The Vagaries of Moral Progress (8): Educating Girls in Afghanistan

Afghan girls listen during class at the Markaz high school in Bamiyan, Afghanistan, in October last year. In the peaceful province of Bamiyan, girls are able to attend school without any fears. Photograph: Paula Bronstein/Getty Images

(source)

Hard to believe perhaps, but in 1974 there were coeducation schools in Helmand, Afghanistan (source). Then in 1996 the Taliban issued a decree that banned girls above the age of 8 from receiving any instruction at all, let alone coed. (And I’m not even mentioning all the other stuff they did and continue to do). About 1.2 million students were enrolled in “schools” during the Taliban regime, with less than 50,000 of them girls. Taliban “schools” were essentially madrasas focused on teaching the Quran at the expense of everything else.

Now, more than 3 million girls go to school; the total number of students is about 10 million. Both access and quality have improved, but are as yet grossly insufficient. Things like this continue to happen.

More on Afghanistan. More posts in this series.

Gender Discrimination (34): Public Opinion on Domestic Violence

(source)

One can, to some extent, understand – but not condone! – men who approve of domestic violence. After all, they may have good self-interested reasons to engage in it (power is useful). However, the level of female acquiescence is just baffling:

On average, 29 percent of women in countries with data concurred that wife beating was justified for arguing with the husband, 25 percent for refusing to have sex, and 21 percent for burning food. In Guinea, 60 percent of women found it permissible to be beaten for refusing to have sex with their spouses. In Ethiopia, 81 percent of women say that it is justified for a husband to beat his wife for at least one of the reasons listed in the Demographic and Health Surveys; 61 percent reported violence to be appropriate for burning food and 59 percent for arguing with their husbands. (source, source)

More about domestic violence. More posts in this series.

Sexism, A Collection of Images (5)

women clean the house, and stay slim at the same time

women make breakfast

women work in the kitchen

women do the dishes

women are responsible for educating their children

in China, beautiful women serve coffee on international women’s day

women look old rather quickly

women smell

some women can project their equipment

More sexist images here, here and here.

Religion and Human Rights (31): Polygamy, Right or Rights Violation?

(source)

In the U.S., 9 states – including Utah, the center of Mormonism – make polygamy a crime, while 49 states have bigamy statutes that can be used to prosecute polygamous families. Polygamy is only legal in North Africa and most of the Muslim world. Does it make sense to promote the right to same-sex, interracial and interreligious marriage, and at the same time oppose polygamy? (By the way, polygamy usually means polygyny: one husband, multiple wives – the opposite, polyandry, is extremely rare).

Marriage is a recognized human right, but does the word “marriage”, as it is used in human rights language, also cover polygamous marriage? From the texts of human rights treaties and declarations, it’s not even clear that it covers same-sex marriage – although it undoubtedly covers interracial and interreligious marriage. The word ”marriage” isn’t clearly defined in the texts. Article 16 of the Universal Declaration merely states the following:

1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Polygamy or same-sex marriage aren’t specifically mentioned as being forms of marriage that are included in the right to marry, but neither is it the case that sexual orientation or the numbers of partners are stipulated as unwarranted limitations to the right to marry. So the phrasing as it stands neither includes nor excludes polygamy or same-sex marriage as a right. Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights isn’t much clearer.

However, the case for same-sex or interracial marriage can be based on other articles, such as the non-discrimination provisions. Article 2 of the International Covenant states:

Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Sexual orientation is not mentioned but it is accepted that the list given here is a list of examples and not exhaustive. “Without distinction of any kind” is clear enough. Article 3 states:

The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.

And Article 26:

All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

It’s not clear whether polygamists can invoke the same non-discrimination provisions. Perhaps the right to privacy can help them. Article 12 of the Universal Declaration:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence… Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Who Will Zuma’s first lady be? Pretoria News headline from April 11, 2009

However, apart from the question whether polygamy can be defended or not on the basis of existing human rights law, there are some good reasons why perhaps there shouldn’t be a right to polygamous marriage, even if it can be established that there is such a right. Wives may be pressured into polygamous marriages or prohibited from exiting them; they may suffer inequality and oppression in their marriage; and young girls may be forced to marry. The same risks exist of course in normal monogamous marriage, but are perhaps more important in polygamous marriage.

Moreover, polygamous marriage poses certain risks that are non-existent in normal marriage: excess boys in polygamous communities are often ostracized and condemned to a life of poverty and homelessness; and there’s a risk that marriage as an institution and as a general right may suffer when polygamy becomes widespread:

Polygamy is bad social policy for exactly the reason gay marriage is good social policy: everyone should have the opportunity to marry. Broad access to marriage is important not only for individual wellbeing but for social stability. And, to oversimplify only a little, when one man gets two wives, some other man gets no wife. There’s no better path to inequality, social unrest, and authoritarian social structures than polygamy. (source)

And yet, if it’s the case that

• polygamy remains a fringe custom
• polygamists are generally exercising their free choice and informed consent
• no children are forced to marry or are sexually abused
• and excess boys are not ostracized

then why would anyone oppose polygamy? Monogamous marriage isn’t illegal because some wives are beaten or because there are some cases of monogamous child marriage. One could oppose polygamy for religious reasons, but those aren’t sufficient in liberal democracies. Polygamy can only be problematic when it’s a practice that regularly and intrinsically leads to rights violations, as it does when child brides are common, when wives are commonly forced into marriage or when widespread polygamy makes it very difficult for men to find brides and marry.

Another thing to consider is gender equality. Even if polygamy is rare enough not to deny men a reasonable chance of marriage, and even if all polygamous wives are adults who freely consent to their marriage and who have equal standing within their marriages, then it’s still the case that the practice itself can signal gender inequality and hence perpetuate it. The reason is that polygyny, by its very nature, signals that men have more rights than women: a man can take several wives, but not vice versa. A legal right to polygamy would of course also entail a right to polyandry, but it’s unlikely that the risks to gender equality created by polygyny would be offset by many cases of polyandry. The more likely result is that polygyny fosters preexisting misogynistic prejudice because polygyny will always be more common that polyandry.

