Rant of the Day: HBS

I watched this video a while back and immediately regretted doing so. The HijabiBengaliSisters page kept popping up on my Facebook so I wanted to check out their videos, and I wanted to respond to it since the girl has brought up a sensitive issue and has gone about justifying it in a retarded way.

She starts off by saying how in Islam, women and men have different roles and both should be seen equally. She says women should not try to emulate men in the name of feminism etc etc, upto which I can moderately tolerate. Then she goes onto say that in Islam men have to provide for their wives and give them everything they wish for, and so women should not complain of 'marital rape' because they should reward their husbands for all that they do. At this point I just wanted to punch her in the face.

She just said that the duties of men and women are different but equally valuable, then she said a woman should never refuse sex because her husband does 'so much' for her. By doing that she has completely contradicted her own statement by downgrading the value of 'women's work' (cleaning, cooking, looking after children etc) in comparison to men's work. If a woman's work deserves equal treatment, then her unwillingness to engage in sex should be respected as much as a man's willingness to do so. She then says a woman should 'serve' and 'obey' her husband because she'll receive much more in return. So essentially a woman should exchange her servitude and obedience for love, home, money and gifts. How are the roles equal then? Sounds more like a master-slave dynamic to me.

This girl needs to learn that marital rape is not a joke. Rape, marital or not, is less about sexual desire than it is about “an abuse of power by which one person attempts to establish dominance and control over the other”. If this girl had done some basic research, she would see that marital rape is often accompanied by domestic violence and abuse, and because it occurs repeatedly over a long time the accumulated trauma may have greater impacts on a woman's psychology than being raped by a stranger. Allowing a man to have his way with you is not about giving him a 'break', it's about handing over your autonomy to the man. It's not about rewarding him, it's about making him feel more powerful. I feel no shame in repeating once more, that this girl's views are imbecilic of tremendous proportions. She should familiarise herself with legal definitions before posting a blanket statement about marital rape on YouTube.

She further contradicts her "women and men are different but equal" statement by saying men are stronger than women, (2 women equal to one man, apparently) and are therefore naturally a "grade higher" than women, because they can protect them. This is an absurd presumption, as strength has the power to both protect AND destroy. And if she has interpreted the 2 women = 1 men quote from the Quran in this way, then she hasn't read the verse properly, because it has nothing to do with strength, but everything to do with a woman's ability to testify in court.

I'm extremely saddened that young ladies brought up in developed, 21st century environments can openly hold regressive views like this and still attract admirers. I also had the pleasure of watching another video by her about how "women who don't cover up" have nothing to offer as they are submitting to the wishes of menfolk. 

HA! Oh the irony. 

Gender Segregation and Islamaphobia

A recent debate about gender segregated seating at university events organised by Islamic student societies has been sparked in the UK. I came across this debate on well known social activist and ex-Muslim Maryam Namazie's blog, and thought I'd share my thoughts to better elaborate the points Namazie has made.

I would like to make clear outright that I disagree with the point made my Dr Nazreen Nawaz regarding this being an issue of the UK being unaccommodating for "mainstream" Islamic practices. I am not saying that no Muslims wish to be segregated by gender, and some do voluntarily sit away from members of the opposite sex. However, in events such as the debate organised earlier this year at UCL between Hamza Tzortzis and Lawrence Krauss, the audience was likely to be made up of both Muslims of various degrees of piety and non-Muslim groups, and therefore it was an unfair imposition to make all members of the audience sit in accordance with the wishes of only one of the guest speakers. This lacked accommodation on the Islamic society's part.

Leaving accommodation aside, let's break down why the segregated seating arrangement is not logical or egalitarian. There are a few main ways the auditoriums in question could be arranged with pros and cons for each. Let's examine them one at a time to identify the best possible solution.

1. The Islamic way: Notable Islamic scholar Zakir Naik explains on this page what the Islamic tradition was with regards to seating in a Mosque. It states "During the Prophet’s (pbuh) time, mosques had separate entrances for ladies. Women filled the mosques from behind while men had separate entrances and filled the mosques from the front. In between the two sections were children." The reason commonly given for this arrangement was that the prostating and bowing movements performed by women during Islamic prayers would sexually tempt and distract men from their own prayers if women were allowed to sit before them. Now, even if we were to take this (ridiculous) claim seriously, the problem of prostating women can be easily solved by sitting segregated groups of men and women side by side, with children sitting in between. There is no doubt that the traditional arrangement is designed around gender inequality, as it definitely more difficult to see, follow and hear a presenter from the back of a room than it is from the front. Moreover, it assumes that men cannot control their sexual urges, and that women are not expected to be distracted by the men praying in front of them. Not only is it discriminating for the women, it is also a disadvantage for children to sit in between the parents as they tend to be shorter. 
2. The 'options for all' way: This is the variation some of these Islamic Societies have attempted to adopt, where they've split the seating into areas for men, women and "married couples". Firstly, there is really no polite way to determine whether a couple entering the room is married or not. Nor is it in anybody's right to make a couple feel uncomfortable by suggesting that it is only acceptable for them to sit together if they're married. Secondly, the question of disadvantaging a group resurfaces. If there is a couple's area, where will it be positioned? Would it not be unfair if attendees showed up the event early with hopes of securing good seats, only to find that their seats have been pre-allocated based on a condition beyond their control, such as their gender or marital status? 
3. The 'not segregated' way: Or in other words, the usual first-come, first-served principle. The attendees will arrive randomly and select their seats based on preference and availability. Of course, this does not guarantee that every person will find a seat they're happy with, but the reason for that won't be determined by a single individual, religious group or mindset. People cannot complain about a bad seat, as it is only natural that availability will decrease with later arrival times. And the only person responsible for arriving at the right time for the right seat is the audience member him/herself. Having said that, the world is not perfect, and the contest for a good seat is not always a fair fight for those that are disabled or elderly, but a decent auditorium will provide for the differently abled too.

