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! :)

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.

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.

March Wrap Up

So there were a number of articles that I found interesting over last month, but either didn't get time to write about them or had forgotten that I had saved their links. I will share each one here and make short comments also.

--- --- ---

Full Article: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/christianity/creation-scientist-offering-10000-anyone-who-can-disprove-genesis-creation

March 27, 2013

A Californian scientist "Dr. Mastropaolo is certain that the Biblical creation narrative found in Genesis can be defended in the face of evolutionary science. In fact, he’s so sure of this that he’s willing to bet $10,000 on it." Dr Mastropaolo is a Young Earth Creationist, i.e., he believes the world is between 6000 and 10000 years old.

I am really not sure where this guy received his "science" education from, but your average high school student should be able to tell him about a phenomenon called radioactive dating from the decay of unstable isotopes, and fossil layers. Chapter 4 - Silence and Slow Time - of Richard Dawkins book, The Greatest Show on Earth, explains both the difficulties and the successes of the method. He says that although fossils are generally embedded within sedimentary rock which cannot be dated, layers of igneous rock associated with sedimentary layers CAN be dated. He also explains that there are 158 unstable isotopes of which 121 are extinct. The extinct isotopes are those with half-lives of under 200 million years, while the surviving isotopes have half-lives greater than 700 million years. This alone shows the world is not 6000-10000 years old because if it was, all 157 isotopes would still be present. 

The reason why evolutionary science cannot disprove the creation story is because religious fruitcakes insist on it being a metaphor, and re-interpret it for every scientific discovery that invalidates it. So there is no way to challenge a shifting story.

--- --- ---

Full Article: http://www.smh.com.au/world/delhi-has-four-rapes-a-day-says-minister-20130307-2fopq.html

March 8, 2013

Just a few horrifying statistics on the number of rapes in India. You will all remember the barbaric incident from late last year where a 23 year old girl in Delhi had been raped on a bus, beaten, had her genitals mutilated by an iron bar and stripped of her clothing before being dumped naked with her boyfriend on the side of the road by five men. She died from her internal injuries two weeks later. This grueling story has put India in the hot seat and brought worldwide attention to their neglect of rape cases. Since then more women have become braver about coming forward with complaints. The report states:

"Minister of State for Home Affairs Mullappally Ramachandran told the Indian Parliament's upper house 181 rapes had been reported in the city between January 1 and February 15, an average of about four a day." (OMG!)

"In 2012, 706 rapes were reported, at an average of less than two per day. The increased rate might be attributable to increased reporting of assaults."

--- --- ---

Full Article: http://www.smh.com.au/world/push-to-make-black-magic-a-crime-in-indonesia-20130308-2fpc7.html

March 8, 2013

I found this article mostly amusing. The black magic law is harmless, but just a little bit out of place in the 21st century. What is of concern though is the prospect of jailing those who live together outside of wedlock. It says:

"Australian travellers to Indonesia beware: smuggling drugs will still earn you jail time but, if an official draft of the country's new criminal code becomes law, witches and people practising "black magic", even adulterers and those living together outside wedlock, may also be locked away. 

The new draft law is meant to modernise Indonesia's 1918 Criminal Code, which was last updated in 1958, but some of its proposals constitute a big step back to the Middle Ages. 

In a country where many people earnestly believe that they could be killed, injured or robbed by a sorcerer using black magic, that crime will, for the first time, become part of the criminal law."

Oh, and it also states that "white" magic is perfectly legal :-P Sometimes articles like these make me realise how futile my hope for enlightenment is, where so many people in the largest Islamic population in the world still believe magic is real. If only it was real, I would have asked for an end to poverty and injustice with the wave of a wand.

--- --- ---

Full Article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/14/britons-iraq-invasion-wrong-poll

March 14, 2013

Thought this survey was interesting and showed how the people of Britain and probably other Allied nations understand that all the rhetoric about fighting terrorism and weapons of mass destruction from over 10 years ago has not made a lasting impression on good people, and that the majority now know how destructive the wars have been for their own countries and its international relations.

"More than half the British public believe the decision to invade Iraq was wrong and more than a fifth believe Tony Blair should be tried as a war criminal, according to a poll conducted to mark the 10th anniversary of the conflict.  

A majority (56%) of the public believe the war has increased the risk of a terrorist attack on Britain. More than half, (53%), of those questioned think the invasion was wrong, while just over a quarter (27%) think it was right, according to the YouGov survey.... 

