Archive for the ‘Rights’ Category
I have been reading and thinking about the Hejab lately. Here’s a blog post on the topic I thought was fascinating.
This whole notion that women wear the Hejab by “choice” is so perplexing to me.
How can wearing the Hejab be a choice if it’s the only option? For something to be a true choice, don’t you have to be as free to say “No” as you are to say “Yes”?
Or am I missing something huge?
“Several hundred men eventually attacked the protesters. Several of the women who stood their ground with considerable courage were stabbed as they chanted slogans for equal rights.”
There are really only two reactions to this that I can imagine: 1) sheer hopelessness or 2)doubling down on the fight for fairness.
What’s it gonna be?
We all know that women make up 1/2 the human resources on planet earth. So is there any reasonable response, other than outrage, at the ample evidence that women, with vicious regularity, suffer disproportionately at human hands?
Let’s just parse an article in the New York Times on the recent Afghan election, shall we?
“A particular concern was the notably low turnout of women, who election observer organizations said were disproportionately affected by the violence and intimidation.”
“But women voters seemed to have faced disproportionate obstacles, election observer groups said. “
“Hundreds of polling stations for women (stations throughout the country were segregated to keep men and women from publicly mingling) did not even open in some areas where Taliban influence is high, but women also suffered discrimination and intimidation in some places in central and northern Afghanistan. Female candidates received threats and were largely ignored in news coverage of the elections, the observers said.”
‘The disproportionate effects of poor security conditions, widespread cultural opposition to women in public life and a number of attacks clearly aimed at deterring women’s activities all created significant obstacles,’ the European Union observer mission said in its preliminary statement on Saturday.”
I’m outraged. How about you?
For the first time in 1000 years, women will be allowed in the vicinity of these artworks.
“The original decree banning women, and female animals (except cats, which help control the rat population), from the enclave was issued by the Byzantine emperor Constantine Monomachos in 1045. Under Greek law, a breach of the ban by a woman can still lead to a jail sentence. The ban on female animals is enforced as strictly as possible. The monks maintain that the presence of women slows their path towards spiritual enlightenment. “
Perhaps someone realized that the “A” in the A train to enlightenment does not stand for apartheid.
Because justice should also be by the people, for the people…
More on the topic:
Dahlia Lithwick on Female Supreme Court Justices in Newsweek
“Empirical studies on gender and judging so far have been inconclusive. But in an award-winning 2008 paper titled “Untangling the Causal Effects of Sex on Judging,” Washington University’s Christina L. Boyd and Andrew D. Martin and Northwestern School of Law’s Lee Epstein suggest that women judges really are different. Surveying sex-discrimination suits resolved by panels of judges in federal circuit courts between 1995 and 2002, they examined whether male and female judges rule alike, and whether the presence of a woman on a panel affects the behavior of her male colleagues. Here’s what they found: male judges were 10 percent more likely to rule against alleged sex-discrimination victims, and male judges were “significantly more likely” to rule in their favor if a woman judge was on the panel.
Because Epstein, Boyd and Martin were only studying sex-discrimination cases, it’s unclear whether their data would hold true in cases where gender was beside the point. Still, its intriguing that male judges rule differently when they’re sharing the bench with a woman: it suggests female moral reasoning—if such a thing exists—might be contagious.”
The original research by Boyd, Martin and Epstein is is here.
Take home quotes:
Akala, a widow, 38
“A woman cannot live by herself. A woman cannot rent a house by herself. If she doesn’t have any money, she and her children will be ridiculed by society and if she does have money, her property will be seized. She will have neither good health nor a good life. And every moment of her life it is in danger.”
“I want to be one of those people who have changed this…”
Me too. How about you?
Join 5 for Fairness.
Though Afghan President Hamid Karzai has recently backpedaled, he did sign a law recently in Afghan law would have severely restricted the rights of Shia women and girls.
According to the Guardian, “the most controversial article says that the wife is ‘bound to preen for her husband, as and when he desires’ and ‘is bound to give a positive response to the sexual desire of her husband’.
Defenders of the law have pointed out that the legislation was improved by the lower house of parliament, which introduced the concession allowing women to leave their homes without the permission of their husbands if they had a good reason to.”
“A good reason.” Women can leave their homes without permission from their husband if they “a good reason.” And THAT’S an improvement?
I’d say this law, and the fact that Karzai backpedaled on it only due to significant international pressure, is a very good reason to join 5 for Fairness.