Category: misogyny and gender discrimination

Muslim teenager filmed dancing in Birmingham gets vilified and threatened; feminists refuse to condemn the threats, but Maajid Nawaz does

March 13, 2017 • 9:00 am

As we know, much of the Left (the “nonliberal” or “authoritarian” or “regressive” Left) has made concessions to illiberalism. When a religion whose members are mostly “people of color,” like, Islam, then it’s considered judicious to ignore the oppressive beliefs of that religion: homophobia, misogyny, censorship, demonization and calls for the murder of cartoonists, nonbelivers and apostates, corporal punishment, and so on. In other words, when pigmentation conflicts with oppression, this part of the Left favors pigmentation. The color of one’s skin takes precedence over the content of one’s character.

Here is a case in point.  A 17-year-old Muslim girl was filmed with a cellphone “twerking” (dancing in a provocative manner while wiggling the butt) in the streets of Birmingham. The film was put on YouTube; have a look (it may disappear soon):

Guess what happened?

Yep, you’re right. She was vilified. As News.com.au reports:

Footage of her dancing was later uploaded online, and attracted a barrage of hateful comments.

One wrote: “That’s so disrespectful is you are wearing hijab you are representing Islam respect dignity so how to act like a fool that is a big disrespect.”

Another said: “Truly disgusting.

“Some people don’t understand the meaning of the veil.”

One even said she “needs to be killed”.

The “hijab” comment shows what we all know: it’s not just an “empowering” article of clothing, but a symbol of oppression—something that, when you wear it, mandates that you must behave in a certain way.

The comments also included these:  “F*****g s**t someone give me her address I will kill her”. Another man seconded: “Stupid b****h needs to be killed”. It’s not clear how many of these comments came from Britain versus Muslim-majority countries, but given that many were in English, they certainly reflect the sentiments of some British Muslims.

Of course to avoid vilification or even murder, the twerking girl had to express contrition in public. From News.com.au:

She later gave an emotional interview to Muslim YouTube star Ali Dawah.

The teenager, who has not been named, told him during a phone interview: “To all the girls that wear hijab and wear abayah, I’m sorry for disrespecting it.

“I’ve learnt from my mistake.

“It’s gone viral and I’m just hurt, I just want everybody to leave it alone and keep everything away, I don’t want it to be how it was and I am not going to do anything like that again.

“I am sorry for disrespecting it and thank you to all of you that helped, it’s up to Allah to judge, at the end of the day I will be judged for it, not you guys.”

She also says that she has “problems”, “didn’t think straight,” and was suffering from depression that began when she was 13.  No wonder she was depressed, growing up in a culture like that!

Dawah’s Video of Shame and Contrition is below; the girl’s groveling and apologies begin at 5:29, accompanied by her crying, and it’s ineffably sad. To his credit, Dawah rejects the vilification heaped on the girl, and says the video should be taken down, but he also heavily criticizes her behavior, calling it “really bad,” “inappropriate,” “sinful”, and even “the work of the devil.” He offers to put the girl in touch with “some good sisters in Birmingham” to help her. (Read: to make sure she henceforth stays in line.)

Dawah’s job here is to reinforce the standards of sharia law, and he and his co-broadcaster blame music as being partly responsible for the girl’s “grave sin”. As he says, “This is why music is harm. . . it’s the work of [inaudible, but probably the Muslim Satan].” But they express hope that the girl will shape up, get married and “wear niqab.” Niqab! (That’s a face covering, in case you’ve forgotten).

The two guys, for all their pretend compassion, are really trying to keep women in line and recommend appropriate rehabilitation. They are—and I say this without irony—instruments of the Muslim patriarchy. They’re young, but when they grow up they’ll enforce the same oppression that this woman experienced—and in Britain!

Maajid Nawaz on LBC radio (“Leading Britain’s Conversation”) didn’t pull any punches. He’s a Muslim, but abhors these threats and calls out feminists for not joining him (click on the screenshot to go to his 3½-minute video.)

