obligatory but is important"
Leighton Evans: "I must try wearing a balaclava and demanding only males speak to me next time I have an interview. Quite rightly I'd be told to fuck off."
And an example of the oh-so-endearing "Why can't men have special privileges, too?" whine. Yay patriarchy.
Labels:
burqa,
clothing,
democracy,
democratic,
Muslims,
nationalism,
niqab,
patriarchy,
secular,
women,
women's rights
Monday, 15 September 2014
"Smile for Me, Baby!"
Question: Who has rights over another woman's body?
Answer: No-one.
You have no right to touch a woman. You have no grounds to demand that a woman smile for you or otherwise perform for you. You have no right to silence a woman. You have no right to tell a woman how to dress. You have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body. You have no right to tell a woman with whom she can or cannot associate.
You aren't God.
Buzz off.
Answer: No-one.
You have no right to touch a woman. You have no grounds to demand that a woman smile for you or otherwise perform for you. You have no right to silence a woman. You have no right to tell a woman how to dress. You have no right to tell a woman what to do with her body. You have no right to tell a woman with whom she can or cannot associate.
You aren't God.
Buzz off.
Labels:
abortion,
burqa,
catcalling,
feminism,
hijab,
misogyny,
niqab,
patriarchy,
rights,
street harassment,
women,
women's rights
Friday, 9 May 2014
This Mother's Day
1. Happy Mother's Day to all of the fine mothers out there. You've brightened my world and shown me the Face of God/the sunshine up above, directly as well as through the brilliance that is your children. Thank you.
2. To those of you who have loved and lost, whoever you are, whomever it is that you've loved and lost, {{{huggg}}}. *slips kleenex into your hand*
3. To all of us, a reminder, or some reminders. Don't assume. Don't assume that others have had wonderful childhoods and owe their mothers anything on this or any other day. Don't assume that someone who is childless now hasn't ever had children, or didn't want children, or did want them, or has never been pregnant. Don't assume that only people who have had miscarriages have lost children. Don't assume that all women have uteruses. And don't ask, either. Don't assume that all men don't have uteruses. And don't ask. Don't assume that those without uteruses, male or female, have never mothered a child. Don't assume that this is a Happy Day for everyone. Be ready to offer comfort, or not, as best fits the situation and the person in question. Embrace all - literally or figuratively, as best fits the situation and the person in question. Pour love into the universe, without filtering for mothers. Just pour it out there, for everyone.
2. To those of you who have loved and lost, whoever you are, whomever it is that you've loved and lost, {{{huggg}}}. *slips kleenex into your hand*
3. To all of us, a reminder, or some reminders. Don't assume. Don't assume that others have had wonderful childhoods and owe their mothers anything on this or any other day. Don't assume that someone who is childless now hasn't ever had children, or didn't want children, or did want them, or has never been pregnant. Don't assume that only people who have had miscarriages have lost children. Don't assume that all women have uteruses. And don't ask, either. Don't assume that all men don't have uteruses. And don't ask. Don't assume that those without uteruses, male or female, have never mothered a child. Don't assume that this is a Happy Day for everyone. Be ready to offer comfort, or not, as best fits the situation and the person in question. Embrace all - literally or figuratively, as best fits the situation and the person in question. Pour love into the universe, without filtering for mothers. Just pour it out there, for everyone.
Labels:
abuse,
child abuse,
genderqueer,
hugging,
loss of a child,
men,
mother's day,
mothers,
mourning,
trans*,
transgender,
women
Friday, 16 January 2004
Secularists Pretending to Be Islamic Jurists
(Note: While I have kept the original date on this post, it is heavily redacted from the original in order to better reflect my withdrawal from apologetics.)
I am so upset about the many accusations that Islam stands against women's rights.
A blog writer assumes that if Islamic Law is instituted, he would be able to marry four wives, dump one whenever he wanted, and marry an 11-year-old virgin. In every single one of these assumptions, he has ignored the very thing that he has attacking - Islamic Law.
He could indeed have four wives. This is likely the most unpopular provision in Islamic law. Many aspects of Islamic family law with regard to polygamy are troublesome, especially the fact that, unless a woman has inserted a protective clause in her marriage contract, a man can marry another wife without consulting her or asking her permission. Polygamy is also abused extensively.
Technically, a man is required to provide for every single one of his wives equally. He is also not allowed to live at a level that is in any way above theirs. In addition, each of the wives has the right to request her own house. Some men do this. Too many don't. Of course, having your own house doesn't ease the pain of being stuck in a marriage to a man who has legally shacked up with another women without saying a word to you.
It is, however, expensive. The expenses don't stop with housing, either. The man also needs to be prepared to pay his wives for doing housework, since in Islamic law a wife cannot be compelled to do the household chores. Children would add to his financial woes. Not only is he fully responsible for providing for children, he could also pay out more money to his wives for nursing babies.
Again, however, no amount of money can make up for the emotional pain of dishonesty and the fact that one's husband chose not to keep his zipper zipped.
Men cannot necessarily always divorce whenever they want. Some schools of thought do allow for this. However, not all accommodate men's whims so easily. Under Shia Islam in particular, Islamic law is set up so strictly that a man would practically have to get the permission of his society in order to get a divorce. He needs to watch the timing: he cannot divorce a wife if it is the wrong time of the month. He has to declare the statement properly or have a shaykh declare it for him. There are many shaykhs who are willing to sign off on any divorce for any reason. However, not all are like that. There are a number of them who require a real reason. It would be necessary, then, to know where to go for your insta-divorce. In addition to all of that, he needs to acquire three reliable witnesses who would consent to sitting as witness for his statements of divorce. Again, not everyone is amenable to facilitating an insta-divorce.
