Category: misogyny and gender discrimination

Guest post: Why is it okay to discriminate against women for religious reasons?

April 23, 2015 • 9:10 am

JAC:  Reader Diane G. and I have had some email exchanges about the bad treatment of women by hyper-Orthodox Jews, including the several incidents I’ve reported when they wouldn’t sit next to women on a plane. These men also have religious strictures against touching or shaking hands with women. I asked Diane if she would mind writing a post about it for this site, and she kindly complied. Her mini-essay is below:

*******

Why is it okay to discriminate against women for religious reasons?

by Diane G.

Here at WEIT Jerry’s written more than once about the Hasids-on-a-Plane culture clash (e.g., here and here).  For anyone who’s been out in the field for the past several months, in brief this involves Orthodox Jewish men taking commercial flights and refusing to sit near women because their religion prohibits it.

What’s been interesting to me in the resultant conversations is the occasional male commenter (and perhaps there have been females as well) who doesn’t view this as discrimination or misogyny.  People who I would have expected to say, “your religious beliefs stop at my right to sit where I am” argue instead that this is simply a matter of courtesy and respect, that changing seats is the polite thing to do.

The Washington Post‘s Amanda Bennett noticed the same pushback, and wrote a column that appeared in the April 19th edition, Why is it okay to discriminate against women for religious reasons?   In addition to the plane incidents, she begins her article with an anecdote about running into an Orthodox man at a social function:

Not very long ago I met a young man at a business function. “Hello, I’m Amanda,” I said, sticking out my hand in greeting. He kept his arms glued to his side. “I don’t touch women,” he said.

That exchange–which I thought was a particularly pointed description of these slap-in-the-face moments–received as much or more attention in the WaPo comment section as did the plane behavior.  Those who disagreed with Bennett sensibly stressed (and stressed and stressed and stressed) that no one should ever feel required to shake hands, raising all the legitimate reasons one might not want to: germ-avoidance, arthritis, mere dislike of shaking, etc.

Unable to shake (heh) my conviction that Bennett had been rudely dissed, I reread her short description until I decided it was the brusque delivery of the message that made it discriminatory. New worry: does this make me a Tone Troll?  Surely, if you know your customs clash with Western 21st century standards, you could at least use humor, self-deprecation, or any of the other ways society’s developed to disarm verbal conflicts. Perhaps, say, a smile accompanied by an “I’m sorry, my religion forbids me from shaking your hand.”  Hmmm; that still doesn’t sit well.  But I do think that’s the way to avoid shaking for all the other reasons; just bringing out the charming, contrite smile, and a simple, “Sorry, I don’t shake hands,” would do.

Nevertheless, the theme of WaPo comments such as the following disturbed me, although the last thing I want to appear as is a pomo-feminist SJW:

Mutual respect, “live and let live”, isn’t good enough for the politically correct crowd, they demand not just tolerance but endorsement. This is tyranny and not conducive to a peaceful society.

***

The liberal Outrage Lobby strikes again. So now, sincere religious belief is trumped by Amanda Bennett’s desire to shake hands. Amanda, the next time someone refuses to shake your hand, you might consider it’s actually because you are an anti-religious bigot.

***

The really important question is why the woman writer feels humiliated because another person does not shake her hand for religious reasons? The lefties love creating social turmoil and this is a favored strategy, being “offended” by the practices of others that the lefties can pretend are motivated by an intent to cause them “anguish.”

***

This whole discussion amazes me. A shomer negiаh sees his or her practice as respectful and chaste. This is a cultural divide which Ms. Bennett disrespects perhaps because she feels every thing is about her.

Does this mean I’m a narcissist and a traitor to my politics? Someone even saw Bennett’s reactions as anti-Semitic:

This article may be about discriminating women [sic] but it only shows the discrimination that Religious Jews face. How anti-Semitic is it to not take into consideration that Orthodox men feel uncomfortable with any physical contact with woman.