Part of the transcript, which you can see here:

“What happened next [after the video was posted] is chilling. It will freeze the blood within your very body. Amid threats in YouTube comment threads, such as ‘effing, swear word, someone give me her address I will kill her’ and ‘stupid, swear word, needs to be killed’, the young girl was dragged onto a page by a pair of religious fundamentalists, who at first posted a picture in disgust at her dancing, and in a recorded audio, was forced into an online repentance.

“A public, tearful, apology, repentance and retraction, merely for dancing. Welcome to the United Kingdom in 2017. We may have just witnessed our first online religious fundamentalist inquisition.

“Initiated, conducted, and concluded, all online. And the worst part of this? Is it happened a couple of days before International Women’s Day, and you’d be forgiven for not having heard of it.

“Not a single global, nor national, feminist movement adopted this as a cause. Not a single mainstream, left wing nor liberal, media outlet reported on this.

“And I am wondering whether feminists are too busy picking first world fights while neglecting the minorities within minority communities. Like women within Muslim communities, who face a triple threat, who are discriminated from three different directions.

“One for being people of colour. Two, for being women within patriarchal communities that tell them they can’t work, or they can’t leave the home, or they have to submit to arranged marriages, or FGM, or any other form of oppression.

“And three, because they are Muslim, they’re also suspected by the outside world. The triple threat that women within Muslim communities face is heavy as a burden.

“And I think feminists are too busy picking first world fights while under their noses, within their own country, things like this are happening.”

Nawaz is of course correct; you won’t find mention of this incident in the New York Times, Huffington Post, Jezebel, or Everyday Feminism. No, those sites are devoted to glorifying the hijab, the very symbol of this kind of oppression (see here and here, for instance). You’ll find this news only on the conservative websites and British tabloids, like the Sun, the Daily Fail, Breitbart and Heat Street. Such is the unholy agreement between true liberals and bigoted conservatives. But even conservatives can be right about things, even if for the wrong reasons.

Some people say, “There’s no such thing as the Regressive Left. It’s a fiction—a strawman.” It isn’t.  The Regressive Left are those who refuse to condemn the oppression of women when it’s done by Muslims. That’s regressive by any definition, for it takes us back to the bad old days when women were considered second-class citizens and their opportunities were limited. You would think that feminists, especially in Britain, would decry this kind of oppression: amidst their own struggles and protestations of victimhood, that they could spare a word or two for their Muslim sisters. If a woman can wear what she wants, shouldn’t she be able to dance if she wants? And if she does, she shouldn’t get death threats, shouldn’t be vilified, shouldn’t be forced to apologize in tears and promise to repent. Isn’t that behavior that feminists should call out? But we know why they don’t.

One person who did is Maryam Namazie, spokesperson for Iran Solidarity, One Law for All and the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain.

Bangladesh set to reduce allowable age of child marriage to zero

March 12, 2017 • 11:00 am

According to the site Girls Not Brides, since 1929 the legal age of marriage in Bangladesh is 18 for women and 21 for men. Yet the law is widely flouted: 52% of Bangladeshi girls are married by 18, and 18% by the age of 15. This is the second highest rate of child marriage on the planet. (Note that Wikipedia cites several countries with higher rates of under-18 marriages; Niger, a highly Muslim country, is the highest with up to 76% of marriages involving women under 18.)

Now, in a regressive move, Bangladesh is considering adopting the “Child Marriage Restraint Act”, which has already passed Parliament but awaits Presidential approval. According to an article in The Independent, the old limits will be kept but a new loophole will be introduced that allows people to marry at younger ages “in special cases”, or where such marriages are “in the best interests” of the child. There is no lower age limit for this loophole, theoretically allowing very young girls to get married, or women to marry their rapists or statutory rapists. (Supporters of the bill note that it will also increase punishments of those who violate the Act.)

