Monthly Archives: June 2002

Iranian Women’s Weblogs

Posted on by
Reply

In the United States, stories about computers and women typically revolve around how the male-dominated computer culture devalues women’s unique way of knowing. But in Iran, women are turning to Internet web logs to talk openly about topics that otherwise might get a woman in trouble in that conservative Islamic country.

Weblogging in Iran apparently took off after Iranian journalist Hossein Derkhshan wrote a simple guide in Persian about how to create a weblog. Seven months later, there are more than 1,200 Persian weblogs according to the BBC, with many written by women.

The women post anonymously and can talk freely about sex and other topics without the fears of violating some cultural taboo. One female weblogger told The BBC,

Womnen in Iran cannot speak out frankly because of our Eastern culture and there are some taboos just for women, such as talking about sex or the right to choose your partner. I have the opportunity to talk about the things and share my experiences with others.

At least someone appreciates oppressive patriarchal technology.

Source:

Web gives a voice to Iranian women. Alfred Hermida, The BBC, June 17, 2002.

Share

Steinem’s Taliban Hypocrisy

Posted on by
Reply

Gloria Steinem this week provided an excellent example of the idiocy of much of contemporary feminism when she revealed that it is not so much whether or not women are spared from violence and oppression, but rather the key point is who gets to save women from violence and oppression.

Back in June 2000, Steinem lent her support to a “Statement Of Support For The
Declaration Of The Essential Rights Of Afghan Women” prepared by a Paris-based Afghan women’s group called NEGAR-Support of Women of Afghanistan. According to that statement, which Steinem and others signed,

On June 28, 2000, at the initiative of NEGAR-Support of Women of Afghanistan, a Paris-based Afghan women?s association, several hundred Afghan women from all segments of the Afghan nation, assembled in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, to draft and promulgate a “Declaration of the Essential Rights of Afghan Women” (see elsewhere in this web site). With this document, the Afghan women affirm and demand for themselves the inalienable rights that had been assured for them by the Constitution of Afghanistan. The Afghan women reject the false assertions of the Taliban militias that these rights are in contradiction with the religion, culture and traditions of Afghan society and nation.

. . .

This statement in support of the Afghan women?s Declaration is part of an international campaign by NEGAR-Support of Women of Afghanistan with the goal of five million signatures to be presented to the United Nations by NEGAR and a delegation of Afghans and their world-wide women and men supporters.

Congress, the US Mission to the UN and other US policy-making entities must support:

1. The integration of this Declaration as a part of the process for a just, honorable and durable peace for the legitimate country of Afghanistan for eventual inclusion in the Constitution,
2. Pressure on Pakistan to end its military, political, and financial support which renders the Taliban militias possible,
3. The denial of recognition of the Taliban militias.

History has demonstrated that supremacist and totalitarian regimes such as the Taliban militias maintain themselves in power only if the rest of the world remains silent.

This week, however, Steinem apparently changed her mind. This time around she was listed as a signer of a statement, “We won’t deny our consciences,” which was published in the British newspaper The Guardian. That statement said, among other things, that,

The signers of this statement call on the people of the US to resist the policies and overall political direction that have emerged since September 11, 2001, and which pose grave dangers to the people of the world.

We believe that peoples and nations have the right to determine their own destiny, free from military coercion by great powers.. . .

We believe that people of conscience must take responsibility for what their own governments do – we must first of all oppose the injustice that is done in our own name. Thus we call on all Americans to resist the war and repression that has been loosed on the world by the Bush administration. It is unjust, immoral, and illegitimate. We choose to make common cause with the people of the world.

. . .

In our name, the Bush administration, with near unanimity from Congress, not only attacked Afghanistan but arrogated to itself and its allies the right to rain down military force anywhere and anytime.

. . .

President Bush has declared: “You’re either with us or against us.” Here is our answer: We refuse to allow you to speak for all the American people. We will not give up our right to question. We will not hand over our consciences in return for a hollow promise of safety. We say not in our name. We refuse to be party to these wars and we repudiate any inference that they are being waged in our name or for our welfare. We extend a hand to those around the world suffering from these policies; we will show our solidarity in word and deed.

Apparently after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the Taliban were no longer religious totalitarianism, but rather a brave movement standing up to U.S. coercion. Steinem was apparently prepared to sign any number of declarations against the Taliban, but how dare those patriarchal forces in the White House actually get rid of the Taliban without clearing it with Steinem first? (And presumably, women in Iraq

To paraphrase a famous Steinem-ism, women in Afghanistan needed Steinem like a fish needs a bicycle.

Note that in addition to Steinem, Eve Ensler, Barbara Kingsolver, Stephanie Coontz, Starhawk, and Alice Walker also added their support to giving the Taliban a free hand in Afghanistan “free from military coercion by great powers.”