So, in the end a lot depends on how often polygamy results in rights violations. Is polygamy more like child marriage, which by definition is a rights violation (it involves pedophilia, the denial of education, health problems resulting from pregnancy at an early age etc.)? Or is it more like monogamous or same-sex marriage, which may produce rights violations such as domestic violence, but not intrinsically so? If some practice by definition violates rights, it should obviously be prohibited. If the practice only does so by accident and exceptionally, then it should in general be protected, especially when the practice itself is a human right. I claim that there is nothing inherently wrong with polygamy, as long as it’s not set up in such a way that it violates rights – as long as in most cases the wives consent (in an informed way), children are left alone, boys aren’t ostracized, and the practice isn’t so widespread that men can’t marry or that women feel they are second class citizens.

In this respect, polygamy is similar to hate speech. In the case of hate speech we are also dealing with a presumptive right, but one that can be abrogated when its exercise becomes too widespread with negative consequences for the rights of others. When a small black minority for instance is overwhelmed by hate speech, to such an extent that black people can’t go outside for fear of constant insult, then their right to freedom of movement should trump the speech rights of the haters.

For a more pessimistic view on polygamy, go here. Below a map showing the prevalence of polygamy/polygyny:

Political Jokes & Funny Quotes (126): Gender Discrimination

(source)

More about women’s rights. More protest signs. More jokes.

The Vagaries of Moral Progress (4): Equal Rights Vigilantes

(source)

Good or bad? Given the lack of a strong and fair police force, even after the revolution, self-appointed citizens patrols now try to protect women against harassers on Cairo’s streets, often with violent means.

The young activists lingered on the streets around Tahrir Square, scrutinizing the crowds of holiday revelers. Suddenly, they charged, pushing people aside and chasing down a young man. As the captive thrashed to get away, the activists pounded his shoulders, flipped him around and spray-painted a message on his back: “I’m a harasser.”

Egypt’s streets have long been a perilous place for women, who are frequently heckled, grabbed, threatened and violated while the police look the other way. Now, during the country’s tumultuous transition from authoritarian rule, more and more groups are emerging to make protecting women — and shaming the do-nothing police — a cause. …

[S]ome of the men were surprised to find they could no longer harass with impunity, a change brought about not just out of concern for women’s rights, but out of a frustration that the post-revolutionary government still, like the one before, was doing too little to protect its citizens. …

[S]ome activists criticized others for being too quick to resort to violence against suspects and encouraging vigilantism. … Sometimes the patrol acted after seeing a woman being groped. At other times, it justified its attacks as preventive. (source)

The backlash against harassment is moral progress of some sort, or maybe not. More posts in this series are here.

The Vagaries of Moral Progress (2): Women’s Rights in Iran

This image shows Iranian women in 1979, just before the Islamic revolution:

(source unknown)

At first sight, this image is testimony to moral regress. It would be difficult to take an image like this in the Iran of today. Women in Iran were confronted with new cultural and legal restrictions after the Islamic Revolution in 1979, and those restrictions are still in force. Exposure of any part of the body other than hands and face is subject to punishment of up to 70 lashes or 60 days imprisonment (source). In April 2007, the Tehran police (which is under Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei‘s supervision), began the most fierce crackdown on what is known as “bad hijab” in more than a decade. In the capital Tehran thousands of Iranian women were cautioned over their poor Islamic dress and several hundred arrested. And it’s not just dress code. The government has set quotas for female pediatricians and gynecologists and has made it difficult for women to become civil engineers (source). And it goes on.

However, the pre-revolutionary regime didn’t always perform better in the field of women’s rights and gender equality. Reza Shah and his son did take some measures beneficial to women – e.g. the decree of unveiling in 1936 – but the situation was far from idyllic.

Conversely, Iranian women today, although they are denied many basic and equal rights, don’t live in the dystopia that many in the West imagine:

Women’s rights advocates say Iranian women are displaying a growing determination to achieve equal status in this conservative Muslim theocracy, where male supremacy is still enscribed in the legal code. One in five marriages now end in divorce, according to government data, a fourfold increase in the past 15 years. … Increasing educational levels and the information revolution have contributed to creating a generation of women determined to gain more control over their lives. (source)

There are other Islamist regimes that are far worse, most notably, of course, Saudi Arabia. The rulers there take the exclusion of women from public life a few steps further. Take for instance the recent Ikea scandal: the multinational was forced or thought it was a good idea to delete the images of women from the Saudi version of its catalogue.

(source)

There’s now a website making fun of Ikea and replacing famous women with Ikea products:

(source)

More posts in this series are here.

Iconic Images of Human Rights Violations (91): Suffragette Arrested in London

Police constables arrest a Suffragette protestor, London, around 1909

(source)

More on the Suffragette movement here. More iconic images are here.

Gender Discrimination (31): Islam Not Necessarily the Cause of Gender Discrimination

The common view that Islam and the social rules it imposes on Muslim believers result in various instances of gender discrimination in Muslim countries, may be wrong. Here’s an interesting poll result from Gallup: asked whether Muslim women should have the right to initiate a divorce, religious Arabs (69%) are more likely to say “yes” than Arabs who say religion is not important (46%):

(source)

I agree, this poll covers only 5 Arab countries (Egypt, Bahrain, Syria, Tunisia, Yemen and Libya) and only one possible area of discrimination, but the difference in responses is nevertheless striking.

More posts in this series here.

Political Jokes & Funny Quotes (117): Women Are Always Wrong

More political jokes here.

Political Jokes & Funny Quotes (113): Women’s Rights in Saudi Arabia

by Princess Hijab

(source)

From The Onion:

RIYADH, SAUDI ARABIA—In the wake of the watershed decision granting them the right to vote in the 2015 elections, Saudi women have received their husbands’ explicit consent to rejoice, sources reported Wednesday. “It is with great pride that women all across Saudi Arabia have been allowed to leave their homes under the guardianship of a male relative and celebrate this cultural landmark,” father of four Khalid al-Kazaz told reporters. “It brings us great pleasure to permit them a few moments in which to smile beneath their hijabs before returning to their daily duties.” Saudi officials followed the announcement with another historic decree that lowered from 10 to 7 the number of lashes that will be administered to women who drive themselves to the voting booth.

More on Saudi Arabia, women’s rights and the veil. More Princess Hijab. More jokes.

Human Rights Maps (168): Countries That Have Ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women

Another sign that human rights are becoming the morality of the world:

Participation in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women

However, international law may be no more than window-dressing, at least in this case. In large parts of the world, national law does not conform to the obligation of CEDAW or it’s not enforced when it conforms:

(source, click images to enlarge)

(source)

More maps on country participation in international human rights instruments are here. More human rights maps in general are here.

Human Rights Video (24): Gender Discrimination

An interesting talk about gendercide, gender differences in child mortality and in literacy and education, human trafficking, maternal mortality etc.