Now comes Nawaz's point about how it is a double standard to allow other forms of segregation such as women only gyms, schools and toilets to continue in the UK. Lets examine each of these points. 

1. Women only gyms: A gym is a place where people work out and would therefore often wear unflattering clothing to keep themselves cool and comfortable. Women who require personal trainers may be reluctant about trainers of the opposite sex touching them or invading their personal space - neither of which are appropriate but still happen nonetheless. You cannot compare that level of close interaction with that of two strangers merely sitting side by side - sometimes not even that - in an auditorium for 2 hours. Having women only gyms is more akin to women preferring to see female doctors for the added comfort of being able to discuss their physical problems freely. And most importantly, women only gyms are a choice, not an imposition. 2. Public toilets: Again, a similar logic as above. Women not only use the toilet, but also change clothing, fix their makeup and hair and undertake other womanly activities in the bathroom which they would prefer to do in private. It is not the same as sitting in a room full of people who are engaging in an intellectual experience. Again, our society is not perfect, and there is debate around segregated toilets compartmentalising or forcing gender X to identify as either male or female. But segregated seating does the same.
3. Single sex schools: I personally prefer co-educational schools myself. But studies have shown that pupils flourish in single gender schools more so than their coed counterparts. Where I live, some of the best secondary schools are single gendered, but the number 1 school is co-ed. So it's not a necessary factor in children's learning. In fact, it is perhaps better to allow our teenagers to grow in an environment that matches the real world. So Nazreen cannot make the point that just because one less than ideal form of segregation exists another should also. 

There really is no substantial logic in Nazreen's points other than the usual Islamiphobia card. I acknowledge that there is a lot of ignorance about the Islam in the world and people do generalise Muslims in the wake of recent events and biased media reporting. But there should be no hesitation in highlighting discrimination because above all religious belief systems should be our humanity. And those who disagree with that are doing themselves and their religion a great disfavour.

Karva Chauth - Romantic or Sexist?

Karva Chauth is a day long Hindu festival celebrated by women in India. Married (and sometimes unmarried) women fast from sunrise to moon-rise for the longevity and health of their husbands. Fasting women do no house work during karva chauth. Gifts are exchanged and a ritualistic ceremony is held in the evening by women only, where stories are told, songs are sung and beautiful garments in red orange and gold are worn by participants. The fast is broken when the moon is sighted and the husband feeds the wife. Karva Chauth was celebrated on October 22 this year.

Without putting the above described rituals into context, one may mistakenly paint a mental picture of Karva Chauth as being a romantic tradition full of colour, vitality and representing the idealistic unconditional and selfless love a woman ought to feel towards her husband. In fact, on Taslima Nasreen's blog - where she criticised Karva Chauth for it's "patriarchal bullshit" - several responses in the comments section evidenced that many people still view it as a harmless occasion.

But I will argue that it is far from harmless. It is very important to realise the societal context which bred this festival in the first place, and therefore the mentality attached to it's very core. And this mentality reverberates in women throughout the subcontinent, Hindu or not.

Karva chauth is an embodiment of a woman's dependence on her husband. It is a yearly reminder to women in the subcontinent that it's their responsibility to pray and fast for the longevity of their husbands, and not a mutual effort made from both sides. 

In Hindu society, a woman is passed on from her father's home to her husbands home, and if she is lucky enough to birth a male child, she ultimately finds herself in the custody of her son's home. At no time in her life is she in control of her person-hood and independence. She is merely property.

"In childhood a female must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband, when her lord is dead to her sons; a woman must never be independent." - Manusmriti Chapter 5/148.

Him to whom her father may give her, or her brother with the father's permission, she shall obey as long as he lives, and when he is dead, she must not insult (his memory)" - Manusmriti Chapter 5/151.

A woman may assume four different roles during her life: One of a dasi (slave), one of a mantri (counsellor or advisor), one of a mata (mother) and one of a rambha (lover). She is expected to manage her utensils and home with care, and is therefore locked into choices that give her no autonomy and no identity. She is owned, and does not own. She manages, but does not lead. As she is protected, fed and watered by her husband and his household, she is obliged to perform her duties without complaint.

"She must always be cheerful, clever in (the management of her) household affairs, careful in cleaning her utensils, and economical in expenditure" - Manusmriti 5/150.

Despite his shortcomings, a man should be treated like a deity by a wife, and this is the kind of behaviour seen in Karva Chauth. A woman was often considered unlucky if her husband passed away, and her life immediately became without purpose upon his death. She was required to wear plain white clothing, eat vegetarian food and not permitted to remarry or remake her life. She lived life as a shell, crippled by the weight of society and judgement. 

"Through destitute or virtue, or seeking pleasure (elsewhere), or devoid of good qualities, (yet) a husband must be constantly worshipped as a god by a faithful wife" - Manusmriti Chapter 5/154 

"At her pleasure let her emaciate her body by (living on) pure flowers, roots, and fruit; but she must never even mention the name of another man after her husband has died." - Manusmriti Chapter 5/157.