More than a fifth (22%) believe Blair knowingly misled parliament and the public and should be tried as a war criminal over the conflict, according to the poll."

--- --- ---

Full Article(s): http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/15/muslim-brotherhood-backlash-un-womens-rights
http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=30731

March 15, 2013

Ok so my comments for the above two articles (which should be read in conjunction with one another) might shound ranty, but is oh-so-necessary for me cause it simply makes my blood boil. The articles are about the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt's denouncement of the very rational, humanistic and egalitarian conclusions of a UN declaration that seeks to 'End Violence against Women" (see link to conclusions at the end of post). Between the 4th and 15th of March 2013, at the New York UN Headquarters, the 57th session on the UN Commision on the Status of Women (CSW) convened to discuss the declaration. 

The Brotherhood's denouncement states:

"...The (declaration) includes articles that contradict established principles of Islam, undermine Islamic ethics and destroy the family, the basic building block of society, according to the Egyptian Constitution. 

This declaration, if ratified, would lead to complete disintegration of society, and would certainly be the final step in the intellectual and cultural invasion of Muslim countries.... 

A closer look at these articles reveals what decadence awaits our world, if we sign this document: 

1. Granting girls full sexual freedom, as well as the freedom to decide their own gender and the gender of their partners (ie, choose to have normal or homo- sexual relationships), while raising the age of marriage. 

2. Providing contraceptives for adolescent girls and training them to use those, while legalizing abortion to get rid of unwanted pregnancies, in the name of sexual and reproductive rights.

3. Granting equal rights to adulterous wives and illegitimate sons resulting from adulterous relationships. 

4. Granting equal rights to homosexuals, and providing protection and respect for prostitutes. 

5. Giving wives full rights to file legal complaints against husbands accusing them of rape or sexual harassment, obliging competent authorities to deal husbands punishments similar to those prescribed for raping or sexually harassing a stranger. 

6. Equal inheritance (between men and women). 

7. Replacing guardianship with partnership, and full sharing of roles within the family between men and women such as: spending, child care and home chores. 

8. Full equality in marriage legislation such as: allowing Muslim women to marry non-Muslim men, and abolition of polygamy, dowry, men taking charge of family spending, etc. 

9. Removing the authority of divorce from husbands and placing it in the hands of judges, and sharing all property after divorce. 

10. Cancelling the need for a husband’s consent in matters like: travel, work, or use of contraception.  

These are destructive tools meant to undermine the family as an important institution; they would subvert the entire society, and drag it to pre-Islamic ignorance... 

In conclusion, we call on women's organizations to commit to their religion and morals of their communities and the foundations of good social life and not be deceived with misleading calls to decadent modernization and paths of subversive immorality..."

It saddens me that words like equal rights, sexual rights, reproductive rights, protection, sharing, partnership, respect and freedom are seen to be threatening by these people. In  no way do any of the above points undermine family. There are so many practices in Islamic countries that undermine family, and force women to remain in households that are harmful and belittling for themselves as well as well as their children. And although it may be true that abortion should essentially be an upsetting concept or experience for a parent, a number of benefits with regards to family life have been observed in areas in the United States where abortion was legalised and made safe and accessible to women. Benefits can be found on the Planned Parenthood website here: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/med_social_benefits_2009-11.pdf

Egyptian people have fought hard to overthrow the Mubarak government, against its dictatorship, corruption and violation of human rights. It will be absolutely heartbreaking if the revolution became wasted on the mere transferal of one dictatorship to another.

CSW Conclusions 2013: daw/csw/csw57/CSW57_agreed_conclusions_advance_unedited_version_18_March_2013.pdf

Amina

Many of you may have heard about Amina, the girl from Tunisia being threatened with stoning by Islamists in her country for posting two topless photographs of herself on Facebook. In both photos she had scribbled across her chest powerful messages in favour of women's rights, such as "my body belongs to me, and is not the source of the honor of anyone" (in Arabic) and "Fuck your morals". For further details on the event refer to the article at the end of this post.

Renowned activist Maryam Namazie is petitioning and campaigning for Amina to be released, and I am fully supportive of her cause. On 4 April 2013, she has called for an International Day to Defend Amina. Maryam's blog can be viewed here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/ - **this page contains uncensored photos of Amina**

A petition for the cause can be found at: http://www.change.org/petitions/petitioning-tunisian-government-amina-must-be-safe  I encourage anyone concerned to sign this ASAP!!