More human rights videos are here.

The Most Absurd Human Rights Violations (91): Marry Your Rapist and Get Out of Jail

After the attack, [Gulnaz] hid what happened as long as she could. But soon she began vomiting in the mornings and showing signs of pregnancy. It was her attacker’s child.

In Afghanistan, this brought her not sympathy, but prosecution. Aged just 19, she was found guilty by the courts of sex outside of marriage — adultery — and sentenced to twelve years in jail.

Now inside Kabul’s Badam Bagh jail, she and her child are serving her sentence together.

Sitting with the baby in her lap, her face carefully covered, she explains the only choice she has that would end her incarceration.

The only way around the dishonor of rape, or adultery in the eyes of Afghans, is to marry her attacker. This will, in the eyes of some, give her child a family and restore her honor.

Incredibly, this is something that Gulnaz is willing to do. …

We found Gulnaz’s convicted rapist in a jail across town. While he denied raping her, he agreed that she would likely be killed if she gets out of jail. But he insists that it will be her family, not his, that will kill her, “out of shame.” (source)

Similar cases here, here and here. And then there’s this:

Last year, … in Morocco, a judge ordered a 16-year-old girl named Amina Filali to marry the man who raped her. She committed suicide in March, prompting widespread outrage and condemnation of article 475, which allows a rapist to marry his victim in order to escape jail. (source)

More absurd human rights violations here.

The Most Absurd Human Rights Violations (88): Gendercide Leads to Trafficking and Wife-Sharing

(source)

Gendercide has a number of harmful consequences that aren’t limited to selective abortion and infanticide, but I hadn’t heard of this one yet:

When Munni arrived in this fertile, sugarcane-growing region of north India as a young bride years ago, little did she imagine she would be forced into having sex and bearing children with her husband’s two brothers who had failed to find wives.

“My husband and his parents said I had to share myself with his brothers”, said the woman in her mid-40s, dressed in a yellow sari, sitting in a village community centre in Baghpat district in the northern state of Uttar Pradesh.

“They took me whenever they wanted – day or night. When I resisted, they beat me with anything at hand”, said Munni, who had managed to leave her home after three months only on the pretext of visiting a doctor. …

Social workers say decades of aborting female babies in a deeply patriarchal culture has led to a decline in the population of women in some parts of India, like Baghpat, and in turn has resulted in rising incidents of rape, human trafficking and the emergence of “wife-sharing” among brothers. (source)

I used to believe that the shortage of women resulting from gendercide could in the longer term have a silver lining, in the sense that it could improve women’s bargaining positions relative to men and could therefore also improve their wellbeing and the protection of their rights. But it seems I have to change my mind. More on gendercide here. More absurd human rights violations.

Gender Discrimination (28): Occupational Sex Segregation as One Cause of the Gender Pay Gap

It’s common knowledge that women tend to earn less that men, even in countries that pride themselves on their respect for gender equality. Here are the data on the gender pay gap in the U.S.:

(source)

One of the causes of this gap is occupational sex segregation, meaning that women and men tend to work in very different occupations. Coincidentally or not, “men’s jobs” are generally better paid than “women’s jobs”:

(source, click image to enlarge)

Now, “segregation” in this context may be too strong a term, since there are no longer a lot of legal restrictions on the employment of women, at least not in the U.S. Women aren’t segregated into very specific occupations, at least not by law. Cultural pressures may still exist, however. Women often feel obliged to choose occupations that mix well with family responsibilities, and those occupations tend to be less profitable. Such a sense of obligation is not a sign of gender equality.

It’s also not clear to what extent women – voluntarily or not – choose jobs that are less well paid, and to what extent employers decide that jobs chosen by women merit less pay.

And finally, let’s not forget that there’s a gender pay gap even within professions. Occupational sex segregation therefore can’t explain the whole pay gap. Hence, the gender pay gap may be an indication of different types of gender discrimination:

• forcing women into jobs that are less well paid
• paying less for the types of jobs that women tend to choose
• paying women less than men within the same types of jobs
• failing to give women and girls the same opportunities to enter some types of jobs (e.g. because of unequal education, child marriage etc.)

More on the gender pay gap here.

Gender Discrimination (27): Women’s Inheritance and Property Rights Throughout the World

In many parts of the world, women face legal restrictions of their property and inheritance rights. Apart from the obvious violation of the equal right to private property, there’s the fact that such legal restrictions form part of and serve to entrench a wider web of gender discrimination. Furthermore, they can impact women’s economic security and prosperity, their ability to obtain loans and credit, their privacy rights etc.

(source, click image to enlarge)

(source)

More on gender discrimination. More human rights facts.

Gender Discrimination (26): Legal Restrictions on Women’s Right to Work

(source)

A lot of gender discrimination is informal and cultural, but some of it is still entrenched in legal norms. Often those norms are justified on the basis of a vague narrative about the need to protect women. That’s the case of many laws prohibiting the employment of women in certain sectors of the economy. Such limitations exist in 48 countries. The human rights consequences are numerous:

• These limitations violate the right to work.
• They also make women dependent on the income of their husbands, and this dependence can be used by husbands to entrench other forms of gender discrimination.
• Labor market restrictions force women into marriages they would otherwise not choose, and they probably encourage child marriage.
• Because women live longer, tend to have smaller saving rates and are not allowed to inherit in certain countries, labor market restrictions can result in poverty in old age.
• Etc.

More on gender discrimination here. More human rights facts here.

Gender Discrimination (25): The Plough as a Cause of Gender Inequality

Gender inequality means different levels of protection of human rights according to gender. No need to say which of the two gender’s rights are usually violated more or protected less rigorously. Gender inequality occurs in many areas of life:

• in political representation or participation
• in income or labor market participation
• in labor sorting (when women are relegated to certain professions)
• in family life (when women do not have the same marriage or divorce rights, inheritance rights etc.)
• in criminal justice (when the testimony of women is considered less valuable) etc.

Too many areas to mention, unfortunately.

When you read about the causes of gender inequality, the usual suspects are religion, patriarchy and all sorts of anti-women prejudice. A different and interesting perspective, focused on inequality in the labor market, is the following:

Ester Boserup … argues that gender role differences have their origins in different forms of agriculture practiced traditionally. In particular, she identifies important differences between shifting and plough cultivation. The former, which uses hand-held tools like the hoe and the digging stick, is labor intensive and women actively participate in farm work. The latter, in contrast, is more capital intensive, using the plough to prepare the soil. Unlike the hoe or digging stick, the plough requires significant upper body strength, grip strength, and burst of power, which are needed to either pull the plough or control the animal that pulls it.