This is the religious context of Karva Chauth. A society where a girl's family turn their backs on her from the moment she is married, and then again when her husband's life has ended. Her life is only meaningful if there is a man in it to look after her. She is a burden. A responsibility. A subordinate. Karva Chauth is not a romantic affair. It is the desperation of women whose lives depend on the longevity of their husbands. It is surrender shrouded in a veil of virtue, unconditional love and devotion.

Despite all this I would not recommend the event to be abolished altogether. Like any tradition, there is a sense of communal involvement that makes it worth celebrating. I would suggest that the tradition be extended to include husbands and partners also, and make this a mandatory practice. Nowadays, some men do fast on Karva Chauth to support and respect their spouses, and I salute this decision. I only hope that more men would follow suit! :)

Same Love - But Not Same Parenthood

Today I am going to write about a topic I have been hesitant to express my views about openly for a while. As an Australian, I will stick to the social frameworks of Australia in this post to simplify my points. Marriage equality had been a hot topic during the bygone 2013 elections, with the two men vying for prime minister-ship here (Tony Abbot and Kevin Rudd) having expressed differing views on the issue. And I have problems with arguments on both sides of the marriage equality debate.

--- --- --- 

Same Sex Marriage

First and foremost, I would like to make clear that I have no issues with people being homosexual. I believe that no one should ever feel frightened to be who they are so long as it does not interfere with or damage another person's life. I am also all for marriage equality. I do not buy into the argument that allowing homosexual people to get married undermines the significance of marriage as an institute. I am not a religious person, and so I do not believe marriage is a sacred sacrament. I see marriage as a symbolic (and legal) gesture by two individuals through which they accept responsibility and respect for the relationship they share. It is an expression of commitment, loyalty and (often) love - and thus is a formality that can exist between any two consenting, adult parties who are not already bound by close familial ties. And most importantly, it is a personal affair - so why would one person's marriage undermine another's? That's a silly connection to make. Furthermore, if homosexuals can openly share a household and opt for a civil union, what is wrong with marriage? Seems like neither one is a very Christian choice to begin with.

On that note, I should also add that I do not understand the logic behind gay people wanting a Christian wedding. If God is truly loving and merciful, He/She/It will bless a marriage no matter how it is done - one does not require approval from pretentious clerics for the marriage to be legitimate. The concept of God is built around omnipresence, so a marriage does not need to take place in a Church for God to oversee it. Being an agnostic, I see clerical hierarchy or authority as undermining the universality of God, and as being detrimental to one's personal connection with the transcendent - if there such a thing really exists at all.

Same Sex Couples and Children

From personal experience and some reading, I understand that adopting children or giving birth to children by sperm donation or surrogacy does not face much legal restriction in Australia. I personally know two lesbian households who have children without being married, so I understand that bringing up the question of children has no real implications on the marriage debate. Despite this, I will still raise some points that LGBTI activists will not like. 

I understand that research will be against me on this issue, with most results showing that gay parenting is just as great as conventional parenting. Homosexual people make extremely attentive and committed parents as they tend to have children by choice, and work hard to establish their families. Research has also shown that children from gay families are just as competent in all aspects of life (social, physical and mental) as their counterparts in straight households, and often have a more mature approach to global issues.

I have no doubt that these conclusions are correct. I am also sure that many of these children love their parents, gay or not, and feel lucky to have them. But if a person could choose, in retrospect, what kind of family to be born into, would they say "one with homosexual parents"? 

It is true that every couple deserves to have children, whether they can or cannot through conventional means. And whether or not they have this child "naturally" is not really important. The greater question is whether it is "normal". According to Wikipedia (not the best source I know, but they have a reference), only about 1.6% of men in Australia are gay and 0.9% bisexual. These numbers are 1.4% and 0.8% respectively for women. Between 8 and 15% of men and women reported having sexual experiences or feelings of attraction towards a member of the same sex, but identify themselves as heterosexuals despite this fact. So there is no doubt in saying that an overwhelming majority of people are of a heterosexual orientation in Australia.

But LGBT activists often compare homosexuals with children to infertile heterosexual couples who find alternative ways to have children but do not face the same societal prejudices. This is not a fair comparison for obvious reasons. Children of homosexual couples will always be deprived of one biological parent and will undoubtedly be outnumbered by children with heterosexual parents - a fact that they must come to terms with at some stage in their lives. How an individual copes with these facts may vary, for some it's easy, for some it might not be.

I recently read an article by a man raised by lesbian parents who voiced his true feelings regarding the matter. He wrote about others he knew who held similar attitudes about gay parenting but were reluctant to speak up:

"Those who contacted me all professed gratitude and love for the people who raised them, which is why it is so difficult for them to express their reservations about same-sex parenting publicly. 

Still, they described emotional hardships that came from lacking a mom or a dad. To give a few examples: they feel disconnected from the gender cues of people around them, feel intermittent anger at their “parents” for having deprived them of one biological parent (or, in some cases, both biological parents), wish they had had a role model of the opposite sex, and feel shame or guilt for resenting their loving parents for forcing them into a lifelong situation lacking a parent of one sex. 

The richest and most successful same-sex couple still cannot provide a child something that the poorest and most struggling spouses can provide: a mom and a dad. Having spent forty years immersed in the gay community, I have seen how that reality triggers anger and vicious recrimination from same-sex couples, who are often tempted to bad-mouth so-called “dysfunctional” or “trashy” straight couples in order to say, “We deserve to have kids more than they do!” 