As the Independent reports:

The Girls Not Brides group said no examples of “special cases” had been given that would make child marriage acceptable, saying other measures such as protecting education and providing economic opportunities for girls would better serve their futures.

. . . “The need to protect the ‘honour’ of girls who have become pregnant was widely cited by the Bangladesh government as the reason for this provision. However marriage is not the best way to protect adolescent girls and exposes them to greater harm.”

Now I’m not gong to pin this solely on Islam, as some African countries with high rates of child marriage are not majority-Muslim, yet have cultural and societal excuses for such marriages. But Islam certainly promotes this kind of behavior by reinforcing the “honour and purity” culture, as well as by the example of Muhammad, who, according to tradition, married one child of six and took her virginity when she was nine and he 53. And other religions, like Mormonism, also promote this reprehensible practice.

The law will be finalized today after the government makes any amendments. The only amendment that should be made is to reaffirm the 1929 law.

Below is a picture from the Independent article with the caption: “15 year old Nasoin Akhter is consoled by a friend on the day of her wedding to a 32 year old man, August 20, 2015 in Manikganj, Bangladesh.”

Getty Images

U.S. Chess Federation supports boycott of hijab-requiring Women’s Championships in Iran

October 16, 2016 • 2:00 pm

I’ve posted several times about the World Chess Federation’s (FIDE’s) decision to hold the Women’s World Championships in Iran in February, and how some women players have objected because they’d be forced to wear the headscarf (hijab) while playing. One of them, Nazí Paikidze-Barnes, who happens to be the U.S. women’s champion, was vociferous in saying she’d not only boycott the championships if they didn’t eliminate the hijab requirement or move the tournament, but started a Change.Org petition that now has nearly 16,000 signers.

26601547512_d7e53f50ef_b
Paikidze-Barnes

So far FIDE hasn’t budged, but there’s still some good news. As The Torygraph reports, the U.S. Chess Federation, and its Danish and English counterparts, have come out in support of the boycott:

Gary Walters, the US Chess Federation’s president, said his board warned Fide it strongly opposes Iran’s strict Islamic dress code being imposed at next year’s world championships.

It follows widespread anger, revealed by The Telegraph, after Fide awarded the championships to Tehran, where female players will face punishment if they refuse to cover up.

. . . US Chess Federation board president Gary Walters said: “We absolutely support Nazi Paikidze. Women should not be oppressed for cultural, religious or ethnic reasons.

“US Chess wholeheartedly supports Paikidze. She has taken a principled position of which we can be proud.

“Last week, US Chess delivered a letter to Fide asking it to clarify any dress or other behavior that may be imposed upon the participants by the host government or federation.

“We reminded Fide that the forced wearing of a hijab or other dress is contrary to Fide’s handbook, as well as against the International Olympic Committee’s principles, an organization Fide has sought to join for a substantial period of time.

“We hope that each of our qualifiers, along with other participants around the world, will be able to participate in the Women’s World Championship without the distraction of political or religious concerns.”

The English and Danish chess federations have also issued statements opposing the decision, as has the Association of Chess Professionals.

The Iranians, and FIDE are standing firm:

However, last week the head of Iran’s chess federation, Mehrdad Pahlevanzadeh, said the calls for a boycott were unreasonable.

Everywhere in the world, there are rules on how to cover your body. There is no place in the world where people can wear nothing in public,” he said.

Fide’s chief executive Geoffrey Borg, also told a Tehran press conference last week that federation members had not expressed “the slightest objection” when Iran was selected as host.

“Chess players should respect the laws of countries,” Borg said. “The only objections have been on personal pages, for which Fide is not responsible.”