Because of these requirements, when plough agriculture is practiced, men have an advantage in farming relative to women. Also reinforcing this gender-bias in ability is the fact that when the plough is used, there is less need for weeding, a task typically undertaken by women and children. In addition, child-care, a task almost universally performed by women, is most compatible with activities that can be stopped and resumed easily and do not put children in danger. These are characteristics that are satisfied for hoe agriculture, but not for plough agriculture since large animals are typically used to pull the plough. …

[T]his division of labor then generated norms about the appropriate role of women in society. Societies characterized by plough agriculture, and a resulting gender-based division of labor, developed the belief that the natural place for women is within the home. These cultural beliefs tend to persist even if the economy moves out of agriculture, affecting the participation of women in activities performed outside of the home, such as market employment, entrepreneurship, and participation in politics. (source)

And there does seem to be a strong statistical correlation between historical plough use and prejudice against women. More human rights facts here.

Measuring Human Rights (21): Perceptions of Domestic Violence

Lithography of a "Drunk father"

Asking people if they think some types of human rights violations are acceptable is one way to measure levels of respect for human rights. Although not all those who think such violations are acceptable will actually engage in them, it’s clear a certain number of them will; and almost all of them will tolerate violations and fail to report them. Hence, perceptions of acceptability of violations – captured by way of surveys – are a good indication of prevalence of violations, and while they cannot provide exact figures on the numbers of violations, they can yield interesting cross-country comparisons.

Here’s an example about domestic violence:

(source, click image to enlarge)

Domestic violence – which in most cases means men physically harming women (either their wives or daughters) – has a number of human rights implications. It is obviously a violation of the right to bodily integrity, and possibly the right to life. But it also serves to maintain a patriarchal system of gender inequality and discrimination.

Matters are made worse by the reluctance of many governments to interfere in families’ private affairs, perhaps on account of some misunderstood respect for the right to privacy – although the more likely reason is gender prejudice among those who legislate and make policy. For example, most countries have no legislation outlawing marital rape, and those who have often fail to enforce it:

(source, click image to enlarge)

Legislation can apparently make a difference:

(source)

Less people think domestic violence is acceptable in countries that have legislation against it. However, it’s not clear which way the causation goes: a widely shared belief that domestic violence is unacceptable can be caused by legislation, but legislation can also be the effect of beliefs. And if less women report domestic violence in countries that have legislation, it may be due to the fact that legislation deters violence, but it may also be the case that countries that have legislation had a prior culture that is less accepting of domestic violence.

By the way, the numbers of women reporting domestic violence isn’t necessarily a better indicator or measurement basis of domestic violence. After all, when domestic violence is widespread, it will deter reporting. So less reporting of domestic violence can paradoxically indicate a higher prevalence.

More posts about problems with human rights measurement are here.

The Most Absurd Human Rights Violations (76): Paintballing Women Into Submission

In Chechnya, security forces shoot paintball pellets at women leaving home without a headscarf:

Chechnya’s strongman Ramzan Kadyrov has imposed an Islamic dress code on women, and his feared security forces have used paintball guns, threats and insults against those refusing to obey. …

Human Rights Watch interviewed dozens of women who have experienced or witnessed attacks or harassment for their refusal to adhere to the Islamic dress code.

One of the victims, identified as Louiza, told the rights group that she and a friend were attacked while walking down Putin Avenue in Grozny on a hot day last June, wearing skirts a little below the knee, blouses with sleeves a bit above the elbow and no headscarves. Suddenly a car without a license plate pulled up, its side window rolled down and a gun barrel pointed at them.

“I thought the gun was real and when I heard the shots I thought: ‘This is death,’” she recalled in the report. “I felt something hitting me in the chest and was sort of thrown against the wall of a building.

“The sting was awful, as if my breasts were being pierced with a red-hot needle, but I wasn’t fainting or anything and suddenly noticed some strange green splattering on the wall and this huge green stain was also expanding on my blouse.”

The 25-year-old woman said her friend was hit on her legs and stumbled to the ground. Men dressed in the black uniform of Kadyrov’s security forces looked out of the car’s windows, laughing and sneering. …

Threatening leaflets also appeared on the streets of Grozny, warning women that those who fail to wear headscarves could face “more persuasive measures.” …

Kadyrov told local television that he was ready to give awards to the men who carried out the attacks and that the targeted women deserved the treatment. (source)

More absurd human rights violations here. More on women’s rights here.

Human Rights Stories (15): A Doll’s House

1922: Actor Alan Hale (1892 - 1950) menaces Alla Nazimova (1879 - 1945) as she kneels on the floor in a still from the film, 'A Doll's House', directed by Charles Bryant and adapted from the play by Henrik Ibsen.

Excerpt from A Doll’s House, by Henrik Ibsen:

Nora: I must stand quite alone, if I am to understand myself and everything about me. It is for that reason that I cannot remain with you any longer.

Helmer: Nora, Nora!

Nora: I am going away from here now, at once. I am sure Christine will take me in for the night–

Helmer: You are out of your mind! I won’t allow it! I forbid you!

Nora: It is no use forbidding me anything any longer. I will take with me what belongs to myself. I will take nothing from you, either now or later.

Helmer: What sort of madness is this!

Nora: Tomorrow I shall go home–I mean, to my old home. It will be easiest for me to find something to do there.

Helmer: You blind, foolish woman!

Nora: I must try and get some sense, Torvald.

Helmer: To desert your home, your husband and your children! And you don’t consider what people will say!

Nora: I cannot consider that at all. I only know that it is necessary for me.

Helmer: It’s shocking. This is how you would neglect your most sacred duties.

Nora: What do you consider my most sacred duties?

Helmer: Do I need to tell you that? Are they not your duties to your husband and your children?

Nora: I have other duties just as sacred.

Helmer: That you have not. What duties could those be?

Nora: Duties to myself.

Helmer: Before all else, you are a wife and a mother.

Nora: I don’t believe that any longer. I believe that before all else I am a reasonable human being, just as you are–or, at all events, that I must try and become one.

More on women’s rights here. More human rights stories here.