But I am here to say no, having a mom and a dad is a precious value in its own right and not something that can be overridden, even if a gay couple has lots of money, can send a kid to the best schools, and raises the kid to be an Eagle Scout.

It’s disturbingly classist and elitist for gay men to think they can love their children unreservedly after treating their surrogate mother like an incubator, or for lesbians to think they can love their children unconditionally after treating their sperm-donor father like a tube of toothpaste."

If I were homosexual, I would be terrified of bringing a child into this world knowing that they might silently resent the situation I've forced onto them to fulfill my own desires and for choosing a lifestyle for them that applies only to a tiny percentage of the population. 

Having said that, I am more accepting of gay parents who ensure that the child's biological parents are well and truly involved in their lives. That way, a child has a clear picture of their beginning, or their origin, and would not feel detached from or deprived of a parent. The surrogate or sperm-donor should not be absent and shrouded in mystery, and should be a person the child knows and interacts with. I am also encouraging of adoption, where the children are often in need of a family to raise them. 

--- --- ---

I think it's important that we make people who are different feel comfortable with living the life they choose for themselves without facing discrimination. But we must be careful when our own choices begin to dictate the course of another individual's life as well. 

Femen Exposed

This update will be in reference to my previous post about Amina and her involvement with the Ukranian based feminist group. 

In my former article I expressed solidarity with Amina's freedom of expression, but refained from condoning Femen's activities, and wrote extensively on my approach to their method of activism. Femen fights for a woman's right to her own body, and their slogan runs as "Our mission is protest, our weapons are bare breasts". In my previous article I mentioned that by using nudity as a tool to fight female objectification is a counterproductive method. And a recent documentary directed by an Australian film-maker has confirmed and further reinforced my apprehensions about Femen as a group, and how it blurs the lines between freedom and sexual objectification.

Ukraine is not a Brothel, directed by 28-year-old Australian film-maker Kitty Green, has “outed” Victor Svyatski as the mastermind behind the group

Ms Green reveals that Svyatski is not simply a supporter of Femen but its founder and éminence grise. “It’s his movement and he hand-picked the girls. He hand-picked the prettiest girls because the prettiest girls sell more papers. The prettiest girls get on the front page... that became their image, that became the way they sold the brand,” she says. 

The film claims it was he who sent Femen activists on one of their most terrifying missions to Belarus where (according to testimony in the film) they were arrested by secret service agents, stripped, humiliated and abandoned in a forest close to the Ukranian border. 

Initially, Mr Svyatski refused to allow Ms Green to film him but she was determined that he should feature. “It was a big moral thing for me because I realised how this organisation was run. He was quite horrible with the girls. He would scream at them and call them bitches.” 

“These girls are weak,” he says in the film...“They don’t have the strength of character. They don’t even have the desire to be strong. Instead, they show submissiveness, spinelessness, lack of punctuality, and many other factors which prevent them from becoming political activists. These are qualities which it was essential to teach them.”

...when he is asked directly whether he started Femen “to get girls”, he replies: “Perhaps yes, somewhere in my deep subconscious.”  

One of the Femen campaigners talks of the relationship between the women and the movement’s founder as being akin to “Stockholm syndrome”, in which hostages feel sympathy for their captors.  

“We are psychologically dependent on him and even if we know and understand that we could do this by ourselves without his help, it’s psychological dependence,” she says. 

According to this documentary, Femen was allegedly founded and is run by a man who abuses his power, selects the female activists based on their appearance and controls where they go. He exploits the fact that they're weak and dependent and, in essence, "sells" their bodies for publicity. And the most important fact is that these women let him get away with it. Whether or not their protest is real, whether or not their fundamental message is valid, their fundamental method is degrading and inundated with chauvinism and sexual objectification. 

Or in other words, Femen does not practice what they preach. Surprised? I'm not.

Spoiler Alert - A Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled Hosseini

Oh dear, it's June! And I haven't written an article in almost a month. Things at work are getting more busy, and I've been trying to juggle a social life and work simultaneously. But I had to write something today.

I've been reading the novel A Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled Hosseini and trying my best to take it slowly. The story-line is so sad, and there are very few passages in the book which actually allow the readers to take a breath and enjoy a moment of peace or bliss with the characters. The writer almost guarantees that every happy moment will quickly turn into a heart-wrenching episode, so I've been finding myself holding my breath with dread during the good bits.

But I've arrived at a point in the book that has made me feel like someone has pulled the carpet from under my feet and made me fall to my doom in slow motion. The world around me has been put on mute, and my ears can only hear the sound of my insides screaming. I officially award Khaled Hosseini as the creator of the most unfortunate characters I have ever come across in my reading history.

Mariam and Laila, wives to a wretched old Afghan man named Rasheed, make a desperate attempt at running away from their mutual husband with Laila's baby girl Aziza. In a war-torn Afghanistan, crossing borders is near impossible for two women without a husband or mahram, a male relative. The women get caught out by a back-stabbing fellow traveler, arrested by police officers and  returned to Rasheed's home. Upon their return, Rasheed immediately punches Laila and drags her by her hair and her child into a room to lock them up. He then proceeds onto repeatedly beating a terrified and catatonic Mariam until she is bloodied and unconscious and locks her up in a small, dark tool-shed. Both women and the child are left to starve for the day.

It made me absolutely queasy to read this, so much so that I slammed the book shut and stared into space for a good few minutes with a lump rising in my throat. And to think, all of this could have been avoided if even ONE person, ONE man out of the traveler, police officer and Rasheed had even an ounce of compassion in their hearts. Below is a part of the conversation between Laila and the officer at the border to give an example of what I mean.

