After last night’s episode of Scandal, I wonder what exactly the show thinks it is - soap opera? political drama? or, perhaps most disturbingly, is it just another television show exploiting violence against women?
(TWs for violence against women and sexual assault below the cut, as well as spoilers for “YOLO”)
Divorce is available to women in Uzbekistan but there are many legal, religious, and administrative barriers. There is a great deal of stigma attached to divorce, particularly in a society that blames women for abuse. A judge can impose a six-month waiting period before hearing a case again, in an attempt to get the couple to reconcile.
Other forms of violence against women are not considered criminal in Uzbekistan. While rape is illegal and the criminal code does not specify anything related to a woman’s marital status, it is basically assumed sexual relations is apart of the marriage contract. A woman’s crisis center administrator in Tashkent said, “The police would laugh if a married woman tried to report a rape case” (HRW, 2001f, p. 39)."
Parrot, Andrea & Cummings, Nina. Forsaken Females: The Gobal Brutalization of Women. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 2006, (p. 26)
I am so sick of liberal identity politics, where anyone can identify as anything and you have to respect it no matter what ^_^
like so many people identify as feminists without actually *being* feminists, but as soon as you tell them they’re not actually feminists you’re being a bigot for “gate-keeping”, then they go off and support the porn industry & laws that increase sex trafficking, and wearing makeup as revolutionary praxis. It’s the same for socialism, soooo many liberals call themselves socialists without knowing a single thing about socialism, they support Obama & Clinton & capitalism, they just want a bit higher taxes on the rich, a bit more regulations on corporations, and a single payer health care system like Canada’s, and call it socialism. What liberal identity politics does is it waters down radical politics. You have misogynists speaking for feminism, and capitalists speaking for socialism, and you cannot dare tell them that they’re not feminists and/or socialists, because that’s what they choose to identify as, and what they identify as > what they believe/ what they are. it makes words completely depoliticized & meaningless.
[Bolded emphasis mine]
According to Human Rights Watch, women in Uzbekistan are still in subordinate roles to men and are blamed if they are victims of violence. There are no laws that specifically address domestic violence, although a perpetrator could be prosecuted under the criminal statutes that address general violent behavior. While the government does not keep statistics on domestic violence, it is understood that domestic violence is commonplace in Uzbek society. Furthermore, it is deemed a “normal situation” by the women living there (Human Rights Watch, 2001f).
Contributing factors to domestic violence in Uzbekistan are the high rates of poverty, alcohol/and or other drug use, and the age of the couple involved. Contrary to what was intended after independence, the average marriage age for girls declined since 1991. This limits access to education and employment for the bride (called kelins). It also means that the decisions about the kelin’s life will be primarily made by her mother-and father-in-law. They can decide whether she works outside the home, who she will be friends with, how often she will see her family of origin, and so on. The new bride’s life is fully controlled. In some ways, the in-laws can also control the violence a new bride is exposed to within the home.
Uzbek custom holds that the young bride must fulfill her obligations to the older generation. Much depends on the attitude of the young bride who must give way to the older generation. If relations with the older generation are good, then the mother-and father-in-law will not allow the husband to beat his wife (Human Rights Watch, 2001f).
Human Rights Watch estimates that a large number of suicides by women in Uzbekistan is attributable to domestic violence in the family."
Parrot, Andrea & Cummings, Nina. Forsaken Females: The Gobal Brutalization of Women. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 2006, (p. 25)
Parrot, Andrea & Cummings, Nina. Forsaken Females: The Gobal Brutalization of Women. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 2006, (p. 7)
Meghan MurphyToday is December 6. Twenty four years ago, 14 women were murdered at École Polytechnique in Montreal by a man who shouted: “You’re all a bunch of feminists, and I hate feminists!”
Today is also the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. Though some have been commenting on “gendered violence” or “gender-based violence” today, I prefer a more specific description. This is about male violence against women.
Indeed, this violence is gendered, but to talk about “gendered violence” is too vague. What this term signifies is fear — and that fear exists with good reason. Feminists are targeted because they name the problem. We target patriarchy, male dominance, female oppression, and male violence against women. Men are threatened by feminism because we refuse to mask the problem with ambiguous words, tepid critique, and polite requests.
On December 6, 1989, 14 women were murdered because a man was afraid to lose the power and privilege he believed he was entitled to. He was so angered by the notion that women might usurp that power and privilege, that he resorted to violence.
He is no anomaly.
Male violence happens to women on a daily basis, throughout the world. Depending on our various locations, economic status, class, and race, we may be more vulnerable. Our Indigenous sisters, for example, are prostituted, abused, and incarcerated at disproportionate rates. Indigenous women are five times to seven times more likely than other women to die as the result of violence. Poor women are trafficked daily to satisfy the desires of Western men. Here in Vancouver, on the Downtown Eastside, women with few to no other options are forced to resort to prostitution in order to survive and are subjected to abuse and inhumane conditions as a daily reality.
To be sure, all women are vulnerable to male violence. We know this, as women. We feel it every day when we walk down the street at night, listening for footsteps behind us, assessing the men walking towards us, planning our defense. We feel it when we take public transit and wonder whether we will be harassed or assaulted, trying to plan our response should the man next to us turn out to be a perpetrator. We guard our drinks at the bar, we avoid eye contact on the street, we wonder whether someone will crawl in our windows at night, we fear the cab drivers who we rely on to get us home safely at night. Many of us fear of the very men we live with — our fathers, our brothers, our husbands, our boyfriends.
The feminist movement is our response. The feminist movement names men as our attackers and our oppressors. Perhaps not all individual men, but many individual men, and certainly men as a class.
“Gendered violence” is polite. It doesn’t offend. It doesn’t point fingers. It isn’t enough. Male violence against women is the truth. Solidarity.
I rarely use the word “Hate” because of how intense, profound and weighted the negative connotation of the word is, but when I say I HATE male doms I MEAN IT WITH EVERY FIBER, SINEW, TISSUE, MARROW OF MY BEING. RIGHT DOWN TO MY COLD, SOULLESS CORE.