Human Rights Nonsense (20): Playing to the Gallery for Women’s Rights

(source)

On the same day the country’s [Bulgaria's] defense minister lifted its ban on women serving on submarines, the parliament voted to mothball the country’s only submarine. It’s the thought that counts, I guess. (source)

More human rights nonsense here. More serious stuff about gender discrimination is here.

Political Graffiti (107): Princess Hijab

Graffiti by Princess Hijab, photo by Antoine Bréant

(source)

More on Princess Hijab. More on the Muslim headscarf and on gender discrimination. More political graffiti.

The Most Absurd Human Rights Violations (55): Saudi Women Threaten to Breastfeed Drivers if They Aren’t Allowed to Drive

Many were stunned when Saudi cleric Sheik Abdel Mohsen Obeikan recently issued a fatwa, or Islamic ruling, calling on women to give breast milk to their male colleagues or men they come into regular contact with so as to avoid illicit mixing between the sexes.

But a group of Saudi women has taken the controversial decree a step further in a new campaign to gain the right to drive in the ultra-conservative kingdom, media reports say.

If they’re not granted the right to drive, the women are threatening to breastfeed their drivers to establish a symbolic maternal bond…

Some Islamic scholars frown on the mixing of unmarried men and women. Islamic tradition, or hadith, stipulates that breastfeeding establishes a maternal bond, even if a woman breastfeeds a child who is not her own.

The current driving ban applies to all women in Saudi Arabia, regardless of their nationality, and it’s been a topic of heated public debate in recent years.

The ban on driving was unofficial at first but was introduced as official legislation after 47 Saudi women drove cars through the streets of the Saudi capital, Riyadh, in 1990 in an attempt to challenge authorities.

The incident brought harsh consequences for the women, who were jailed for a day and had their passports confiscated. Many of them were said to have been forced to leave their jobs after the driving protest.

Still, every now and then, reports of Saudi women driving in defiance of the ban emerge in the media. (source)

More on Saudi Arabia, on women’s rights, and on gender discrimination. More absurd human rights violations.

Human Rights Nonsense (18): Oklahoma Bans Sharia Law, Not a Minute Too Soon

You can never be too zealous when you have to protect the rights of women:

Oklahoma is poised to become the first state in the nation to ban state judges from relying on Islamic law known as Sharia when deciding cases.

The ban is a cornerstone of a “Save our State” amendment to the Oklahoma constitution that was recently approved by the Legislature. The amendment — which also would forbid judges from using international laws as a basis for decisions — will now be put before Oklahoma’s voters in November. Approval is expected.

Oklahoma has few Muslims – only 30,000 out of a population of 3.7 million. The prospect of sharia being applied there seems remote.

But a chief architect of the measure, Republican State Rep. Rex Duncan, calls the proposed ban a necessary “preemptive strike” against Islamic law coming to the state. (source)

By the way, those are the same Republicans who want US law to be based on the Ten Commandments and want to outlaw such women’s rights as abortion… More about Shari’a (which is of course an abomination, but an unlikely one in the West) and gender discrimination. More human rights nonsense.

Political Graffiti (104): Sexism

(source)

(source)

More on sexism, women’s rights and gender discrimination. More political graffiti.

Religion and Human Rights (27): Muslim Headscarves – Between Religious Liberty and Gender Discrimination, Ctd.

Once more on the issue of Muslim headscarves (see here and here for previous posts), because the controversy doesn’t seem to be going away. Belgium, my home country, has the dubious honor of being the first western country outlawing the burqa. Other countries like France seem set to follow, or have already interpreted existing laws on masks or police checks creatively in order to impose fines on women wearing a veil. Forcing Muslim women to show their faces is no longer a fringe xenophobic fantasy.

First of all, and before you get upset that a human rights activist such as me doesn’t take a more outspoken position against the veil, let me stress that I do worry a lot about gender discrimination (as regular readers can attest). I do believe that the veil – especially the complete face and body veil such as the burqa or the niqab – is an expression of a culture in which equal rights for women are – to put it mildly – not a priority. That doesn’t mean that every woman who wears a veil does so because of coercion or discrimination, or because she doesn’t have a right not to. Some do, but others wear it voluntarily, although the degree of “voluntariness” is something that’s always difficult to establish given the subtle effects of social pressure, tradition and education that are often difficult to notice – even for the self. However, it can be argued that also those women who wear the veil in a truly voluntary way – if truly voluntary can be something real, which I hope – contribute to an ideology of female inferiority and make it harder for other women who would like to remove the veil to do so.

Moreover, there can be different motives for wearing the veil voluntarily. Women can believe that this is a requirement of their religion (the Quran only seems to require “modest dress”), and that disregard of such requirements amounts to sin. Or women can decide to wear the veil for strategic reasons. They may believe – correctly I think – that wearing the veil enhances their freedom, for example their freedom of movement. One can argue that this strategic use of the veil isn’t truly voluntary, but that doesn’t make it wrong. I’m personally open to the argument that a prohibition of the veil can result in de facto house arrest for some women: their husbands may decide to force them to stay at home if they aren’t allowed to wear the veil in public. Now you might say that one evil doesn’t excuse another, but there is something called a lesser evil (I’ve made a similar point about sweatshops not so long ago). If wearing the veil allows women to venture outside of the home that is undoubtedly a positive side effect of something that in general may be a moral negative.

What about the arguments in favor of prohibition? Some of them are very weak indeed. It’s not because the veil makes some people uncomfortable that it should be prohibited. It’s not difficult to imagine the horror of the place where everything that makes someone uncomfortable is outlawed. Security risks also aren’t a very strong reason for a general ban, since women can be required to lift their veil in specific circumstances. The argument that modern democracies should be “secular” and that this requires the banning of religious symbols in public is indefensible in view of the human right to freedom of religion.

Some claim that the ban on the burqa is just one of many existing and undisputed restrictions on how people can dress in public: people can’t walk naked in the streets; or wear stockings on their heads inside bank buildings etc. But this confuses types of dress that are not religiously inspired with types that are. Religion does receive special protection in the system of human rights, and this special protection should be recognized if human rights are to be respected. Conflating religious dress with dress in general does not allow you to fully respect human rights. That doesn’t mean that the burqa can’t be banned in specific circumstances where there’s a good reason to do so – in Court rooms, in schools etc. But these exceptions don’t justify banning it altogether. (The justification for a ban in Court rooms is obvious and doesn’t need spelling out. A ban in schools – for both teachers and pupils – is justified on the grounds of the need for adequate education. In addition, there’s a phenomenon of peer pressure in some schools, where girls who wear the veil force others to comply).