The Iranian excuse is bogus since the stricture is not a societal one about nudity, but a religious one based on Islamic “modesty.” And FIDE’s stand is simply reprehensible, for, as Paikidze-Barnes noted in her petition, FIDE’s own regulations “reject discriminatory treatment for national, political, racial, social or religious reasons or on account of sex”  (see below). And, of course, women are being treated in a discriminatory fashion here. So even if FIDE says that the objections are on personal pages, the organization doesn’t have enough self-respect to enforce its own dictates. They’re spineless.

screen-shot-2016-10-16-at-1-51-44-pm

I suspect the tournament will go on as scheduled, but my hope is that it’s boycotted. And the brave women who do—for they face career setbacks by missing the World Championship—will send a strong message not only to Iran (and a supportive message to Iranian women), but also to Western countries that, in their craven cowardice, refuse to stand up to religiously-based misogyny.

 

h/t: Malgorzata

Maajid Nawaz’s moving tribute to Qandeel Baloch

July 18, 2016 • 11:00 am

I was going to write about Pakistani model and actress Qandeel Baloch, who was murdered by her brother in an “honor killing” just three days ago, but I didn’t know much about her, and, of course, honor killings are a dime a dozen in the misogynistic and faith-ridden culture of Pakistan.  But then I read a truly touching and heartfelt tribute to her by Maajid Nawaz in The Daily Beast, “Murdered Pakistani Icon Quandeel Baloch had zero f***s left to give.” Do read it, as it’s immensely moving.

The facts are clear: Baloch was not just a model and actress, but was actively challenging Pakistani’s paternalistic culture by posting salacious pictures of herself on social media, explaining why she was doing it, and—her greatest “crime”—consorting with a Pakistani cleric during Ramadan, during which she flirted with him, sat on his lap, and had drinks with him. Smitten, the cleric. Mufti Abdul Qavi, reportedly asked her to marry him.  (He was fired, of course, but nobody will kill him. It’s the woman who must be killed, for she’s the temptress.)

63db4a25777f41edae5fa14147039e3d_18
(From Al-Jazeera): ‘As women we must stand up for ourselves,’ wrote Baloch, next to this photograph on her official Facebook page [Al Jazeera/Facebook/Qandeel Baloch]
For these and other “crimes,” Baloch was strangled by her brother, who first drugged her before smothering her. Reported to the police by Baloch’s father (a welcome act of “dishonor”), her brother has been arrested. He showed no remorse, saying that he was glad for what he did, and it was better to kill her than live with dishonor and have to kill himself.  Here are a few more of the “crimes” that led to her murder:

From Al-Jazeera:

On her final, July 4 post to her Facebook page, which has almost 800,000 fans, she wrote: “I am trying to change the typical orthodox mindset of people who don’t wanna come out of their shells of false beliefs and old practices. ”

The 26-year-old faced frequent misogynist abuse and death threats but continued to post.

Earlier this year, Baloch offered to strip if the Pakistani cricket team beat India.

She also posed for selfies with a high-profile Muslim cleric in an incident that saw him swiftly rebuked by the country’s religious affairs ministry.

Before her death Baloch spoke of worries about her safety and had appealed to the interior ministry to provide her with security for protection. No help was provided and the interior ministry has not commented on her death.

Here’s one of the incriminating photos of Baloch with the cleric:

Qandeel-Baloch-hot-pictures-With-Mufti-Abdul-Qavi-new-scandal-700x400

From CNN:

Qandeel’s videos were not very different from the thousands of others shared by 20-something social media celebrities across the Internet. She pouted into the camera, discussed her hairstyles and shared cooing confessions about her celebrity crushes.

But in Pakistan, her flirty antics pushed the boundaries of what is acceptable.

On the list of 145 countries featured in the World Economic Forum’s 2015 Gender Gap Report, Pakistan is second to last with regards to gender disparity.According to the Independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, violence against women is rampant, with as many as 212 women being killed in the name of ‘honor’ in the first five months of 2016.
Baloch in fact made a video, called “Ban,” mocking those who tried to censor her acts. You can see how that video, below, would anger a repressive, censorious group of men who, of course, secretly coveted her. It’s a real slap in the face to the Pakistani Pecknsniffs:

And a few emotional words from Nawaz, whose piece you must read:

I will focus on Qandeel herself, her courage, and what that courage should mean for the rest of us. So let us not just call Qandeel an aspiring Pakistani model or an aspiring actress. Let us not refer to Qandeel only as a Pakistani social media star, and let us not primarily define her as the Pakistani Kim Kardashian.