Amina
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/03/26/topless-tunisian-femen-protester-amina-tyler-home-well-lawyer_n_2954864.html

The incident is a grave violation of human rights. Nobody should be able get away with condemning, suppressing  persecuting or harming any individual and stripping them of their rights to express themselves in whatever way they wish. Amina did not hurt anybody, only rightly and boldly demanded her freedom. Her safety is our utmost concern for the moment.

--- --- ---

However, safety and rights aside, I do have some objections to the method of protest chosen by Amina - or FEMEN - the Ukrainian activist group with whom Amina is affiliated. For groups like FEMEN and activists located in Europe or America or Australasia, it is easy to coordinate radical protests and encourage young girls to participate in nude activism. But they should be conscious of the fact that Islamic governments can take drastic actions against these young girls and ruin their lives and their families. This is not a small price to pay. Amina is a teenager, so I am not convinced that she was fully aware of the possible repercussions of this campaign.

People like Maryam Namazie and myself can sit safely behind our computer screens and write blogs about equality because we reside in secular nations, but ultimately the people who suffer are the girls living in Tunisia, Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi and alike.

Very few in this vastly uneducated world of ours can be enlightened overnight by looking at Amina's photograph. Only the educated or secular- minded will understand her profound symbolism. That is:

• I alone can define what my body represents and how I should use it. 

• Nobody, including my family, has the right to accuse me of being dishonorable by the way I choose to treat my body. They cannot blame my lifestyle for offending them, or bringing dishonor to them. 

• My body is not an object of gaze, sexual desire or a commodity that can be bought and sold. 

• My body is natural and nothing to be ashamed of. I should not have to hide it to keep men and their lustful advances at bay. Controlling themselves is their responsibility, not mine.

When explained, these demands are clear. But when conveyed through nude photography the message is confusing, somewhat contradictory, intangible and not something the majority in Islamic/conservative countries can relate with. The open display of nudity, particularly female nudity, is a concept so far removed from their culture and what they are accustomed to that such activism will only result in girls like Amina to be labelled as perverted, derailed and characterless. Topless activism can merely generate an immediate hype or shock, but not win mass support of Muslims. We need to understand the demographics of a country or a society before propelling new and confronting ideas in their realm. With nude photographs, we can only anger the extremists, embarrass/confuse/entertain the common people, and put those involved in danger. This is not an effective strategy, as this is not an ideal world. 

I believe that the No. 1 weapon against the propagation of degrading moral systems like misogyny, is education and awareness. I cannot stress enough the importance of education for the progress of any nation. And I'm not referring to university degrees or higher school certificates, I'm talking about the kind of education that makes you capable of making a distinction between good and bad morality. Change can only occur if new ideas are introduced slowly while maintaining respectful attitudes towards those we are fighting against, and by keeping with the standards of discourse expected in this day and age. People will listen to us if we are cordial, and appear trustworthy.

In my opinion, re-claiming of my body would be better achieved by:

• Drawing focus to my intelligence rather than my body, and the contributions I make to my surroundings, my community and my family.

• Ensuring that I speak assertively but firmly – using references - to invalidate any harmful/extremist ideas I come across.

• Organising seminars, free thought groups on university campuses, peaceful rallies. Distribute fliers and open stalls.

• Share information with friends/family on networking sites to raise awareness. Create vlogs/blogs/articles/letters to the officials. Street art! Draw tasteful caricatures, cartoons.

If it is in your capacity, then open libraries and encourage reading. Reach out to remote areas of the world and teach women how to become literate, give them access to information through the internet/television/radio/mobile phones. Teach them how to attain the knowledge and resources needed for financial independence and empowerment.

--- --- ---

The reasons why I believe the topless protest is counterproductive is because we are trying to resolve hypersexualisation/commercialisation of the female body by using the body itself. It's artistic, it's abstract, but it's confusing. FEMEN have started a Facebook page where girls can post their topless photos to show solidarity with Amina. The comments by men on these posts speak for themselves, reflecting how blurry their understanding of the matter is, and the photos are just feeding men's eyes like always. Some comments on the photos include: 

"What better way to objectify women than to scrawl on their bodies ...derp!"

 "Post this on Tunisian sites, this is is just reaching USA and Europe, nothing more than that....."
"Yummy!" 

"Amina doesn't need nipples, she needs men with balls to get her back"
"Beautiful"

"Get her out now!"
 "I don't see anything sexual about Femen's protests, I see angry women. I think people must already be thinking of women as sex objects in order to see sex objects!"

"The breasts are for feeding babies and sexually attract potential mates, none of these functions can be denied, therefore Femen's protests with bare breasts are undoubtedly of a sexual nature for most healthy men in reproductive age. If that's right or wrong deserves a separate discussion."
"I agree that Amina should be freed. She should do herself a favor though and cut off all ties with Femen who have proven time and time again to be nothing but a bunch of male-hating airheads with breasts. That said, I admire REAL feminists, not violent nutters like Femen. After all, my mother was one."

Among other mixed feedback. Some are extremely positive, some nonchalant, some men are just happy to see "free nipples" on FB.

Remember when Malala Yousafzai was shot by the Taliban? The amount of respect and support she received throughout the world was overwhelming. This is because her message was clear, not mirky. She didn't resort to scandalous means to convey her thoughts. She frankly wrote about everything her little heart wanted. Our teenagers should be assertive, vocal, but not repellent or self-destructive.

I know, our bodies are natural nothing to be ashamed of. And the extremists deserve to be shaken up and shocked. Their views should be turned upside down ASAP. But most societies are still not prepared for a radical cultural reformation. And most importantly, where do we draw the line between anarchy and freedom of expression? Just like our breasts, sex is natural and not shameful. Islam requires men to cover parts of their body between the navel and the knee. But a man's penis, buttocks, pelvic area and thighs are all natural and have important non-sexual functions as well. Can we then arrange for public orgies, or a public display of penises/buttocks as well? 

To be frank, I don't want to live in a world where men are desensitised/not excited by women's bodies and vice versa. We would be lying to ourselves if we claimed our breasts are NOT inherently sexual. I believe that we are all a dichotomy of our carnal desires and intellectual rationality. We need to embrace this, and organise our thoughts/actions keeping our fundamental nature in mind. 

--- --- ---

Full Article: http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/is-this-photo-grounds-for-death-20130325-2gpi2.html

>> DON'T FORGET TO SIGN THE PETITION ABOVE!  <<

Women

Since I have started my blog with some female-oriented topics, I thought I really should make a post that pays tribute to International Women's Day. Somewhere, either on a blog or online newspaper I saw a comment box which was collecting people's nominations for women who inspire them, whether it be a family member or a famous figure. Once I saw this I realised how I'd never really thought about this question. I have no famous or non-famous great female idol who I credit as being my inspiration.

So I did a little search on the internet for "the most inspirational females in history" and some interesting lists popped up. One particular site categorised some relatively modern leading women into specialist groups such as "Activists and Campaigners" or "Science and Technology" (the link to the article is given at the end of this post). I selected a few categories and one woman under the "Writing and Academia" section caught my attention.

This lady was Margaret Atwood. The reason she caught my eye was because she was one of the few people on the list whose work I was actually familiar with. Below I've quoted the article's background to the writer, as well as the photograph on its page.

Margaret Atwood, Photograph: Murdo Macleod for The Guardian

Margaret Atwood's dystopian novel The Handmaid's Tale has been a relevation for millions of readers – offering a terrifying glimpse of a parallel future where biological determinism and misogyny are taken to their logical conclusions. It's a cautionary tale of a world without feminism, and after the excesses of the Taliban's regime in Afghanistan seems more prescient than ever. As Atwood, 61, said: "People would blithely say, 'It couldn't happen here,' but this kind of thing can happen anywhere given the right kind of turmoil."

I read the book A Handmaid's Tale towards the end of last year, and although it's not the most exciting read, it is definitely a very powerful and thought-provoking book. What would life really look like if women were treated as baby making incubators? What, really, is an ideal society for women and men, and is modern society really any superior to older generations with respect to its treatment and representations of women?

While I was reading the book last year, I took a snapshot of what I believed to be the most poignant part of the book. The protagonist, a "handmaid", is on duty at the home of an important gentleman who's wife is infertile. Her job is to engage in intercourse, devoid of any enjoyment or emotion, with her master under the supervision of his wife so that she may conceive a child through her handmaid. At all other times, the handmaid is veiled. The master, who in the book known as the Commander, begins to secretly invite the handmaid to his study at nights to exchange conversation and talk about the time they left behind where women were free:

"Love", she says. She says the right to love, and be loved, is what was overlooked in that world. It is important to love a woman, because once you truly love someone, there is really nothing else you can deprive her of. In the Handmaid's Tale, the women were fighting for acceptance with their wombs, in the modern West they compete with their beauty and social grace. 

It's not completely ideal anywhere, but wherever a woman is free to love and is loved, that will always be a better place :)

HAPPY INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY!

Full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/series/top-100-women

B&!*hes Be Crazy

A few months ago I came across the podcast based bloggers "Godless Bitches" who are a group of females who discuss various issues and events from a secularist (if that's the right term) standpoint. The three main speakers are Beth, Jen and Tracie. I think all of these girls feature occasionally on the show "The Atheist Experience" - IMO, Matt Dillahunty, one of the main hosts of this show, is an amazing personality and I have never seen him fail at making an argument. He is a well read, very knowledgeable and an incredibly wise person and if anybody is interested in pro-secular morality then do visit one of their episodes on YouTube.

Getting back to my story, when I was on the ladies' blog a few months ago I was surprised by one of their segments on pro-choice for women seeking abortion. I am definitely pro-choice, but it saddened me to see these girls strip away all emotion when discussing the concept of having an unplanned baby. Really girls, are babies THAT bad?

The bulk of the discussion was centered around the logic that:

• A woman should have all the right to decide what she does with her body
• Nobody has the right to use her body and the nourishment it provides without her consent 

I think their choice of words seemed frigid and mechanical. Topics like these are delicate, and although I'm all for rational and logical discourse, the way abortion was talked about was a bit strange. 

Firstly, referring to a fetus as some kind of squatter or parasitic organism that occupies a woman’s body without “consent” is an absurd and irrelevant comparison to make, specially considering that a fetus is in no position to seek “consent” in the first place. You cannot say the fetus is not a person until born, and then accuse it of being inside you without consent as though it is a fully functioning person separate from the mother. That is contradictory to the pro-choice argument.

If we are talking about consent, the two people answerable to this question are the parents - by engaging in intercourse knowing very well the probability of falling pregnant (which will vary according to what contraceptive method you’re using) is a form of indirect consent. There’s no paper signing here, it's all about reading the fine-print and being aware of the possibilities of your actions before taking them. I say scrap this confusing "the fetus is like a parasite" line of debate and instead focus on why we need abortion in the first place so that we can defend the rights of those who really need it.

I am pro-choice simply because I understand that there are women who have been raped or sexually used and abused, are too young/poor to mother a child, or are under a health risk due to the pregnancy. All of these situations and others can be helped by abortion. If having a child is detrimental to the mother's health/well being, then of course the sole decider is the mother. But for self-sufficient, educated and Godless women, who have no fear of being judged by religion/society for having illegitimate children - the decision should be made by both parents and rests on their individual and emotional discretions. 

We often forget the role of the father in this issue. Why is the decision to abort or not abort only given to the woman, when the father has just as much right to WANT the child? Men don’t have the option of carrying a child, and this is reality. If you can’t handle the responsibility, but the father can and is willing, then why not let him? I'm always reminded of the situation between Christina and Owen in Grey's Anatomy. I think it was unfair of Christina to crush Owen's dream of becoming a father simply because of her career, even though he agreed to take full responsibility for taking care of the baby.

Beth and Tracie also discussed whether the same logic would still stand if we extended it to a new born baby. She suggested a situation where a mother and her new born is stranded on a deserted island where food is scarce, and hence breastfeeding the baby would be energy-draining for the mother. Would it then be logical for the mother to deny the baby its right to breast milk  in order to keep herself alive, as it is her body and she can choose what to do with it.

I thought it was useless trying to compare a fully functioning newborn to a fetus. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure such a case would most likely be related to man-slaughter! So I will leave out my verdict on the case.

You can’t judge every situation with a legal definition of “freedom of choice, or freedom to use my body as I please” - our humanity is our litmus test. Laws change from country to country, but any decent human being should know when it is right to keep a child. I think the law should trust that base instinct, and allow people, both men and women if the father is available, to make that choice through a negotiation process.

Full episode: http://godlessbitches.podbean.com/2012/06/24/episode-215/