Sources:

We won’t deny our consciences. The Guardian, June 14, 2002.

Statement Of Support For The
Declaration Of The Essential Rights Of Afghan Women. June 28, 2000.

Share

A Title IX Lawsuit Over Women’s Restrooms

Posted on by
Reply

Ann Arbor lawyer Jean King recently filed a lawsuit against the University of Michigan over the women’s restrooms at the recently renovated Hill Auditorium.

Michigan’s building codes require one toilet per 65 female patrons and 125 toilets per male patron. So when renovating the hall, the university sat down and figured out how many people would attend a sold-out show at the auditorium. It then reasoned that if half the patrons were men and half were women it would need 29 toilets for the women and 15 for the men to comply with the building codes. The restrooms finally built included 30 toilets for women and 22 for men.

Not good enough for King who says that anything less than two women’s toilets for every men’s toilet is a violation of Title IX’s proscriptions against sex discrimination in educational institutes.

King told the Ann Arbor News that if more women’s toilets are not added,

Our daughters, granddaughters and great-granddaughters will no doubt still be waiting in line at Hill past the end of the intermission.

The university says that there simply is not any room for additional restroom facilities in the 89-year old auditorium.

And people wonder why Title IX is increasingly viewed with such hostility.

Source:

U-M faces restroom complaint. Peri Stone-Palmquist, Ann Arbor News, June 12, 2002.

Share

Nigeria Will Hold Off on Stoning Until at Least 2004

Posted on by
Reply

An Islamic court in the Nigerian state of Katsina this month postponed the execution by stoning of Amina Lawal, 30, until at least January 2004.

Lawal was convicted of adultery after she gave birth to a baby girl more than nine months after divorcing her husband. Under the extremist Islamist law embrace by some states in Nigeria, that is prima facie evidence of adultery which is punishable by death.

The sentence was delayed to allow Lawal to finish weaning her baby, at which time the court will again take up her case. Nigeria’s national government, however, has said such punishments are unconstitutional and it is unclear what status the Islamic laws will have when 2004 comes around.

As is common with these cases, the man that Lawal claimed was the father was acquitted of an adultery charge due to lack of evidence. Under this legal system, evidence of adultery generally requires testimony in open court from at least three eye witnesses who are also male Muslims.

Sources:

Islamic court delays execution. Glenn McKenzie, Associated Press, June 3, 2002.

Mother faces stoning
. Samson Mulugeta, Bradenton Herald, May 1, 2002.

Share

Another Professor with a Loyalty Requirement

Posted on by
Reply

A bizarre controversy has been unfolding the past few weeks at Iowa State University where a professor threw a student out of her class because he disagreed with her political views.

Student Jay Gardner, 38, took a graduate class on “Ethnicity, Class and the Media” from professor Tracy Owens-Patton. After a few weeks, Owens-Patton threw Gardner out of her class on the grounds that he was a white supremacist who was disrupting her course.

Among other things, Owens-Patton complained that in class Gardner defended racial profiling, pointing out that African Americans commit more crimes. Owens-Patton also said that Gardner criticized the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday — a charge that Gardner denies.

Gardner told the Desmoines Register,

If you’re going to make claims that white America is intentionally suppressing, holding down, oppressing African-Americans . . . you have to let some students give their opinions on it, and that wasn’t happening.

Owens-Patton also complained that in a discussion Gardner said that he was biased against minorities, but Gardner told the Ames Tribune,

Patton asked if we had any problems with stereotyping and others, and I gave both pros and cons for stereotyping. I said that some probably use stereotyping as a quick way to communicate since people tend to think in schemas or generalizations.

When it comes to deciding who to believe, Owens-Patton did not help herself by apparently lying in her complaint about Gardner. In her complaint addressed to her superiors at ISU, Owens-Patton claimed that police told her that Gardner “could be a third person” in a new white supremacist movement at ISU.

The only problem is that the police officer she cited, Capt. Gene Deisinger, told the Des Moines Register that, “There are no police reports that I know of, nor any groups that have identified themselves as white supremacists at Iowa State.”

The best summation of this controversy came from ISU vice provost Howard Shapiro who told the Des Moines Register,

Whose right it is to determine what is taught in the class and how it’s conducted is the professors’. It’s not a democracy. It’s a classroom.

Apparently once students step into a classroom at ISU, they leave democracy behind and enter a mini-totalitarian state where the whims and dictates of morons like Owens-Patton have absolute authority to quash any dissent. So much for that vaunted ideal of academic freedom.

Source:

White student fights removal from ISU class Staci Hupp, DesMoines Register, May 22, 2002.

ISU grad student denies making ethnic comments. Jason Kristufek, Ames Tribune, June 4, 2002.

Ames police unaware of racist group. Staci Hupp, DesMoines Register, May 24, 2002.

Share