Qandeel Baloch, real name Fauzia Azeem, may have been many of those things, but she transcended every single one of them. For despite Kim Kardashian’s undoubtedly noble and widely lauded contribution to social justice in America, she does not risk her life daily merely by existing.

But by her mere presence Qandeel Baloch was a one-woman revolution against religiously and culturally justified misogyny. This in a society where the cost of speaking out can be lethal betrayal by those who are meant to love you the most: your own family. So most of all let us remember Qandeel Baloch as a fearless Pakistani women’s rights campaigner who had zero fucks left to give.

For it is only by having zero fucks left to give that a woman in today’s Pakistan can be brave enough to post sexually suggestive videos of herself. It is only by having zero fucks left to give that a woman in today’s Pakistan could promise to strip online if her country’s national cricket team won against India. It is only by having zero fucks left to give can a woman in today’s Pakistan pluck up the courage to summon a leading member of her country’s mullah mafia to a hotel room, only to film him turning to putty in her hands, mesmerized by her flirtation as he allowed her to sit in his lap while she donned his religious hat. Apparently, Mufti Abdul Qavi even proposed to her in that fateful hotel room encounter.

And about the odious practice of honor killing, which of course is reinforced by Islam as well as Hindusim:

The way Qandeel did this was to highlight the sheer hypocrisy present in a society that punishes sexuality while returning one of the highest gay porn searches in the world. Men disparagingly labeled her as “loose” while drooling all over her. Women muttered at her scandalousness while simultaneously envying her.

That Qandeel was immensely brave is self-evident. Even in his mourning, her father recognized this fact. But the purpose of such misnamed “honor” killings is enforcement. They are the last resort mechanism left to a society that fetishizes sex in the name of religion and culture, and as a result despises and most of all fears female expression. That millions of Pakistani girls—who saw in Qandeel a ray of hope—will now be intimidated into silence is beyond doubt.

Finally, some words that made me tear up:

My dear brothers, let us all have zero fucks left to give. In what world could it possibly be “honorable” to strangle your own sister to death with your bare hands, then boast about it? In which religion is the murder of your own sibling more “honorable” than love? We have to accept that our “honor” is not defined by our female relatives’ actions. Our “honor” can only be defined by our own behavior. So to those among us who agree with me, there is only one option left to take. Let us celebrate Qandeel, not be ashamed of her. Let us place Qandeel’s beautiful image on our T-shirts. Let us proudly post her pictures on our social media accounts. Let us show those who prefer to suffocate beauty that we are not scared. We are not scared of female emancipation, nor are we scared of those who enforce against it.

And when our brothers stop us to ask why we are doing so, let us cite the passage of the Quran in reply: “for what crime was she killed?”

. . . And finally, Qandeel Baloch, I say to you not rest in peace, for that would ascribe to your death a level of passivity that your life proves you would resent. No, to my sister Qandeel Baloch, you fearless Pakistani warrior who had zero fucks left to give, I say to you…may you rest in power.

Amen.

_84eba3e8-ecd9-11e5-90f8-20a657ae7b03

h/t: Grania

When Western women betray their Muslim sisters with gestures of patronizing regressivity

March 24, 2016 • 10:00 am

by Grania Spingies

A few days ago I wrote about a new sports outfit for Afghanistan’s women soccer players. It always disappoints me bitterly when Westerners help prop up parochial norms in other societies, especially ones that have have been enforced against women without their consent or approval of those women – or of society in general . The one bright light in that story is that perhaps some girls will get to participate in a sport that they might not have been able to.