These people don't care about what happens to their women on a day to day basis. For them, being the ruling party is of utmost importance even if it's at the expense of innocent lives. You would think that after decades of fighting, they would come to realise that nothing has been achieved and instead their lifestyle has become progressively more unbearable.

In regards to domestic violence, I am often horrified by the fact that there is even a debate surrounding it.  The nonchalant response from the police officer to Laila's plea above is not just fictional, and is an attitude echoed by real-life Sharia enforcers including those residing in Western countries! A BBC Panorama program "Secrets of Britain's Sharia Councils" has found that clerics in certain Islamic family law courts in Britain often encourage women to remain married to violent men.

[An] undercover reporter [on the program]  is told not to contact police when she asks a senior cleric Suhaib Hasan (who has advocated stoning and amputation) whether she should report the violence she has suffered at the hands of her husband.  Mr Hasan also wrongly tells her that if she were to report the violence to the police, she “will have to leave the house”.  This is entirely untrue.  In fact, an abused spouse may apply to the Court for an Occupation Order, which can remove a violent spouse from the home – or a defined area surrounding the home – and can impose criminal sanctions if the order is not obeyed.  Mr Hasan’s advice is misleading and deliberately aimed at frightening women in to adhering to the Sharia Council’s authority.  Hasan also repeats the Sharia position that a man has the right to hit his wife provided he leaves no marks. He asks if her husband beats her “severely”.  When she questioned what was meant by “severely”, Hasan asks “it leaves some bruises on your body?”. 

Mr Hasan goes on to advise the undercover reporter to question herself as to what she had done to provoke this violence.  He suggests she ask her husband “is it because of my cooking?”, “is it because I see my friends?”.

Source: http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/on-bbc-panorama-programme-on-sharia-courts-it-is-enough-now/

--- --- ---

It disgusts me to hear men attempting to pin blame on a woman for incurring the wrath of her husband. Her cooking? Seeing her friends? Seriously? And also, what does it matter whether she is being beaten severely or not. Even a light slap is a symbolic gesture of dominance if only one partner is given the right to do it. Sometimes, having your dignity and rights stripped away from you is more painful to bear than a bruise.

A person who needs to impose their authority through force, strength and violence exposes their lack of ability to reason and articulate their way towards a solution. Physical strength is not a criteria for superiority, because if that were true, men would submit to lions, bears, elephants and a myriad of other animals that out-do their strength many times over. Those who make up excuses which allow domestic violence to continue unbridled are cowardly, lowly individuals and deserve nothing but condemnation. If you don't like your spouse, don't live with them!

That's what divorce is for.

Unfair Fairness

I am going to put aside more pressing issues to have a little (okay, maybe big) rant about something that affects me very much on a personal level. 

I was reading an article about "Why the world still favours white models" on Daily Life and it brought back many frustrating memories and realities like crashing waves against my mind.

The article discusses how the fashion industry is dominated by the white face, even in countries like Brazil where over half the population is either of Black and/or multi-racial decent. "In its entire 118-year existence," the article states, "Vogue has featured just 14 people of colour on its cover." The article argues that despite its shameless and constant misrepresentation of other skin tones, the fashion industry feels no impedance when using exotic, Eastern inspired backdrops for their photo-shoots. Coloured people often embody the role of props or a second grade subject complementing the white person in the foreground. And quite often their few black models only exist as a result of tokenism, to uphold a facade of integration and racial diversity to it's audience when in fact the reality is dishearteningly to the contrary. 

--- --- ---

I won't delve too deeply into the discussion of racism in fashion. What affects me more is when similar attitudes are reflected in communities where a vast number of people are of a darker skin tone, but still have to face this continuous harassment by the media and society which insists on portraying their skin colour as detestable and unattractive. 

Below is a recording of an advertisement for Fair Look cream. I have seen this ad playing on Indian television only a few weeks ago. This is a prime example of how media is contributing to a certain lack of self-esteem visible in dark-skinned people. The cream claims to lighten your skin tone and eliminate blemishes. The ad also features a number of alleged users of the brand, with obviously fake before and after shots of each person.

"Before, people used to call me Uncle. Then Fair Look removed all the marks and darkness on my face, and now I look younger!" One male user exclaimed. "I used to completely avoid sleeveless tops and skirts before because my arms were so black! But after using fair look I've become so white it's hard to believe!" Another female user cries breathlessly, "and now I can wear anything!"

Dark skin is hideous. Dark skin equates to an acne-prone, rough and aged appearance. Dark skinned people cannot wear whatever colour or style of clothing they choose. Dark skinned people have trouble finding a job. A dark skinned woman is unwanted for marriage or relationships. The sub-continental community is inundated with these ugly stereotypes. This is a disgusting and dangerously subtle form of racial apartheid in advertisements and TV shows that regularly go unnoticed by it's complicit viewers. But the psychological impacts are inevitable, and sadly many of our dark-skinned friends have conceded to their state of imposed inferiority. But where did this worship of fair skin spring from?

Some say it is because of the British colonial era, that is, as the rulers were fair toned, Indian people aspire to be like them. Others go further back than that, to a time when the Aryans came to India and founded the religion of Hinduism. In the ancient Hindu scriptures, the Vedas, the term used for caste is varna, or 'colour'. 

