Monday, November 30, 2015
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
Should women dress modestly to avoid rape?
Perspective:
Wouldn't one be really tempted to answering: Yes?
But before attempting to answer the question, wouldn't it be a good idea to define the word modest in this context, first?
In other words; how modest is that "modest", which would protect women from masculine molestation?
* Would a pair of baggy trousers and a loose long top be modest enough?
- If the answer is yes, then how come that women in Sudan get flogged for wearing such kind of "indecent clothes"?
A pair of trousers and loose long top are not modest enough, then, in Sudan.
* Would a long loose skirt, under-trousers and a head scarf be modest?
- If the answer is yes, then how come women in Egypt get harassed, assaulted and hurt in the streets wearing such kind of clothes.
So a long loose skirt and a scarf may not be modest enough in Egypt. Walking without a head scarf is definitely "asking for it"!
* Would a black loose attire covering the woman from the head to toes, be modest enough then?
- Not if eyes are attractive!!
Wouldn't one be really tempted to answering: Yes?
But before attempting to answer the question, wouldn't it be a good idea to define the word modest in this context, first?
In other words; how modest is that "modest", which would protect women from masculine molestation?
* Would a pair of baggy trousers and a loose long top be modest enough?
- If the answer is yes, then how come that women in Sudan get flogged for wearing such kind of "indecent clothes"?
A pair of trousers and loose long top are not modest enough, then, in Sudan.
* Would a long loose skirt, under-trousers and a head scarf be modest?
- If the answer is yes, then how come women in Egypt get harassed, assaulted and hurt in the streets wearing such kind of clothes.
So a long loose skirt and a scarf may not be modest enough in Egypt. Walking without a head scarf is definitely "asking for it"!
* Would a black loose attire covering the woman from the head to toes, be modest enough then?
- Not if eyes are attractive!!
Women with "attractive eyes" are required to cover their eyes as well - or get punished, in Saudi Arabia - how do you define sexy eyes?
So a black Would a black loose attire covering the woman from the head to toes might not be modest enough either.
So what is the answer?
The answer is that rape - as it seems, is not all about sex or desire. It is rather about masculine sadistic lust for domination. It is a culture that needs to be confronted and terminated rather than encouraged by imposing more censorship on women, leading - as observation and statistics* indicate, to more assault.
Once you start blaming women for sick men's assault, and dictating the kind of clothes they are required to wear, so as to avoid harassment and rape, the list of restrictions does not come to an end.
~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~
* Statistics indicating the intensity of violence against women in oppressive communities are likely to mirror much less of the reality. If the statistics indicate that one out of three women, for example, report having been sexually assaulted in a "morally conservative" community, the women surveyed would probably exclude spouse/husband assault. Spouse/husband rape and domestic violence are regarded - in most of the Middle East, as a masculine "right", and is too normalised to be noticed. In Egypt, it is legal for a man to beat his wife (and children), and a woman who doesn't give her husband "his rights" (by submitting to his sexual demands), is condemned by the community, and is said to be cursed by angels as well.
The assault reported, is also unlikely to include the offensive child marriage or catcalling, or the ultra-feminist sort of assault reported in the West, such as getting a compliment on the social media or cyber trolling. These are considered too normal and too frequent to be noticed.
If reported, surveys tend to disregard the frequency of catcalling and the intensity of the street assault, which might force women to withdrawal and isolation.
Statistics and the relativity of data-analysis can be very tricky when it comes to violence against women.
Realated:
FGM as a way of social engineering
So a black Would a black loose attire covering the woman from the head to toes might not be modest enough either.
So what is the answer?
The answer is that rape - as it seems, is not all about sex or desire. It is rather about masculine sadistic lust for domination. It is a culture that needs to be confronted and terminated rather than encouraged by imposing more censorship on women, leading - as observation and statistics* indicate, to more assault.
Once you start blaming women for sick men's assault, and dictating the kind of clothes they are required to wear, so as to avoid harassment and rape, the list of restrictions does not come to an end.
~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~
* Statistics indicating the intensity of violence against women in oppressive communities are likely to mirror much less of the reality. If the statistics indicate that one out of three women, for example, report having been sexually assaulted in a "morally conservative" community, the women surveyed would probably exclude spouse/husband assault. Spouse/husband rape and domestic violence are regarded - in most of the Middle East, as a masculine "right", and is too normalised to be noticed. In Egypt, it is legal for a man to beat his wife (and children), and a woman who doesn't give her husband "his rights" (by submitting to his sexual demands), is condemned by the community, and is said to be cursed by angels as well.
The assault reported, is also unlikely to include the offensive child marriage or catcalling, or the ultra-feminist sort of assault reported in the West, such as getting a compliment on the social media or cyber trolling. These are considered too normal and too frequent to be noticed.
If reported, surveys tend to disregard the frequency of catcalling and the intensity of the street assault, which might force women to withdrawal and isolation.
Statistics and the relativity of data-analysis can be very tricky when it comes to violence against women.
Realated:
FGM as a way of social engineering
Monday, July 20, 2015
A Utopia? No, thanks!