Now there’s a new example of this closer to home. Marks & Spencer in the UK now offers a swimsuit, the burkini, for sale. Their sales pitch is this:

This burkini suit covers the whole body with the exception of the face, hands and feet, without compromising on style. It’s lightweight so you can swim in comfort. [Ed. by Grania: Yeah right.]

SD_01_T52_9886F_Y4_X_EC_90
Also doubles as a ninja suit, or possibly a waiter outfit in a themed restaurant.

 

thumbburkini
Other uses include pyjamas for those afraid of earwigs.

Its other use is to avoid sunburn, and I suppose if someone wants to appear in public in a full gimp suit, that’s their own business.

220px-Zentai_BDSM
Man in bondage suit for comparison. This one prevents nose sunburn too.

While some people are patting M&S on their collective heads for embracing multiculturalism–and I am sure this outfit was marketed with the very best of intentions–what they are also doing is endorsing the mindset that says that women’s bodies are shameful, and are to be regarded as the property of either their fathers or husbands. They are to be concealed under the guise of “modesty” and “virtue”, very often with the explicitly stated corollary that those women who do not cover up are immodest, dishonorable and immoral.

There is no way for any woman to win when faced with that sort of choice. You are doomed if you comply, you are damned if you refuse.

We all know that pretty much the only proponents of this point of view  in the 21st century are conservative religious authorities.

Back in the 1950s it was the Catholic pope bitterly complaining about the bikini when Kiki Håkansson won the Miss World beauty pageant wearing one. History is silent on what the pope, the epitome of celibacy, was doing watching beauty pageants. We only know that he didn’t like it and felt it incumbent upon him to say so in public.

1890s
Bathing costumes in the 1890s. Practically libertine by burkini standards.

For years the Miss World pageant in all its tawdry and pointless glory treated Western religious sensibilities with the contempt they deserved. In 2013 they did a 180 degree about-face on the bikini issue. The reason? The organisers were afraid of offending Muslims in that year’s host country, Indonesia. To be clear on this, the host country had not demanded anything of the sort. This was a “proactive” decision taken unilaterally by the organisers, and in so doing they sent out a very clear message that the only the feelings of the most conservative religious people mattered. As Dr Brooke Magnanti wrote in The Telegraph:

[I]t continues to be surprising that many feminists seem to have no great problem with this. Sure, the ends some wanted have been achieved. Bikinis gone thanks to the Pope or Muslims or whoever it is this time. But at what cost? As they say where I come from (the US), ‘you got to dance with the one who brung you’. Such dirty alliances always, always, come with a hidden cost. It doesn’t take much imagination to see what outcome religious conservatives of any faith are aiming for when they order the womenfolk to cover up.

1940s
Seventy years ago your grandma was wearing this.

So why is this a problem in a cosmopolitan melting pot like the UK in  2016? When retailers in Western Europe produce these sorts of garments, they are not “helping” women. They are pandering to the whims of male ultra-conservative religious leaders, and in so doing are tacitly endorsing the misogyny contained in all such religious edicts on female clothing. Like the well-meaning fools who rushed out to don a hijab in a show of solidarity (and lack of neural activity), it betrays those Muslim women in the community who do not wish to conform to whatever the most conservative and parochial voices of self-appointed leaders have ordained acceptable. These acts endorse and promote the worldview of those who suggest that women are to be treated like children or possessions. It severely undermines the voices of women who wish to live as authors of their own lives.

Here’s a simple test: if you are promoting clothing that looks like it predates everything in the last century and at least half of the century before that, you are promoting the opposite of progress.

The Pope hits all the right notes—except one

September 25, 2015 • 10:00 am

I want to like the Pope—I really do. And I do like him as a man: he’s not arrogant, is concerned for the poor, and lives abstemiously, dedicated to his mission as head of the Catholic Church. But it’s his mission that I’m concerned about, because, compassionate though he is, Francis conspicuously neglects one issue directly related to what he’s preached to Congress and the United Nations. And we know what that is.