There were the expected (and in this case, unintentionally self-refuting) remarks from those who’ve drunk the Kool-Aid:

No, the Bible actually has no contradictions in it (apart from typos and translation errors). The creation story is given as an overview in Genesis One, then the particulars of the creation of man is given in Genesis Two.

Moreover, “rib” is a poor translation of  “Neged” (whence “negative” is derived). Adam was the compilation of both male and female (I am not speaking physically) until the female attributes were removed into a separate individual.

The woman has never, biblically, been considered inferior to the man; just at a different rank. It is the same as saying that a colonel is no more or less valuable as a person than a major; he simply has greater authority.

And from a woman for whom I feel very sad:

My husband and I have had myriad social experiences professionally with rich, powerful, educated persons etc. My skirt is below my knees, my dress has sleeves or a jacket, no plunging neckline, shoes without cutouts, no bare legs, and I walk just behind my husband so if someone throws something-it hits him first. Provacative [sic] attire/behavior is for entertainers or people who don’t mind being attacked.

For those of you who think this subject has already been talked into the ground here–I’m not helping!  But I know someone else has also sent Bennett’s article to Jerry, so perhaps I’m not the only one interested in continuing this discussion.  Finally, I heartily recommend a book, written before the Great Online-Atheist Schism, which is a cogent, exceptionally readable, egregious-example-filled treatment of the overarching topic here:  Does God Hate Women?, by Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Stangroom. Please consider reading this volume no matter what you think of one of the authors in light of subsequent events.

Blame Canada: Toronto university sparks fracas by supporting student’s refusal to work with women

January 10, 2014 • 8:36 am
Readers Diana and Lynn, both Canadians, called my attention to a news item from Ontario—and a public debate—taking place about the conflict between state and religion. It’s every bit as portentous as the burqa debate in Europe (France, by the way, just upheld its ban on the burqa by convicting a wearer), but doesn’t seem to have gotten on the international radar screen.
The issue has been reported by the CBC, the Star, and the National Post, but the quotes (indented) are from the Star, whose coverage is most complete. This took place at York University in Toronto, which, like most universities in Canada, is a public school.
In short, a male student of unknown faith (the possibilities include Orthodox Judaism or Islam, but I suspect the latter) asked to opt out of participating in a sociology class’s focus group because it included women—and associating with women violates his religion. The professor refused this request as outrageous, but—and here’s the kicker—the York administration ordered the prof to comply.  The professor, Dr. Paul Grayson, blew the whistle on his administration. That is a brave guy!
Here are the details:

The brouhaha began in September when a student in an online sociology class emailed Grayson about the class’s only in-person requirement: a student-run focus group.

“One of the main reasons that I have chosen internet courses to complete my BA is due to my firm religious beliefs,” the student wrote. “It will not be possible for me to meet in public with a group of women (the majority of my group) to complete some of these tasks.”

While Grayson’s gut reaction was to deny the request, he forwarded the email to the faculty’s dean and the director for the centre for human rights.

Their response shocked him; the student’s request was permitted.

The reasoning was apparently that students studying abroad in the same online class were given accommodations, and allowed to complete an alternative assignment.

“I think Mr. X must be accommodated in exactly the same way as the distant student has been,” the vice dean wrote to Grayson.

That, of course, is insane, because the student was not overseas and his refusal was due not to the inability to travel to Canada, but because he just didn’t want to work with women. And Grayson, in his reply to the dean, pulled no punches:

“York is a secular university. It is not a Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, or Moslem university. In our policy documents and (hopefully) in our classes we cling to the secular idea that all should be treated equally, independent of, for example, their religion or sex or race.

“Treating Mr. X equally would mean that, like other students, he is expected to interact with female students in his group.”

In a masterpiece of political correctness, the University stuck to its guns:

A university provost, speaking on behalf of the dean, said the decision to grant the student’s request was made after consulting legal counsel, the Ontario Human Rights Code and the university’s human rights centre.

“Students often select online courses to help them navigate all types of personal circumstances that make it difficult for them to attend classes on campus, and all students in the class would normally have access to whatever alternative grading scheme had been put in place as a result of the online format,” said Rhonda Lenton, provost and vice president academic.

The director of the Centre for Human Rights also weighed in on the decision in an email to Grayson.

“While I fully share your initial impression, the OHRC does require accommodations based on religious observances.”

Well, perhaps it does, but religious accommodations must give way when they conflict with the public good, and this is a public university. Refusing to associate with women is nothing other than an attempt to cast them as second-class citizens, and that human right trumps whatever misogyny is considered a “religious right.” If Mr. X wants to go to a synagogue in which women must sit in the back, or a mosque in which women can’t pray with men, that is his right, but he doesn’t have any right to make a public university accommodate that lunacy, any more than University College London can enforce gender-segregated seating at public lectures.

What’s the logical outcome of this kind of pandering to religion? Grayson again gave the university no quarter:

The professor argued that if a Christian student refused to interact with a black student, as one could argue with a skewed interpretation of the Bible, the university would undoubtedly reject the request.

“I see no difference in this situation,” Grayson wrote.

The interesting thing is that after hearing from the dean, Grayson (not knowing the student’s religion) consulted both Orthodox Jewish and Islamic scholars at York, who both told him that there was no bar to associating with women in their faiths so long as there was no physical contact. On that basis, Grayson and his colleagues in the sociology department refused the student’s request.

In the end, the student gave in. That might be the end of it, but Grayson still may face disciplinary action (like him, though, I doubt it). Who looks bad here is the university, which would even consider granting such a request.

Apparently this kind of clash between religious and secular values is not unique in Canadian education. As the Star reports:

The incident is the latest clash between religious values and Ontario’s secular education system.

Catholic schools resisted a call by Queen’s Park to allow so-called gay-straight student clubs because of the Vatican’s historic stand against homosexuality. But the government insisted such clubs be permitted as a tool against bullying — and a nod to Ontario’s commitment to freedom of sexual orientation.

Similar debate erupted in 2011 when a Toronto school in a largely Muslim neighbourhood allowed a Friday prayer service in the school cafeteria so that students would not leave for the mosque and not return.

However fewer cases have taken place at the post-secondary level.

Well, public schools are public schools, and they’re all supported by taxpayers. Just like a public university cannot teach creationism as science in the U.S. (at least at Ball State University), so a public university in Canada cannot discriminate against women, even in the name of catering to religious faith. How can the government insist that Catholic schools accept “gay-straight” clubs on the grounds of supporting freedom of sexual orientation, yet allow a student, also on religious grounds, to discrimiante against women?

There is no end to crazy religious beliefs, and I see no reason why basic human rights should be abrogated to cater to all those beliefs. The administration of York University now has egg on its face, and Professor Grayson is the hero.

There is now a Care 2 petition that you can sign directed to Martin Singer, Dean of the Faculty of Liberal Arts & Professional Studies, and Noël A. J. Badiou, Director at York University’s Centre for Human Rights, those who supported the student’s right to refuse to associate with women. It reads, in part:

We the undersigned stand up for women’s and men’s equality, as enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The statements and decisions made in this matter by Mr. Singer and Mr. Badiou suggest that they believe gender equality is subordinate to religious beliefs. We urge York University to retract this and re-affirm their stand on gender equality and women’s rights.

You don’t have to be Canadian to sign it, and right now there are only 453 signatures. They’re aiming for 1,000, so if you agree, head over to this link and add your name.

UK report urges that female genital mutilation be deemed “child abuse”

November 4, 2013 • 6:37 am

This practice is illegal in the UK but authorities have never enforced it.

Who can disagree with asking for action? Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a barbaric practice with no justification save the removal of sexual pleasure from women. And it produces all kinds of medical complications, some of them debilitating or even fatal.

In case you’ve forgotten what FGM involves, The World Health Organization describes the various types:

Female genital mutilation is classified into four major types.

  • Clitoridectomy: partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals) and, in very rare cases, only the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris).
  • Excision: partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (the labia are “the lips” that surround the vagina).
  • Infibulation: narrowing of the vaginal opening through the creation of a covering seal. The seal is formed by cutting and repositioning the inner, or outer, labia, with or without removal of the clitoris.
  • Other: all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, e.g. pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterizing the genital area.

The medical consequences:

  • recurrent bladder and urinary tract infections;
  • cysts;
  • infertility;
  • an increased risk of childbirth complications and newborn deaths;
  • the need for later surgeries. For example, the FGM procedure that seals or narrows a vaginal opening (type 3 above) needs to be cut open later to allow for sexual intercourse and childbirth. Sometimes it is stitched again several times, including after childbirth, hence the woman goes through repeated opening and closing procedures, further increasing and repeated both immediate and long-term risks.

WHO also estimates that 140 million women are living with the results of this practice, most of them in Africa. Though it’s often practiced by Muslims, I’m not aware that it’s mandated by any specific religion. Rather, it appears to be a cultural practice designed to keep women faithful by eliminating the possibility of sexual pleasure. Men, of course, are free to philander.

I also wasn’t aware that FGM is regularly practiced in the UK—and without penalty. Since doctors surely won’t do such operations, they must be performed by laypeople, which makes it even more barbaric.

FGM has been outlawed in the UK since 1985 and, as a new article in the Guardian notes, since 2003 it’s also been illegal for Britons to have it done overseas. Nevertheless, it’s been done thousands of times in Britain, without a single prosecution:

According to the report more than 66,000 women in England and Wales have undergone FGM and more than 24,000 girls under the age of 15 are at risk of it.

Despite its regular occurrence, FGM has not resulted in a prosecution in Britain, whereas in France there have been about 100.

The “report” mentioned above is the good news: it’s a document about to be presented to the House of Commons by its authors, the Royal Colleges of Midwifery, Nursing and Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Unite union and Equality Now. And it recommends that FGM be treated as child abuse. Here are its recommendations:

  • The report recommends that FGM must be treated as child abuse and evidence of it should be collected by the NHS and shared with the police and education officials. It also recommends that health workers who detect evidence of FGM should treat it as a crime and inform the police.
  • The report recommends that health workers identify girls at risk and treat them as if they were at risk of child abuse. Girls at risk are defined as girls born to a woman who has undergone FGM or a child who lives closely with someone who has.
  • It also calls for a government-funded awareness strategy, similar to the HIV campaigns, and for health workers to be held accountable for their success or failure in monitoring FGM among patients and sharing information.

What I’d like to know is why this hasn’t been done before, and why there have been no prosecutions for the practice in Britain.  Since it’s illegal, is this a concession to religious sensibilities? If so, it’s time to prosecute those who practice it, and damn the cultural and religious sensibilities. (I’ve actually seen FGM defended by Western feminists who, on the grounds of relativism, are loath to condemn other “cultures”.)

This is one case where a religious organization—a Muslim one—appears to be farther along the moral arc than is the British government:

The report clearly emphasises the importance of an individual’s safety over the respect for religious and racial sensibilities, a point welcomed by Shaista Gohir, the chairwoman of the Muslim Women’s Network.

“We need to be mindful of cultural and religious sensibilities but safeguarding the child from FGM has to be the priority. If a child is at risk it is better to protect them rather than religious and cultural feelings,” she said.

It’s shameful that the British government has simply ignored the laws on FGM, and it’s time to fix the situation. As Janet Fyle, an advisor to the Royal College of Midwives, argues:

“If we are applying child protection laws, we cannot pick and choose which crimes against children we pursue,” she said.

“We are not asking for more money or legislation, we are just asking that child protection laws should work for all children not just some.”

[Note: in the comments, you can weigh in on male circumcision if you must, but please don’t let this degenerate into a discussion solely of that issue, which is not nearly as damaging to health and sexual pleasure as is FGM. And such discussions tends to bring out the cranks.]

h/t: Chris