"...in the context of the arya's disparaging comments about the 'black' dasa (or the indigenous population of India) is often taken to mean that the higher castes also considered themselves to be fairer-skinned. This is now disputed. According to the Mahabharata the 'colours' associated with the four castes were white, red, yellow and black; they sound more like symbolic shades meted out by those category-conscious brahmanical minds..." (India: A History, John Keay, 2000)

Whether the justifications are rooted in Hindu scripture or British colonialism is besides the point. It is safe to say that the reasons for it are unscientific, racist and although each individual is entitled to a personal preference for a particular skin colour, these ideas have no place in the media, and fair skin or any other trait should not be exalted and imposed as an immovable standard of beauty by society. 

--- --- ---

Now, what does science say?

Skin colour, has evolved primarily as a regulator for vitamins in our body. I will quote extensively here to explain the natural history of skin colour development from the linked source:

"Between 4.5 million and 2 million years ago, early humans moved from the rain forest and onto the East African savanna. Once on the savanna, they not only had to cope with more exposure to the sun, but they also had to work harder to gather food. Mammalian brains are particularly vulnerable to overheating: A change of only five or six degrees can cause a heatstroke. So our ancestors had to develop a better cooling system.

...Early humans probably had few sweat glands, like chimpanzees, and those were mainly located on the palms of their hands and the bottoms of their feet. Occasionally, however, individuals were born with more glands than usual. The more they could sweat, the longer they could forage before the heat forced them back into the shade. The more they could forage, the better their chances of having healthy offspring and of passing on their sweat glands to future generations."

Increased sweat glands in the body went hand in hand with less bodily hair, as less hair ensured that humans dried up faster when perspiring. However, hairless skin was susceptible to sunlight. The evolution of melanin was hence required to control the entry of UV light in our bodies. Excess UV light reduces folate in our bodies - a component of vitamin B complex. Inhibition of folate is detrimental to sperm production, and correlates with neural tube defects in infants. Hence melanin has evolved for dispersing the adverse effects of increased sunlight exposure.  

"Unlike folate, vitamin D depends on ultraviolet light for its production in the body. (It is) believed that people who live in the north, where daylight is weakest, evolved fair skin to help absorb more ultraviolet light..."

--- --- ---

Rather than feeding useless messages of shallow intolerance towards people of colour in the media, the world would be much better off if they had dedicated advertisements to educating people about the essential vitamins they should keep under check, the dangers of tanning and skin cancer, bleaching products and alike, and to maintain a balanced and healthy diet. 

People should be encouraged to be confident about their unique qualities, and not present any one characteristic as being more desirable than another. Every person appears beautiful to their loved ones and most importantly, to themselves. And no filthy advertisement should attempt to pollute this idea!

Selective Sensibility

Really enjoyed reading an article by Australian columnist Waleed Aly today. The article begins with examples of recent Hollywood movies (namely, Iron Man 3, Skyfall, Looper) in which filmmakers have been driven to acknowledge China as a rising superpower in the global market and therefore cater to its audience. Iron Man 3 premiered in Beijing with China-cised screenings of the movie containing extended scenes by the nation's actors and incorporated Chinese product placement.

Waleed Aly alludes to the turning course of globalisation as the West begins to include Asian/Middle Eastern cultures in the media. This can also be demonstrated by stars from Bollywood crossing over to Hollywood as well as figures such as PSY of Gangnam Style achieving incredible fame in the West. Waleed discusses how Western news headlines have sometimes depicted these events as representing the growing subservience of the West to Eastern sensibilities, which of course is a double-standard considering the obvious/widespread influences the West has had on the Eastern culture.

But what bewildered me the most was the story of Australians' outrage at Qantas's changed menu for flights into and out of Dubai, as a part of their new partnership with Emirates. Qantas will now be serving 'halal' accredited meals on flights through Dubai, and leaving pork and alcohol based items off the menu. For this they've attracted nicknames like 'Al-Qantas' or the 'Mosque-a-roo'. The comments made by readers of the Daily Mail reflected a shocking intolerance towards anything Islamic, especially for a matter so silly. Here is a screenshot of the top comments by readers:

I am not here to discuss whether the Islamic (or Jewish) tradition of not eating pork is justifiable by logical reasoning or modern science. It probably is not. But I believe this outrage is somewhat biased, based on racism, ego and to a degree, ignorance. Let me give some reasons why I think it's unreasonable to be protesting about this:

• Firstly, it is common practice for airlines to adjust their menu according to their fliers' dietary requirements and/or tastes. Qantas itself does not serve pork en-route to Jakarta, for example. I have traveled on airlines on which they've served Bangladeshi specials such as kichudi and beef curry. It's a nice gesture to consider the sentiments of customers and there's nothing outlandish about it.
• In my opinion, it would be annoying for stewards working on such flights to be constantly bombarded with specific requests for pork or alcohol to be excluded from meals. Not serving it at all is the most practical solution, especially considering that they don't offer a diverse menu on planes anyway!
• Waleed's article quoted one reader saying "[our] religion has been disrespected by removal of pork products" - Waleed rightly points out that eating pork is no "religious sacrament" for any religion, so it's ridiculous to claim that their religion has been disrespected. This is tantamount to accusing Indian/Pakistani/Indonesian/Middle Eastern restaurants of disrespect for not serving pork. It is simply better business for them as it attracts a larger pool of customers.
• On objecting halal slaughtering methods - I understand why this might be concerning. In Australia, animals are stunned by electricity or a captive bolt in the brain before slaughtering so that the animal does not feel pain. In halal slaughtering, or dhabihah, the animal is conscious. Although common sense will tell you that the stunning system is probably more humane, surprisingly, the matter is subject to research and debate which can conclude that both methods are suitable if performed correctly. In essence, the process of farming and slaughtering animals is inevitably cruel regardless of the method used. I am sure the airlines will have vegetarian alternatives for those concerned.
• And finally, the fear that Qantas is bowing down Arab sentiments is an unfair assumption, since almost all Middle Eastern flights serve alcohol to it's customers, counter to their religious customs. So dropping pork from a menu of a few items is really not that big a deal.