How about the argument based on gender equality? That seems a lot stronger at first sight. But isn’t it true that gender equality wouldn’t be advanced a whole lot by a burqa ban? (Maybe a ban would even be bad for gender equality, if it forces women to stay home). And isn’t it also true that other measures in favor of gender equality, such as better education, stricter laws and better enforcement on domestic violence etc., would prove much more effective?

There’s another argument in favor of a ban, and it’s a pretty strong one, although you hardly ever hear it. A democratic community requires a common citizenship and a public space in which people can deliberate freely on their preferred policies. If democracy was just an exercise in voting, it would be compatible with the veil. It would even be compatible with complete solipsism and individuals never meeting each other. But it’s more than that. The burqa and niqab are – to some extent – incompatible with deliberation. One could argue that this only justifies a partial ban, namely a ban in places where deliberation occurs, and when it occurs. Just like the partial ban in Court rooms is justified. The question is of course whether proponents of the veil can accommodate a partial ban. Perhaps their religious belief requires the veil in all circumstances. However, we are allowed to require some level of flexibility of them. Rights often come into conflict with one another (take for example the right to free speech of the journalist wishing to expose the private life of a politician). And that’s the case here: the right to democratic government and the right to religious liberty should be balanced against each other, and maybe the former should take precedence. After all, not everything is justified on the grounds of religious liberty: for example, no one in the West argues that mutilation as a punishment for crime is justified, not even when it is prescribed by a religion.

More on headscarves, gender equality, dress codes, migration and religious liberty.

Political Jokes & Funny Quotes (82): Islamic Modest Dress

More on Islamic dress code here, here, and here. More on the headscarf in particular here and here. More jokes on Islam here and here. More on women’s rights. More jokes here.

Human Rights Maps (80): Percentage of Women in State Legislatures in the U.S.

Equal political representation and an equal share of women in parliaments and the executives is obviously a human rights issue. In a representative democracy, one can reasonably expect to have a parliament that is roughly representative of the population in general: poor people should have their representatives or delegates just like rich people, women just like men, minorities just like majorities. This “representativity” or “representativeness” isn’t an absolute requirement. One can have a democracy without it. The people, after all, may decide that their views are best represented by an all-male, all-white body of parliamentarians for example.

However, it seems statistically unlikely that this would be their decision in each consecutive election in each democratic country. Imbalances in the demographics of parliament that persist over time and space are probably not the result of the choices of voters but of other factors, such as discrimination, unequal opportunities etc. If that’s the case, we are dealing with an imperfect democracy because democracy means equal influence and an equal chance to get elected (art. 21 of the Universal Declaration and art. 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights).

And that seems to be the case. Some people, therefore, propose “pink quotas” which impose minimum numbers of female representatives (something like affirmative action or positive discrimination). I’ll discuss the desirability of such quotas another time.

In the meantime, more data on equal representation, also for other countries, are here. Other human rights maps are here.

Iconic Images of Human Rights Violations (40): A Suffragette’s Suicide

Emily Davison after throwing herself under a racing horse owned by King George V of England

(source)

At the Epsom Derby, on 4th June 1913, Emily Wilding Davison (1872–1913), a suffragette, gave her life for her cause by throwing herself under King George V’s horse.

Here’s a video of the event (not very clear I’m afraid):

And this is Emily:

Emily Davison

(source)

More on the suffragette movement. More on gender discrimination and women’s rights. More iconic images of human rights violations.

Human Rights Maps (76): Gender Wage Gap in the U.S.

women's earnings compared to men's, gender wage gap in the US

(source)

Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work (art. 23 of the Universal Declaration). So unequal pay is a human rights issue, and is probably an indication of a deeper kind of discrimination. However, unequal pay is an indication of wage discrimination, not proof. If men and women, on average receive unequal pay, it’s only discrimination if they perform equal work, which isn’t necessarily the case.

More data here. More on gender discrimination in general is here.

Sexism, A Collection of Images (2)

(See the previous collection of sexist images here). More on sexism, feminism, gender discrimination and women’s rights. Other collections of human rights images are here.

(this example is in fact also a case of objectification)

(an unusual example of sexism targeting males)

(source)

(source)

(source, for the innocent among us there’s an explanation here)

gender discrimination in paper routes

(source)

Political Graffiti (78b): Save Me From Objectification

(source)

More on objectification of women here, here and here. And here is something on the Kantian rule regarding the instrumentalization of human beings. More political graffiti here.

Gender Discrimination (20): Positive Developments for Gender Equality in the U.S.

I mentioned some positive developments for gender equality in the U.S. in two previous posts (here and here). Particularly hopeful is the increasing level of education of women: they now earn 57% of bachelor’s degrees, 59% of master’s and 50% of doctorates. There’s also the increasing participation of women in the labor market. And this is no longer just marginal participation. Working women who are part of married couples produce almost half of family income:

within married-couple families, the typical working wife now brings home 42.2 percent of her household’s earnings. (source)

One in four mothers is now a so-called co-breadwinner mother: a mother taking care of minor children, in a married relationship, who brings home at least 25% of a family’s income (this was only 16% in 1967).

Almost 40% of mothers are breadwinner mothers: these include, obviously, working single mothers, but also working married mothers who earn as much as or more than their husbands (this was 12% in 1967).

(source)

Black wives and wives in families in the bottom income quintile are most likely to earn as much as their husbands. (source)

For a look at the many areas where progress should still be made, go here.

Human Rights Maps (70): Gender Equality in Government

share of women in parliament, change between 1997 and 2011

Here’s another version:

(source)

And yet another version:

National parliaments can be bicameral or unicameral. This map covers the single chamber in unicameral parliaments and the lower chamber in bicameral parliaments. It does not cover the upper chamber of bicameral parliaments. Seats are usually won by members in general parliamentary elections. Seats may also be filled by nomination, appointment, indirect election, rotation of members and by-election. Seats refer to the number of parliamentary mandates, or the number of members of parliament.

(source)

And this is the detail for the U.S.:

(source)

Parliament is obviously just one part of government. How about gender equality in other parts?

(source, click on the image to enlarge)

Read more about the reasons why this is a human rights issue.

Iconic Images of Human Rights Violations (27): Equal Political Rights for Women

(source)

More on equal voting rights for women here. And here is something on democracy as a human right. More iconic images of human rights violations are here.

Political Jokes & Funny Quotes (59): Sexism

More on sexism, feminism, women’s rights, and gender discrimination. More political jokes.

The Most Absurd Human Rights Violations (9): Gang Rape as a Form of Criminal Punishment

Mukhtar Mai, Image by © Andreea Angelescu/Corbis

(source)

Mukhtar Mai, a Pakistani woman, suffered a gang rape as a form of honor revenge, on the demands of tribesmen — or by some accounts, on the orders of a tribal council.

Her adolescent brother Shaqoor was suspected and accused by a rival clan of adultery with one of the girls of this clan. Shaqoor was then abducted by her relatives, and sodomized by them, I guess as a form of punishment. The police freed Shaqoor and his family proposed to settle the matter with the other clan by marrying Shakoor to the girl he supposedly had sex with, and by marrying Mukhtar – his sister – to one of the men of the other clan. The offer was refused and the rival clan demanded revenge for the adultery. Mukhtar’s gang rape was the revenge. After the rape, all claims were withdrawn.

The week after the events, a local Muslim imam condemned the rape in his sermon, informed a local journalist, and persuaded the family to file charges against the rapists.

By custom, rural women are expected to commit suicide after such an event. Instead, she spoke up, and using word of mouth, took her case to court where her rapists were arrested and charged. She took settlement money provided to her by the government following the court case, and opened a center for refuge and education, the Mukhtar Mai Women’s Welfare Organization. (source)

However, it seems that all is not going well for her:

Mukhtar is … in danger, and many people in the feudal class would like to kill her; even with an armed bodyguard, Mukhtar doesn’t dare go more than 100 feet from her compound. I’ve told Mukhar to set up a steel gate to make it harder for gunmen to get to her. (source)

More posts in this series.

Types of Human Rights Violations (3): Lighthouse Violations and Searchlight Violations

violence against women cartoon

(source, cartoon by Angel Boligan)

I think it may be helpful to distinguish two types of human rights violations. Or, to be more precise: two types of effects of human rights violations, because many violations will show characteristics of the two types. I’ll call the two types “lighthouse violations” and “searchlight violations”. To clarify these weird sounding names, I have an example.

In the UK, about 85.000 women were raped in 2006. In the US, during the same year, 92.455 rapes were reported. Real numbers are much higher, of course, because there are many unreported cases. In South Africa, one in four men admits to having raped someone. One in 8 more than once. Rape, as well as other types of violence against women (but not only women), is obviously a wide-spread social practice and not merely acts of sick individuals. (More on rape here).

As with any case of widespread rights violations, one can understand this in two ways. One can believe that these violations are what I call lighthouse rights violations. In our example, the very fact that rape is a widespread phenomenon makes women aware of the dangers and forces them to adapt their behavior so that they limit the risks. (I talked about human rights and risk here). So the optimist view would be that there are certain automatic restrictions operating in order to limit the number of human rights violations.

The other, more pessimist view, would call widespread human rights violations searchlight violations. If we take the same example, the widespread occurrence of rape can give (certain) men the impression that the practice is normal and acceptable. As a result, the practice becomes even more widespread. Moreover, the practice not only benefits those men who actively engage in it, but men in general because it creates uneven gender relationships, female subjugation, inferiority complexes in women etc. Hence, also women who are not directly victimized by rape tend to be harmed by the practice. Rape shapes cultures, mentalities, gender roles etc.

This is of course a “glass half full or half empty” thing. Rape is both a lighthouse and a searchlight human rights violation. However, I think the more optimist view is probably more correct. If not, we would have to see ever increasing numbers of rights violations, which isn’t the case (at least that’s the intuitive conclusion; human rights measurement is still not a very sophisticated field of research).

More on violence against women. More on feminism.

Islamophobia, A Collection of Images

Islamophobia is an interesting phenomenon from the point of view of human rights. The “fear of Islam” has many different causes:

• outright racism
• Muslim terrorism, resulting in genuine fear combined with unwarranted generalization
• Muslim immigration, resulting in worries about employment and about cultural survival
• certain Islamic practices and values related mainly to the rights of women, homosexuals, convicted criminals, apostates and those who criticize Islam
• the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the way in which many Muslims deal with the Holocaust.

(Click on the links above for more information). What you see in islamophobia is that certain elements of a religion that deserve criticism are blown out of proportion, become an obsession, eclipse other problems in other cultures or civilizations that deserve equal criticism, and are mixed with prejudice, racism and generalization. You end up with a “clash of civilizations” that is in fact a self-fulfilling prophecy. The targets of islamophobia see some of their own prejudices against the West confirmed and step into the roles written for them by the other side.

Here are some images depicting islamophobia:

(source)

(source)

(source, sic)

(source)

(source)

(source)

More on islamophobia. More collections of images.

Human Rights Nonsense (6b): Taxing Headscarves

Geert Wilders

I mentioned Wilders in this series once before, but I promise not to make a habit of it. The target is just too easy. (For those of you who don’t know him yet, go here). This time, he earns my scorn for the following proposal: a tax on headscarves. I kid you not. Check it out here (original Dutch newspaper article; check here for the story in English). For the tiny sum of 1,000 euro a year, Muslim women would get permission to wear a scarf.

And as if this nonsense wasn’t ridiculous enough in itself, he justifies it using the following language: headscarves are “pollution of the public space”, and it’s time for “a clean up of our streets”.

All this is also draped in the language of human rights, women’s rights, equality, non-discrimination etc. I don’t ignore the real problems of many Muslim women (you can go back to some of my old posts, for example here, here, here, here or here), but I don’t believe that gender discrimination is a uniquely Muslim problem (as you can see from this story). The headscarf (or better, certain types of “scarves”) can indeed signal discrimination and oppression, but not necessarily. It can just be the free decision of a genuinely devout Muslim woman. An effort to protect human rights and fight perceived discrimination can then result in an attack on someone’s freedom of religion.

And anyway, even if headscarves should be discouraged, Wilders’ proposal is obviously not the right way to go about it. It doesn’t give human rights and the principles of equality and non-discrimination a good press in the eyes of Muslims.

More on the freedom of religion.

Gender Discrimination (18): Missing Women and Gendercide in China and India

Some more data following two earlier posts on the subject of gendercide (see here and here). The word gendercide describes the results of sex-selective abortions that take place on a massive scale in some countries, particularly India and China. These abortions have led to the “disappearance” of perhaps more than 100 million girls and women (or about 1 million a year). Evidence of this can be found in the abnormal sex-ratios in both countries:

The sex ratio at birth was only 893 female births per 1,000 male births in China and India and 885 in South Korea (as compared to 980 for Kenya and South Africa and 952 for Cambodia and Mexico). … In India, the juvenile sex ratio (often defined as the sex ratio among children aged 0-6 years) has been falling … over the last 3-4 decades – from 964 females per 1,000 males in 1971 to 927 in 2001. … In China, too, the problem has become more acute over time. A study based on a survey of over 5 million children in China found that among children born between 1985 and 1989, there were 926 female births for 1,000 male births. But, among children born between 2000 and 2004, the number had fallen to 806. Thus, in both countries, the situation appears to be worsening. (source)

The main reason for these gendercides seems to be a strong cultural preference for male offspring. This makes it difficult to do something about it. Cultures change very slowly. Outlawing sex-selective abortions and prenatal ultrasounds doesn’t seem to work very well. It has been tried in both China and India, but the sex-ratios don’t seem to improve much.

It might seem that improving literacy and schooling among women might reduce the parental preference for sons. However, here, too, the evidence is not encouraging. There is disturbing evidence from India which points to a worsening of the juvenile sex ratio with increased female education and literacy. Why the perverse effect? A possible explanation has to do with the negative effect of female literacy on fertility. Educated women tend to have fewer children than less-educated women, and, in the context of a strong son-preference culture, the lower levels of fertility lead to greater pressure on couples to have boys instead of girls. This relationship between fertility decline and lower juvenile sex ratios has also been observed in South Korea and China. (source)

The only successful counter-measures are those that tackle gender discrimination at the root. There will no longer be parental preference for male children when man and women are considered equal human beings.

It is important to recognize that one (although not the only) reason for son preference is that, historically, inheritance laws in both countries have favored sons over daughters. While both countries now do not restrict women’s access to parental property, customary practices which consider sons the natural heirs of land are still prevalent in much of rural China and India. India only recently (in 2004) removed the discriminatory provisions of earlier legislation and allowed parents to bequeath their property to their daughters.

What is needed in both countries to combat the scourge of low juvenile sex ratios is a package of interventions that includes stricter enforcement of equal inheritance laws, economic incentives for parents to have daughters and educate them, and an educational curriculum at the primary and middle school levels that highlights the importance of equal treatment of boys and girls in the family. Even with such a package, it will take years for attitudes to change and for the practice of prenatal sex selection and neglect of the girl child to end. (source)

More on gender discrimination.

The Most Absurd Human Rights Violations (6): Mentally Disabled Female “Suicide” Bomber

How to catch a suicide bomber

(source)

CNN reported some time ago that a

female bomber who killed five people just outside the heavily fortified Green Zone … was mentally disabled and her explosives vest was triggered by remote control. … the latest example of insurgents’ using mentally disabled female bombers to launch attacks.

As the girls from Wronging Rights have rightly pointed out: you can’t call this a suicide bombing.

Surely if you’re mentally disabled and somebody attaches a bomb to you and then detonates it by remote control you are not the bomber, but rather one of the victims?

As a result of this “innovative” tactic, Iraqi police

began rounding up beggars, homeless and mentally disabled people from the streets of Baghdad and other cities to prevent insurgents from using them as suicide [sic] bombers. (source)

Thereby massively violating the rights of those poor people. I guess one could call this preventive human rights violations. Or call it “adding insult to injury”. Whatever. Just goes to show that one absurd rights violation tends to produce a chain of even more absurd violations.

More on terrorism here. And here‘s a list of the worst terrorist attacks.

The Most Absurd Human Rights Violations (5): The Rape of Young Iranian Girls Prior to Their Execution

(source)

From the Jerusalem Post:

Founded by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979 as a “people’s militia”, the volunteer Basiji force is subordinate to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and intensely loyal to Khomeini’s successor, Khamenei.

[Members of the Basiji] temporarily marry young girls before they were sentenced to death. In the Islamic Republic it is illegal to execute a young woman, regardless of her crime, if she is a virgin… Therefore a “wedding” ceremony is conducted the night before the execution: The young girl is forced to have sexual intercourse with a prison guard – essentially raped by her “husband”. (source)

More absurd human rights violations.

The Most Absurd Human Rights Violations (4): Punishment for Being Raped

photo by Salman Masood

(source)

Under the Hudood Ordinances introduced by the former Pakistani dictator Zia-ul-Haq in 1979, rape victims had to have four male witnesses to the crime – a ridiculous requirement. If they didn’t, they faced prosecution for adultery, a crime that potentially carried the penalty of death by stoning. This law has been repealed, but local custom still drags behind (source). And the law is an empty shell anyway. If a woman cannot prove she has been raped – how on earth can you prove this? -  she could still fall foul of the adultery laws and she may be tried by either civil or Sharia courts.

More on rape.

Gender Discrimination (16): Sexual Violence in South Africa

(source)

Shocking numbers from The Guardian:

One in four men in South Africa have admitted to rape, according to a study that exposes the country’s endemic culture of sexual violence. … Almost half who said they had carried out a rape admitted they had done so more than once. … South Africa is notorious for having one of the highest levels of rape in the world. Only a fraction are reported, and only a fraction of those lead to a conviction. … Only 7% of reported rapes are estimated to lead to a conviction.

The study … also found that men who are physically violent towards women are twice as likely to be HIV-positive. … Any woman raped by a man over the age of 25 has a one in four chance of her attacker being HIV-positive.

More on rape, and on violence against women in general.

Sexism, A Collection of Images

Nikon detects up to 12 faces

(source)

(source)

sexist Disney rejection letter from the 1930s

(source)

(source)

(source)

(source)

(source)

(source)

(source)

(source)

(source)

(source)

(source)

More on women’s rights and gender discrimination. More collections of images.

Gender Discrimination (15): Matriarchy in the USA, Ctd.

A while ago, I posted something about the rise of matriarchy – or better the end of patriarchy – in the U.S. (see here). In the meantime, I found this additional piece of information which is another sign of decreasing gender discrimination (or increasing discrimination of another kind, if you want):

(source, source)

As a result, young women in the U.S. – on average – earn more than their male counterparts (however, they still earn less than comparably educated men, like women of all ages confounded also still earn less, even in similar occupations and with similar education levels). Young women earn more than young men simply because they are now generally better educated.

More on gender discrimination.

Human Rights Ads (19): Female Genital Mutilation

(source, an Amnesty International ad; the text says “every year, 2 million girls suffer the pain of genital mutilation…”)

More on this topic.