In his talk to Congress on Thursday, Frances took a liberal stance, decrying poverty, exhorting people to accept immigrants into their country, touting freedom of religion, and criticizing capitalism, the death penalty, the international arms trade—even religious fundamentalism. These are all Enlightenment values. And, instead of going to a scheduled lunch with politicians, he did this:

[Pope Francis] waded into a crowd of mostly homeless men and women, including felons, mentally ill people, victims of domestic violence and substance abusers. He stopped to lay his hand on the heads of children who had kept quiet for hours of waiting with special pope coloring books.

That’s lovely: the act of a man of compassion and empathy.

But his compassion has limits, circumscribed by his Church’s dogma on reproduction. As we know, the Church frowns on birth control, whether by pills, IUDs, or vasectomy and tubal ligation. Its prohibition of abortion is absolute, save for the year’s grace Francis gave women to obtain forgiveness for abortions in ways not previously allowed.

The Pope’s views on reproduction were condensed into one sentence of his address to Congress: “The Golden Rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development.” But he then went on to discuss the death penalty, knowing that if he said more than that already-clear sentence, he’d wade into a huge controversy.

Yes, the Pope’s Big Failure is that an obvious solution to both global warming and poverty—not the only solution, but an important one—is something he cannot sanction: allowing women to control their own reproduction. And so, in his recent encyclical on climate change, the Pope blamed global warming on capitalism and explicitly argued that we shouldn’t blame overpopulation (my emphasis):

50. Instead of resolving the problems of the poor and thinking of how the world can be different, some can only propose a reduction in the birth rate. At times, developing countries face forms of international pressure which make economic assistance contingent on certain policies of “reproductive health”. Yet “while it is true that an unequal distribution of the population and of available resources creates obstacles to development and a sustainable use of the environment, it must nonetheless be recognized that demographic growth is fully compatible with an integral and shared development”. To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues.

The part in bold is sheer cant—a justification of the Church’s desire for more Catholics. In fact, in his Encyclical, Francis viewed abortion itself as inimical to concern for global warming!:

120. Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties? “If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of the new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away”.[97]

Overpopulation is a big contributor not just to global warming, but to poverty as well. Who can deny that allowing women to practice the kind of birth control prohibited by the Church would help lift them and their societies out of poverty? Remember what Christopher Hitchens said (and remember, too, the accusations of his misogyny that are belied by his words):

“The cure for poverty has a name, in fact: it’s called the empowerment of women. If you give women some control over the rate at which they reproduce, if you give them some say, take them off the animal cycle of reproduction to which nature and some doctrine—religious doctrine condemns them, and then if you’ll throw in a handful of seeds perhaps and some credit, the floor of everything in that village, not just poverty, but education, health, and optimism will increase. It doesn’t matter; try it in Bangladesh, try it in Bolivia, it works—works all the time. Name me one religion that stands for that, or ever has. Wherever you look in the world and you try to remove the shackles of ignorance and disease stupidity from women, it is invariably the clericy that stands in the way, or in the case of—now, furthermore, if you are going to grant this to Catholic charities, say, which I would hope are doing a lot of work in Africa, if I was a member of a church that had preached that AIDS was not as bad as condoms, I’d be putting some conscience money into Africa too, I must say.”

And so Katha Pollitt’s new piece in The Nation has an appropriate title: “If Pope Francis really wanted to fight climate change, he’d be a feminist.”  Politt’s message is similar to that of Hitchens: if the Pope really cared about poverty—or at least cared more about poverty than breeding more Catholics and enforcing antiquated dogma—he’d free women from their reproductive shackles. For half of the poor about whom Francis is so concerned happen to have two X chromosomes, and aren’t allowed ways to escape their status as breeders.

Pollitt’s opening sentence is brilliant:

If the world consisted only of straight men, Pope Francis would be the world’s greatest voice for everything progressives believe in.