I think it's a great thing the West is taking Asian cultures seriously. People should really let go of their double standards and embrace the multicultural world we live in. I strongly agree to condemning the practices of any culture/religion that is oppressive, discriminatory and inhumane, but there are many traditions that are relatively harmless. So to violently oppose them is a somewhat unnecessary and only fuels the growth of racism and intolerance in a world where there is no shortage of it.

The Savar Tragedy

Devastation swept through Bangladesh as news of the collapsed Rana Plaza in Savar echoed throughout the country several days ago. At least 3000 people - mostly garments workers - were inside the building when it collapsed at 9am on Wednesday morning. The building owner had been forewarned of its structural inadequacies on Tuesday by industrial police who had observed large cracks in the building, advising that work be suspended immediately. These warnings were ignored, and workers were pushed to attend work regardless. The top 4 floors of the 8 story building were also constructed illegally. Details of the story can be read here. As of now, over 360 people are known to be dead and 2500 have survived, although 1000 suffer injuries of which many are critical.

Rescue teams as well as the general public have been gently and carefully lifting survivors into safety. They've been selflessly risking their lives, rummaging through the rubble for signs of life and distant, hopeful cries for help, night and day, rain or shine. By now the stench of decomposing bodies is unbearably strong, and larger machinery such as cranes are being brought in to lift the concrete pieces as hopes of recovering further bodies by a slower process diminishes. BBC has posted photographs of the incessant and extremely courageous rescue efforts on the scene.

Bangladesh houses some 3.2 million garment workers, mostly female, who sew clothes for big Western brands such as Wal-mart, Primark, Gap, Mango, Matalan etc. They work for 12-14 hour shifts, 30 days a month for an average wage of a meager $37/month. Aside from structural integrity, Bangladeshi garments factories also lack emergency fire evacuation exits as exposed by the Tazreen Fashion factory burning in November 2012, in which 117 were killed. Following investigations it was found that a supplier was using clothing from Tazreen without Wal-mart's approval.

This disaster, alongside many other cases of indecent safety standards in third world factories (e.g. in Vietnam, Cambodia, China, Mexico), have attracted criticism from rights groups against large Western companies that exploit cheap labour in these countries without taking responsibility for safety. The companies do not own the building, but this is not sufficient justification for neglect if they are using the products manufactured by the workers there.

Western activists criticise retailers and apparel companies for not doing more to force improvements in a country where working conditions are poor and government oversight is lax.

Companies often resist efforts to force a deeper discussion about the tradeoffs.

Before Wal-Mart invited shareholders to this year's annual meeting, to take place June 7, the board of directors rebuffed another effort to force a shareholder vote on workplace safety issues.

According to documents filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, a shareholder presented a proposal to require the company to report on its progress for assessing risks to human rights in its operations and supply chain. But Wal-Mart said the proposal was so similar to the one that failed in 2011, and that it already addresses the request through its standards for suppliers, that it did not merit reconsideration. The SEC approved its decision to reject the request for a shareholder vote.

Source: http://bdnews24.com/bangladesh/2013/04/27/despite-disasters-bangladesh-works-for-retailers

It just makes me sick to my stomach to think that retail giants continue to get richer by wringing every ounce of production possible from the poor, with complete disregard for their lives. The Walton family, founders of Wal-mart, is the richest family in the world. People like Glenn Murphy, CEO of Gap, earns a staggering salary of $1.5 million a year. Maybe this is unrelated, maybe these facts are disjointed and irrelevant, but I'm just underlining the gulf of difference between the rich and the poor in this world. Exactly how much more money do they need for themselves at the expense of our innocent people? It's very heartbreaking.

...the Clean Clothes Campaign calls upon brands sourcing from Bangladesh to sign on to theBangladesh Fire and Building Safety Agreement immediately.

The CCC, together with local and global unions and labour rights organisations has developed a sector-wide program for action that includes independent building inspections, worker rights training, public disclosure and a long-overdue review of safety standards. It is transparent as well as practical, and unique in being supported by all key labour stakeholders in Bangladesh and internationally.

This agreement has been signed last year by PVH Corp, and campaigners are hoping that the signing of this agreement will pave the way for establishing safer work environments in Bangladesh's retail industry. The National Garment Workers Federation of Bangladesh has also been fighting for this cause and has lodged a petition on Change.org.

>> Please sign this petition and share: http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/primarkjobs-mango-matalan-ensure-safety-for-workers-compensate-victims-of-building-collapse <<

The collapsed Rana Plaza in Savar, Bangladesh

No human life should be sacrificed simply to maintain the luxury of consumerism in the developed world. Every person who died in this tragedy represents an established life and a family. This is not only the responsibility of Western retailers, but every person involved in the construction of these buildings, such as the engineers and owners who were rightfully arrested over the last few days, as well as the corruption of the government/bureaucrats for not ensuring that people are paid their due wage and rights. The tragedy reflects the deep injustices and malpractices abundant within society and deserves immediate attention from us all as a whole.