I couldn't but to compare it to my Education and Sustainable Development Goals - Notes on the HLPF published a week earlier. (10/07/2015).
Between my Note and the Guardian's article there are some common keywords such as;
However, I see that declaring the "end of capitalism" and the arrival of a "Utopia" as pretty much naive and erratic. My idea - in spite of the apparent similarity, is that we are not there yet, and might never be there - in spite of the hard work and the good intentions, til we've managed to "align objectives" among stakeholders.
This proposal carries in it the justification, value and mechanism of transformation, but " The end of capitalism has begun" one, unjustifiably, celebrates what has not been yet attained - if ever.
Also, there is a difference between Utopic goals (i.e. as set of ambitious goals to reach equality, good health, freedom, peace for all), and the actual achievement of such goals. While goals must be ambitious, the designated means of implementation must be practical, rational and realistic, which why I proposed the Sustainable Development Goals, needed to have been interlinked more coherently. The more we explore such interlinks, the more we hit areas of conflict and the easier it is to set priorities for implementation - based on mutual benefits (if possible) and the values we cherish the most.
There is still much work to do, and much hope in humanity, but it'll be all up to the people to get together and work for a better future.
*Please read the original notes for further explanation.
Between my Note and the Guardian's article there are some common keywords such as;
- Utopia/Utopic (goals)
- Neoliberalism
- Evolutionary
- The power shift from politicians to entrepreneurs through neoliberalism and;
- the beginning of a new global era of sharing, solidarity, ..etc.
It is true that the sharing economy is on the rise, however, if this is necessarily an introduction to a Utopia, is dubious. Here is the paradox of a Utopia: You cannot expect to respect all people, all freedoms, all rights, all wishes, all cultures, and all needs of all people yet avoid conflict. Freedoms and rights MUST conflict at certain points and this is where priorities must be set.
So how can you have a Utopia without ultimate peace? Fear is that justice may be compromised - assuming that such ultimate peace is attainable.
The other paradox is that development is part of the sustainable development package. Development requires mobilization of resources. Mobilizing resources involves innovation. Innovation requires capital management. Capital management adheres to the dynamics of the free-market (neoliberalism)*. Unless capital management has been actually - and realistically, re-arranged to work for equality; that the poor and vulnerable don't get crushed by the powerful and the ultra-rich, declaring an "end of Capitalism" would only be a joke!
The Guardian's author states the Capitalism "will be abolished by creating something more dynamic that exists, at first, almost unseen within the old system, but which will break through, reshaping the economy around new values and behaviors. I call this postcapitalism".
So what exactly is this 'postcapitalism' which has already begun but will actually begin in the future and isn't anything that we really know or can define?!! It will come to "reshape and create" but it does not even exist?This is one of the most self-contradictory proposals I've ever encountered.
Anyway, he calls this transformation "post-capitalism" while I - based on the recent UN global convention in New York (The High Level Political Forum for Sustainable Development 2015 - HLPF), proposed the declaration of an era of global solidarity for conservation of life and survival of our human kind. The transformation in the horizon (global solidarity as described hereinabove), does not have to conflict with neoliberalism - in principle (even if it currently does). Neo-liberalism involves value exchange. When values change the game dynamics change subsequently. The breakthrough, then, begins by the successful philanthropic pressures of the masses, enlightened consumerism, social entrepreneurship and political will, in a fierce battle against hatred, discrimination and greed.
The Guardian's author states the Capitalism "will be abolished by creating something more dynamic that exists, at first, almost unseen within the old system, but which will break through, reshaping the economy around new values and behaviors. I call this postcapitalism".
So what exactly is this 'postcapitalism' which has already begun but will actually begin in the future and isn't anything that we really know or can define?!! It will come to "reshape and create" but it does not even exist?This is one of the most self-contradictory proposals I've ever encountered.
Anyway, he calls this transformation "post-capitalism" while I - based on the recent UN global convention in New York (The High Level Political Forum for Sustainable Development 2015 - HLPF), proposed the declaration of an era of global solidarity for conservation of life and survival of our human kind. The transformation in the horizon (global solidarity as described hereinabove), does not have to conflict with neoliberalism - in principle (even if it currently does). Neo-liberalism involves value exchange. When values change the game dynamics change subsequently. The breakthrough, then, begins by the successful philanthropic pressures of the masses, enlightened consumerism, social entrepreneurship and political will, in a fierce battle against hatred, discrimination and greed.
Also, there is a difference between Utopic goals (i.e. as set of ambitious goals to reach equality, good health, freedom, peace for all), and the actual achievement of such goals. While goals must be ambitious, the designated means of implementation must be practical, rational and realistic, which why I proposed the Sustainable Development Goals, needed to have been interlinked more coherently. The more we explore such interlinks, the more we hit areas of conflict and the easier it is to set priorities for implementation - based on mutual benefits (if possible) and the values we cherish the most.
There is still much work to do, and much hope in humanity, but it'll be all up to the people to get together and work for a better future.
*Please read the original notes for further explanation.
RELATED: