[RD] Why Men Need to be Involved in the #MeToo Movement

[Ajidica]

@inthesomeday I'm confused.

 

[sophie]

Roman women didn’t get unique names. All the women in one family might be named Domitia.

That is what I was referencing, yes.

 

[inthesomeday]

@inthesomeday I'm confused.

Just making another joke. Forgot this is RD, sorry everyone.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Do you think that children being forced into marriage originated with Islam? Childhood as we know it today is a very recent development. It was common all over the world for women to be married as soon as they were biologically capable of having children, something which happens well under the age of majority in most societies today.

Of course child marriage didn't originate with Islam. But it was, and still is, common in some Islamic regions. My question stands: How is this a step forward?

Yes, I'm aware that our modern concept of childhood is recent. Even my grandmother and great-aunt only had Grade 8 educations, since a century ago that's all they were considered to need. The expectation was that they would work and eventually marry some farmer or his son, and the cycle would continue. I was the first on my dad's side of the family to get through junior high, let alone high school or college.

Why wait until biologically capable of having children? Roman aristocracy were big fans of marrying their young daughter to elderly generals because women weren't really people in elite Roman society.

There was a time when Augustus revised the marriage laws, and marrying pre-pubescent girls was how some of the aristocracy got around them - legally married, but since the girl was far too young for consummating the marriage, they still had a decade or so to enjoy themselves before settling down to their real responsibilities - begetting the next generation.

Roman women didn’t get unique names. All the women in one family might be named Domitia.

Some of them did receive nicknames, to help differentiate among mothers, daughters, sisters, and even grandmother/daughters.

 

[Lexicus]

My question stands: How is this a step forward?

I said that Islam was a step forward in the 7th century. You're asking me to defend a position I never took.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I said that Islam was a step forward in the 7th century. You're asking me to defend a position I never took.

Okay, excuse my grammar. I will rephrase.

How WAS it a step forward?

 

[Hrothbern]

I got your point all along. I'm just at a loss as to how to suggest a remedy.
This is infinitely older than #metoo. Consider as one example, OJ Simpson. I don't know if he committed those murders or not. Neither do you. OJ himself knows. And if he didn't do it, whoever did do it knows. But no one else will ever know. Part of that was that the cops and prosecutors were so certain that they did know that they never bothered to do the work to find out if they were right. And because they blew the investigation and the prosecution, the rest of us don't know.
Except that most people you ask will think that they do know. Despite not being convicted in a court of law, he was convicted in pretty much every other sense.
There are endless examples of this happening. Sure, it's wrong. But I haven't a clue what to do about it.

OJ Simpson.
How much television time did that get ?
How much prime time did that get ?
Was it not more popular than any sitcom ?

This would suggest that one of the root problems is the popularity of it, the tabloid value of it.
Apparently the people of the US like it and have nothing better to do or to watch or to talk about.
How do you change that ?
Are there people of the elite in the US that have the courage to state to "the people" : "don't bother too much with this cheesy nonsense "
Or are they all afraid for the repercussions of "the people" in the social media, affecting their career., just like around this #MeToo

We have currently a kind of similar trial in the Netherlands with a certain Willem Holleeder.
He was also the guy that kidnapped Fred Heineken and after that specialised in extorsion of other criminals, especially the ones making lots of money in the grey area between the criminal and normal world.
(even became kind of a VIP celebrity in the right wing media as a kind of adventurous entrepreneurial Robin Hood like peoples hero !!!)
The trial started in Februari 2018 and 60 court days are planned to handle the complex case with many witnesses.
It does get attention from the media, but nowhere near OJ Simpson, and typically much more in the right wing populist press than the more solid press less dedicated to sensation.
The more solid press in fact wanting to avoid the whole thing unless real findings and proof are clear,
but on the other hand they feel forced to report at least something in order not to lose their customer base (again the raw emotions of "the people" being a driver !!!)

I also wonder in how far this jury court system in the US has a negative effect here: rhetorics becoming more important than fact finding by professionals unhindered by emotions (and the media) and ofc the felt need by the media to have all the time some breaking news to report from competitive reasons.

The remedy is imo similar to responsible parents when they educate their kids.
What I see now is like the old saying:
"when the cat's away the mice play"

 

[Farm Boy]

Jurors, on the whole, seem to be removed from the worst of the frenzy while their duty lasts. They're still a check on the abuses of emotionless hanging professionals if I had to guess.

 

[Lexicus]

Don't give me a look like that. You asked me how child marriage is a step forward for women. The idea that the effect of Islam on women over the centuries can be reduced to 'children being forced into marriage' is ignorant and prejudiced. It was a loaded question that ascribed to me a view I never expressed.

How WAS it a step forward?

The introduction of Islamic law gave women status and rights they mostly had not enjoyed previously. It varied from place to place of course just as it does today, but in pre-Islamic Arabia women were generally treated worse than they were under Islam. Islamic law gave women rights to property, inheritance, divorce, which they were denied in the Christian West until centuries later.

Fundamentalist interpretations of the Quran have always existed, but they became particularly widespread in the modern period as various parts of the Islamic world faced the crisis of Western encroachment bringing with it all the problems of modernity. It's these fundamentalist interpretations that have led to the worst consequences for women.

A useful thing to remember in these discussions is that essentialist definitions of religion are never particularly useful when looking at the actual history of the religion. The way that Islam was, and is, actually practiced, varied greatly depending on time and place, how Islam entered a region (whether through direct conquest or the work of missionaries), how Islam interacted with local custom and culture, etc, etc.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

OJ Simpson.
How much television time did that get ?
How much prime time did that get ?
Was it not more popular than any sitcom ?

Nope. That BS pre-empted my afternoon soaps to an insane degree. Unlike most shows, soaps aren't re-run and they're not released on DVD (not that DVDs existed at that time). I couldn't care less about O.J. Simpson. I just wanted them to deal with him quickly and get him off my screen.

Don't give me a look like that. You asked me how child marriage is a step forward for women. The idea that the effect of Islam on women over the centuries can be reduced to 'children being forced into marriage' is ignorant and prejudiced. It was a loaded question that ascribed to me a view I never expressed.

I will give you whatever looks I deem appropriate to express what I'm thinking at the time of posting. You're not the arbiter of my keyboard. I addressed the point that bothers me. I'm well aware that there are others I didn't address.

Child marriage is something done in some Islamic regions. For that matter, it's also done in one particular region of Canada, although it's highly illegal and it took a loooong time for the RCMP to be able to even start to do anything about it since this particular offshoot of Mormons ran to the courts to whine about their Charter rights being violated (the one about freedom of religion; their religion espouses polygamy and to them it's perfectly okay to marry off 14- and 15-year-old girls both here in Canada and also to take them across the border to another such group in Washington state).

NEITHER of these is a "step forward" for women. At least the Bountiful group was finally dealt with; the men engaging in polygamy and trafficking were charged and jailed and some of the women were able to get out of that crazy situation.

Child brides are still a thing in some Islamic regions, though.


Yes, I know this isn't all there is to Islam. There's this thing called FGM, as well. Oh, and "honor killings"... sometimes for marrying without permission, but sometimes for such a trivial thing as refusing to wear a hijab.

So I repeat: How is this a "step forward" for women?

Laws are only as good as their enforcement. The news is full of examples where enforcement is lacking.

The introduction of Islamic law gave women status and rights they mostly had not enjoyed previously. It varied from place to place of course just as it does today, but in pre-Islamic Arabia women were generally treated worse than they were under Islam. Islamic law gave women rights to property, inheritance, divorce, which they were denied in the Christian West until centuries later.

Do you see me defending Christianity and how women have generally been treated until relatively recently?

Yes, we've gained inheritance, property, the ability to initiate a divorce... but there are still people out there who figure men are the "natural" decision-makers.

Fundamentalist interpretations of the Quran have always existed, but they became particularly widespread in the modern period as various parts of the Islamic world faced the crisis of Western encroachment bringing with it all the problems of modernity. It's these fundamentalist interpretations that have led to the worst consequences for women.

Western encroachment was responsible for Mohammed marrying a 9-year-old?

 

[Lexicus]

Yes, I know this isn't all there is to Islam. There's this thing called FGM, as well. Oh, and "honor killings"... sometimes for marrying without permission, but sometimes for such a trivial thing as refusing to wear a hijab.

Connecting FGM with Islam is also prejudiced and ignorant. FGM predates Islam in, AFAIK, every place it is practiced, and is practiced in plenty of predominantly Christian areas of sub-Saharan Africa. As I already explained to Mouthwash, honor killings are also not inherently connected with Islam, they have been common in places like Italy (most recent one I found involved a gay man being killed by his brother over "family honor" in 2011) as well as among Hindus in South Asia.

Do you see me defending Christianity and how women have generally been treated until relatively recently?

Yes, we've gained inheritance, property, the ability to initiate a divorce... but there are still people out there who figure men are the "natural" decision-makers.

I have no idea whether you defend Christianity or not, but you asked why Islam was a step forward for women in the 7th century and now you've been answered.

Western encroachment was responsible for Mohammed marrying a 9-year-old?

Muhammad living in the 7th century CE when such things were considered perfectly normal pretty much everywhere is responsible for that.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Connecting FGM with Islam is also prejudiced and ignorant. FGM predates Islam in, AFAIK, every place it is practiced, and is practiced in plenty of predominantly Christian areas of sub-Saharan Africa. As I already explained to Mouthwash, honor killings are also not inherently connected with Islam, they have been common in places like Italy (most recent one I found involved a gay man being killed by his brother over "family honor" in 2011) as well as among Hindus in South Asia.

Oh, do excuse me for focusing on the one culture, rather than every culture on the planet throughout human history!

It's not "prejudiced and ignorant" to point out the connections if they're true.

I have no idea whether you defend Christianity or not, but you asked why Islam was a step forward for women in the 7th century and now you've been answered.

Yeah, eventually.

Muhammad living in the 7th century CE when such things were considered perfectly normal pretty much everywhere is responsible for that.

You mentioned "Western encroachment" as the cause of the bad things happening. Mohammed married a child. Did "Western encroachment" make him do that?

Was it normal everywhere to marry 9-year-olds?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Or are they all afraid for the repercussions of "the people" in the social media, affecting their career.

Yes, they are afraid and with cause. Social media and even mainstream media can make their political careers non-viable, and neither is particularly inclined to stick to evidence.

Do you see me defending Christianity and how women have generally been treated until relatively recently?

I'm not sure why this thread has taken such a religious slant over the past few pages. Insofar as it prompts acting on beliefs without evidence, religion is going to cause problems. Which religion is in play doesn't matter much compared to which beliefs without evidence are being practiced.

Beliefs w/o evidence is the only thing really tying it to the metoo discussion also, as they share that distinction and some of the failings resulting from it.

Was it normal everywhere to marry 9-year-olds?

I doubt we even have a clear picture of many regions of the world in 7th century. It's useful to remember that no matter how repulsive something seems, that repulsion is a human construct, not an inherent property of matter. It may still be quite useful to humanity to be repulsed by it, especially if the reason is known.

I doubt going back > 1000 years the understanding of developmental psychology was anywhere near today's. It was nontrivial to even get past anecdotal evidence. Assigning today's moral valuation to that is nonsense; they had neither the understanding nor the evidence to make conclusions as reliably. It's also useful to distinguish that marriages were often used politically/for power, and whether this was given significantly different treatment before both were old enough. "Marrying" a 9 year old is a lot different if we're talking a scenario where the people in question barely even interact for another 7-8 years and the primary purpose of the arrangement is to attain a title.

 

[Lexicus]

a

It's not "prejudiced and ignorant" to point out the connections if they're true.

You haven't pointed to any connections, though:

Yes, I know this isn't all there is to Islam. There's this thing called FGM, as well. Oh, and "honor killings"... sometimes for marrying without permission, but sometimes for such a trivial thing as refusing to wear a hijab.

There's no insight there. Islam = child marriage, FGM, and honor killings is just Islamophobic slander.

Was it normal everywhere to marry 9-year-olds?

Everywhere that I'm aware of. If you can find an example of a society in which this was not the case I would love to hear about it.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

There's no insight there. Islam = child marriage, FGM, and honor killings is just Islamophobic slander.

Okay, it's obvious that you're just refusing to understand my posts and trying to make me out as someone I'm not. I made it clear that this isn't all of Islam, but it's what I'm choosing to focus on in this thread. Considering that this thread is about women and sexual abuse.

Don't pretend that FGM doesn't exist, or that "honor" killings don't exist, and that some of it isn't carried out in largely Islamic regions of the world and that some Islamic immigrants to western countries don't still subscribe to those as "the right thing to do" because of whatever reasons they have.