She goes on to discuss how, blinkered by his faith, the Pope simply can’t approve of a simple solution to poverty and global warming. For, in truth, it’s far easier to give women contraception and abortions than to overthrow capitalism and greed:

I know I risk being the feminist killjoy at the vegan love feast, but the world, unlike Vatican City, is half women. It will never be healed of its economic, social, and ecological ills as long as women cannot control their fertility or the timing of their children; are married off in childhood or early adolescence; are barred from education and decent jobs; have very little socioeconomic or political power or human rights; and are basically under the control—often the violent control­­—of men.

. . .  Pope Francis places the blame for the sorry state of the planet only on excess consumption by the privileged and says that international campaigns for “reproductive health” (scare quotes his) are really all about population control and the imposition of foreign values on the developing world—as if the church itself was not a foreign power using its might to restrict reproductive rights in those same places. But why is it an either/or question? Why not: There are billions of people who want a modern standard of living, which makes a lot of sense compared to the alternative—backbreaking farm labor in a poor village with no electricity or running water—and those desires can only be satisfied if people have fewer children, which happens to be what they want anyway.

It’s a medium-long piece that you should read in its entirety, but I’ll finish with Pollitt’s final paragraph, as brilliant as her opening:

Never mind the 47,000 women who die every year in illegal abortions, and the even greater number who are injured: Abortion causes glaciers to melt and species to vanish. From Eden to ecology, it’s always women’s fault.

Some Arizona schoolbooks carry anti-abortion stickers

August 22, 2015 • 1:00 pm

Alabama remains the only state in the U.S. to have “warning stickers” about evolution pasted in biology textbooks in public schools (see below). Although the sticker has been slightly changed, it’s pretty close to what you see below. And, of course, it’s unconstitutional, because it singles out just one “theory”, which is demonized solely on religious grounds.

cobb-county1

Things are even worse in Arizona, though. According to both PuffHo and Talking Points Memo, one school district (Gilbert) in Arizona is putting anti-abortion stickers in textbooks. Actually, the school hands out the stickers to the students, and makes them paste them in their high school biology books. Here’s the sticker, which references two Arizona laws:

vqccijlhb1p203yf1txq

Suzanne Young, a well known author, reports at TPM (my emphasis):

[Young’s] son, a freshman at Gilbert High School in Gilbert, Arizona, told her that if students didn’t put the abstinence-only education sticker in their textbooks, the student would have to speak with their grade-level administrator.

“They’re teaching morality on an educational textbook,” Young, a former high school teacher, said.

. . . This language was taken almost verbatim from an Arizona law that states that schools can only provide support (financial or instruction) to a sexual education program that presents giving birth and adoption as preferred to abortion.

The other law referenced on the sticker states Arizona schools may provide medically accurate and age-appropriate instruction on AIDS and HIV. The instruction must also promote abstinence, cannot promote “a homosexual life-style” and cannot “portray homosexuality as a positive alternative life-style.”

The stickers are apparently a response to a debate in the district last year. The Gilbert Public Schools board wanted to edit the chapter on human reproduction to exclude abortion, according to local reports. But the board nixed this idea because of copyright concerns.

What happens to a kid who doesn’t put the sticker in his/her book? They get singled out for special treatment:

[Young’s] son, a freshman at Gilbert High School in Gilbert, Arizona, told her that if students didn’t put the abstinence-only education sticker in their textbooks, the student would have to speak with their grade-level administrator.

What kid wants to speak to an administrator?

Gilbert, then, is apparently following Arizona law by amending textbooks that even mention abortion. But the other law—the one that says that books can’t promote a homosexual “life-style” or as a “positive” life-style, is just invidious.  First of all, I doubt that the books even do that; they probably just mention homosexuality. But if —as I believe—homosexuality is not a “choice,” but a strong biological urge of some people, then portraying it positively (or at least not negatively) wouldn’t be so bad anyway, for it would give solace and support to those children attracted to others of the same sex.

Such are the strictures, born of fear, that the God-fearing citizens of Gilbert, Arizona impose on their children. Grow up, Gilbert!