Abortion (again)

Yes yes, I am aware that there is bigger news out there (namely, Boston Marathon bombing) but first let me get this article out of my system. I think it has brought forward some contentious issues and facts which I believe is useful for me to address here just so that my blog can act as another outlet/source that brings together this kind of information on abortion.

--- --- --- 

Full Article: http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/could-this-happen-here-20130415-2hvh5.html

I found the above article on Daily Life (Sydney Morning Herald) which, by the way, is increasingly becoming one of my favourite leisure time reading websites for their exploration of gender issues. The article is titled "Could this happen here?" - referring to the possibility of stricter abortion laws coming to Australia if the Abbot government gains power in the next election. And, with the advent of LifeChoice groups on NSW university campuses, I believe the abortion debate is very relevant to the present mindset of Australian youth.

The article first reflects on the current status of women's reproductive rights in America, and how conservative politics, particularly during George Bush's government, has encouraged states to limit abortion rights. Some means by which these restrictions have been implemented over the last 1-2 years include:

• Transvaginal ultrasounds - in Virginia, Arizona, Oklahoma, Louisiana - a bill was passed requiring that a forced 'diagnostic ultrasound' of the fetus be undertaken two hours prior to performing an abortion, in order to ascertain the age and viability of the fetus. 
• The article asserts that this method is a "vile abuse of power". A patient is subjected to an unnecessary medical examination that invades her body with the aim of 'humanising' the fetus and inducing her guilt.
• Restriction of state health funding for Planned Parenthood and other health centres that provide abortion services - in Arizona, North Carolina. 
• In actual fact, abortion makes up only 3% of PP's patient care services (see pie-chart below). The lack of funding not only curbs access to abortion, but also limits the ability of these centres to provide essential services like cancer screenings, contraception,  STD testing and pre-natal care for poorer women reliant on these facilities.

Source: http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/

• In 2011, South Dakota proposed a legislation that could potentially allow for the 'justifiable homicide'  or the killing of abortion providers. This is a tremendously regressive proposal that unjustly equates abortion to manslaughter.  
• Recently, North Dakota also passed the 'Heartbeat Bill' - a horrendously backward law that rules against the termination of a pregnancy if a heartbeat is detected (detection is possible as early as 6 weeks). This law is all-encompassing, meaning it is applicable even in cases of rape or genetic abnormalities in the fetus. 
• I am surprised at how this bill can be passed in light of the fact that an Irish-Indian woman died late last year from septicemia after being admitted to hospital for miscarriage pain. The hospital consultant had repeatedly refused the poor lady's request to abort her child based on the understanding that they had detected a fetal heartbeat and that Ireland is a "Catholic country" - Read: http://www.smh.com.au/world/irish-hospital-told-husband-foetus-would-die-20130409-2hi0q.html

All of this, for me, seems somewhat extreme for an Australian context. But I was surprised to learn that abortion laws in Australia are not as liberal as I had expected. Nevertheless, they are far more rational than the appalling Heartbeat Bill of North Dakota. Here is a quoted summary of Australian laws from http://www.childrenbychoice.org.au:

• Queensland & New South Wales: Abortion a crime (bad!) for women and doctors. Legal when doctor believes a woman’s physical and/or mental health is in serious danger.  In NSW social, economic and medical factors maybe taken into account. (good!)
• Australian Capital Territory: Legal, must be provided by medical doctor.
• Victoria: Legal to 24 weeks. Legal post-24 weeks with two doctors’ approval.
• South Australia & Tasmania: Legal if two doctors agree that a woman’s physical and/or mental health endangered by pregnancy, or for serious foetal abnormality. Counselling compulsory in Tasmania. (hmm...) Unlawful abortion a crime.
• Western Australia: Legal up to 20 weeks, some restrictions particularly for under 16s. Very restricted after 20 weeks.
• Northern Territory: Legal to 14 weeks if 2 doctors agree that woman’s physical and/or mental health endangered by pregnancy, or for serious foetal abnormality. Up to 23 weeks in an emergency.

It often seems like some pro-life advocates have cleverly sugar coated their misogynistic principles with slogans for preserving the sanctity of life. According to PP, the states with the strictest abortion laws also lack reform in areas concerning women in education, poverty, female-to-male income ratio, women in legislature as well as childcare/foster care/welfare/and education funding. These people cannot be pro-life, if they are disregarding women's lives. By contrast, the establishment of safe and reliable abortion practices in the US have shown social/mental and health benefits in families. For example, couples who were previously discouraged by the prospect of giving birth to a genetically abnormal baby are now hoping for a child with the assistance of amniocentesis (a test conducted by taking a uterine fluid sample and screening for unusual fetal developments) and abortion services. Women who are most affected by unwanted childbirth such as teenagers and single mothers now have the option of re-planning their life (Source: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/med_social_benefits_2009-11.pdf).

I have written about this issue before, and I will say again, that my pro-choice stance is in no way founded upon disrespect for human life, motherhood or for children. But there are numerous possible scenarios that may necessitate abortion. The availability of safe, legal and accessible abortion clinics is therefore essential, particularly so that the less privileged in society are not driven to seek attention from the likes of Kermit Gosnell - a freak doctor in Pennsylvania who was charged with "delivering seven babies alive and then using scissors to kill them" (Details: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/19/kermit--gosnell-charged_n_810976.html)

--- --- ---

Further information on anti-choice measures that have been enacted in 2012 can be found in The Status of Women's Reproductive Rights in the USA report by NARAL Pro-choice America at the following link: http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/assets/download-files/2013-who-decides.pdf.