 

[Lexicus]

Okay, it's obvious that you're just refusing to understand my posts

Are you joking? Let's look again. I say "equating Islam with child marriage is prejudiced and ignorant." You say:

Yes, I know this isn't all there is to Islam. There's this thing called FGM, as well. Oh, and "honor killings"... sometimes for marrying without permission, but sometimes for such a trivial thing as refusing to wear a hijab.

How is that a failure to understand? Your meaning is quite clear. And accusing me of refusing to understand your posts is funny because I feel like you're not really bothering to read mine, like when I mentioned Islamic fundamentalism in modern times as a reaction to western encroachment and you asked whether I thought Muhammad married a 9-year-old because of western encroachment.

Don't pretend that FGM doesn't exist, or that "honor" killings don't exist, and that some of it isn't carried out in largely Islamic regions of the world and that some Islamic immigrants to western countries don't still subscribe to those as "the right thing to do" because of whatever reasons they have.

I'm not pretending any of this. What I object to is characterizing Islam as uniquely and inherently violent toward women. I feel this is harmful because it feeds into right-wing discourses that ultimately go to justify things like Trump's Muslim ban and even the "humanitarian" wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also totally erases millions of Muslim women who are fighting for progress and don't need ignorant Westerners lending unwitting support to the most reactionary elements in their societies, and forcing them to choose between their identities as Muslims and "modern" ideas about gender roles.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Are you joking?

No. Do you see any smileys? No. Therefore, I am not joking.

Your meaning is quite clear.

I'd say bravo, except you keep assigning meanings I never intended.

I'm not pretending any of this. What I object to is characterizing Islam as uniquely and inherently violent toward women. I feel this is harmful because it feeds into right-wing discourses that ultimately go to justify things like Trump's Muslim ban and even the "humanitarian" wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also totally erases millions of Muslim women who are fighting for progress and don't need ignorant Westerners lending unwitting support to the most reactionary elements in their societies, and forcing them to choose between their identities as Muslims and "modern" ideas about gender roles.

So... you're basically calling me a right-wing Trump apologist and an Islamaphobe because I disapprove of child marriage, FGM, "honor" killings, and consider them to be bad things no matter who does them or in which century, or for whatever reason.

If you'd ever paid the slightest bit of attention to any of my previous posts on this or related topics, you would realize that you are way off-base and accusing me of the very opposite to how I really am.

We're done here. If you reply to this, I will not read it.

 

[Lexicus]

I'd say bravo, except you keep assigning meanings I never intended.

Lot of that going around, eh?

If you'd ever paid the slightest bit of attention to any of my previous posts on this or related topics, you would realize that you are way off-base and accusing me of the very opposite to how I really am.

I said what I said because I know you are not a right-wing Trumpoid. If I thought you were a right-winger, I wouldn't tell you that I think you're engaging in right-wing discourse. I am trying to help you not help the Trumpoids, not accusing you of being one of them.

 

[inthesomeday]

It seems this has all come from a misunderstanding, Lex never said that Islam is a force for progress in 2018 but rather that it was relatively progressive towards women and children for the 7th century CE.

 

[NovaKart]

I normally give someone the benefit of the doubt if I hear an accusation. This is a bit different from a court because, well for example, Bill Cosby hasn't been found guilty in court but I believe the accusations against him. I might not believe a he said, she said accusation but when it's he said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said - I'm more likely to believe it. Also it depends on the accuser, like I found Selma Hayek's accusation against Harvey Weinstein believable. However at that point she was not the first or even the fifth person to accuse him. Maybe even the 10th.

Another reason why the court's aren't always relevant - I don't know if Harvey Weinstein did anything against Selma Hayek that was exactly illegal. Sometimes the actions are not crimes really. However, I still think it's best to have "reasonable doubt" as individuals even if we're not applying the term to a court situation.

Honestly, when I heard about people demanding Ryan Seacrest not cover the academy awards, I imagined Twitter activists putting a #scarlet sign on him. People get upset because it looks like we're stating the accuser is lying. That's not necessarily true. Most members of the public don't know the people involved personally and we weren't there when the incident allegedly took place. We're being asked to ostracize someone and we don't know the facts.