Eleven-year-old virgins require their fathers' permission to get married, according to Islamic law. While we do have far too many unscrupulous men who see their daughters as sources of gold (or camels, or cattle, or sheep), they are difficult to find in Western society. And today's boys should be forewarned: it is a growing custom to teach schoolchildren karate. Your "wife" could divest you of your testicles. Come to think of it, I would help her.
ADDENDUM Sunday 12 January 2014:
Islamic laws regarding marriage were established at a time when society wasn't required to care for orphans and single women. In fact, in today's world with corrupt or collapsing governments and entrenched misogynistic patriarchy, the societal default is still that women rely on men for their maintenance. We might not find favour in that, but I think that it is necessary to acknowledge such conditions. Islamic law was developed to address this societal baseline. In many cases, it was also intended to be adaptive. See, for example, the (almost unwilling) admissions of the flexibility of Islamic jurisprudence to allow for circumstances which arise, particularly in the modern West, in A New Perspective: Women in Islam. Sayyid Qazwini upholds a traditionalist view of Islamic jurisprudence while often pointing out how it can be adapted to accommodate various situations. In addition, a somewhat recent method of interpreting and applying Islamic source texts towards jurisprudence has emerged in which one understands Islam as paving the way for reform: a "moral tragectory." It is referenced briefly in Debating Sharia: Islam, Gender Politics, and Family Law Arbitration as a way of understanding Islam's intent to be the eventual abolition of polygamy. The moral trajectory theory is also explained by Dr Adis Duderija in his "A Case Study of Patriarchy and Slavery" (summarised here).
Regardless of which perspective one uses when viewing these issues, the fact is that Islam was revealed and developed in order to protect vulnerable people. Its intent was not to take advantage of and abuse them.
I am so upset about the many accusations that Islam stands against women's rights.
A blog writer assumes that if Islamic Law is instituted, he would be able to marry four wives, dump one whenever he wanted, and marry an 11-year-old virgin. In every single one of these assumptions, he has ignored the very thing that he has attacking - Islamic Law.
He could indeed have four wives. This is likely the most unpopular provision in Islamic law. Many aspects of Islamic family law with regard to polygamy are troublesome, especially the fact that, unless a woman has inserted a protective clause in her marriage contract, a man can marry another wife without consulting her or asking her permission. Polygamy is also abused extensively.
Technically, a man is required to provide for every single one of his wives equally. He is also not allowed to live at a level that is in any way above theirs. In addition, each of the wives has the right to request her own house. Some men do this. Too many don't. Of course, having your own house doesn't ease the pain of being stuck in a marriage to a man who has legally shacked up with another women without saying a word to you.
It is, however, expensive. The expenses don't stop with housing, either. The man also needs to be prepared to pay his wives for doing housework, since in Islamic law a wife cannot be compelled to do the household chores. Children would add to his financial woes. Not only is he fully responsible for providing for children, he could also pay out more money to his wives for nursing babies.
Again, however, no amount of money can make up for the emotional pain of dishonesty and the fact that one's husband chose not to keep his zipper zipped.
Men cannot necessarily always divorce whenever they want. Some schools of thought do allow for this. However, not all accommodate men's whims so easily. Under Shia Islam in particular, Islamic law is set up so strictly that a man would practically have to get the permission of his society in order to get a divorce. He needs to watch the timing: he cannot divorce a wife if it is the wrong time of the month. He has to declare the statement properly or have a shaykh declare it for him. There are many shaykhs who are willing to sign off on any divorce for any reason. However, not all are like that. There are a number of them who require a real reason. It would be necessary, then, to know where to go for your insta-divorce. In addition to all of that, he needs to acquire three reliable witnesses who would consent to sitting as witness for his statements of divorce. Again, not everyone is amenable to facilitating an insta-divorce.
Eleven-year-old virgins require their fathers' permission to get married, according to Islamic law. While we do have far too many unscrupulous men who see their daughters as sources of gold (or camels, or cattle, or sheep), they are difficult to find in Western society. And today's boys should be forewarned: it is a growing custom to teach schoolchildren karate. Your "wife" could divest you of your testicles. Come to think of it, I would help her.
ADDENDUM Sunday 12 January 2014:
Islamic laws regarding marriage were established at a time when society wasn't required to care for orphans and single women. In fact, in today's world with corrupt or collapsing governments and entrenched misogynistic patriarchy, the societal default is still that women rely on men for their maintenance. We might not find favour in that, but I think that it is necessary to acknowledge such conditions. Islamic law was developed to address this societal baseline. In many cases, it was also intended to be adaptive. See, for example, the (almost unwilling) admissions of the flexibility of Islamic jurisprudence to allow for circumstances which arise, particularly in the modern West, in A New Perspective: Women in Islam. Sayyid Qazwini upholds a traditionalist view of Islamic jurisprudence while often pointing out how it can be adapted to accommodate various situations. In addition, a somewhat recent method of interpreting and applying Islamic source texts towards jurisprudence has emerged in which one understands Islam as paving the way for reform: a "moral tragectory." It is referenced briefly in Debating Sharia: Islam, Gender Politics, and Family Law Arbitration as a way of understanding Islam's intent to be the eventual abolition of polygamy. The moral trajectory theory is also explained by Dr Adis Duderija in his "A Case Study of Patriarchy and Slavery" (summarised here).
Regardless of which perspective one uses when viewing these issues, the fact is that Islam was revealed and developed in order to protect vulnerable people. Its intent was not to take advantage of and abuse them.
Labels:
child marriage,
islam,
marriage,
patriarchy,
polygamy,
rights,
women
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

