Religion is inherently divisive August 22, 2009
Posted by laïcité in Religion, Singapore, Society.Tags: christianity, intolerance, islam, judaism, Religion, religious harmony
6 comments
At this year’s national day rally, PM Lee emphasized the importance of religious tolerance in ensuring the peace and stability of Singapore’s society. It may be the pessimist in me speaking, but I highly doubt that all this talk about “cohesiveness” and “harmony” is going to translate into anything in our real life society until a very touchy and unpleasant subject is acknowledged: the inherent divisiveness of religion.
When in comes to something like religion, we are not simply dealing with “I’m on the basketball team, you’re on the swim team, we’re different but we’re equals”. It’s actually more like “I’m on the basketball team, and basketball is the only true and good sport in the world. My basketball doctrine tells me that all other sports are false and inferior and that people who don’t play any sport at all are heretics who deserve to burn for all eternity”
A hyperbole, you may say? Well if we boil religion down to its core beliefs and functions, we are simply faced with in group out group politics. A complicated, convoluted version of tribalism. For without defining a “foe”, there is no such thing as “friend”. Without the demonization of others, there is no glorification of one’s own group. The very core of all religions is the identification of a group of people, and along with it the blaming, or shunning, or demonization of the “other”.
We just have to take a look at the historical origins of religions and the tribalist themes in holy texts. After all, the origin and essence of Judaism is the assertion that the Israelites are “God’s chosen people”, distinct from the gentiles. The Bible’s Old Testament is brimming with genocidal incitements, where “God’s army” is sent to exterminate the people of other nations (including the Midianites, the Canaanites the Amalekites and the Hazorites, to name a few).
It seems that the key aspect of most religions is their emphasis on how “special” one particular group is, and how it is superior to or “more correct” than others. Even today we see examples of how religious dressing and public displays of faith are used by individuals to define themselves as a member of one particular group, and not another.
Related to this is fact that it is logically impossible to be one hundred percent certain about the truth of one’s own belief, without also being one hundred percent certain about the beliefs of others being false. Simply put, if I make a claim that Religion A is the one true religion, the only path to salvation, I am also implicitly stating that Religions B, C etc are false, and are paths to damnation and hellfire.
Take for example how the key differences in beliefs of the major monotheistic faiths directly contradict with each other. Central to Christianity is the belief that Jesus is God, but Judaism not only rejects this, it also asserts that Jesus is a false messiah – an assertion that Christians themselves may find offensive. Similarly, Islam also rejects the divinity of Jesus, and claims that the Jewish Tanakh and Christian New Testament are corruptions of God’s message. How could such a claim sit well with Christians and Jews?
This is definitely not helped by the fact that the holy texts of monotheistic faiths are pretty explicit about the recommended treatment of unbelievers, other religionists, and infidels.
The bible not only justifes of the destruction of believers of other gods,
Exodus 22:20 He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.
It also encourages the demolition of the images, altars and places of worship of those with different religions.
Exodus 23:24 Thou shalt not bow down to their gods, nor serve them, nor do after their works: but thou shalt utterly overthrow them, and quite break down their images.
Deuteronomy 7:5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.
7:6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.
In fact, just kill all those with religious beliefs different from your own
Deuteronomy 17:2 If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant,
17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;
…
17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
Apparently we’re not even supposed to trust our family or friends, for those with different beliefs are liars and evil doers.
Jeremiah 9:4 Take ye heed every one of his neighbour, and trust ye not in any brother: for every brother will utterly supplant, and every neighbour will walk with slanders.
9:5 And they will deceive every one his neighbour, and will not speak the truth: they have taught their tongue to speak lies, and weary themselves to commit iniquity.
9:6 Thine habitation is in the midst of deceit; through deceit they refuse to know me, saith the LORD.
And believers are also advised to shun those who disagree with their religious beliefs
Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
Christians are also advised not to associate with the likes of us heathens and unbelievers
2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
It’s not just us unbelievers who should be avoided. Avoid all non-christians altogether.
2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
Unfortunately, the Quran is no less forgiving in its advice regarding religious freedom and the treatment of unbelievers.
Humiliation and wretchedness were stamped upon the Jews who did not believe in Allah’s revelations
2:61 …And humiliation and wretchedness were stamped upon them and they were visited with wrath from Allah. That was because they disbelieved in Allah’s revelations and slew the prophets wrongfully. That was for their disobedience and transgression.
Kill disbelievers
2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
Don’t believe anyone who isn’t a Muslim
3:73 And believe not save in one who followeth your religion
For non-Muslims are “evil-livers”
3:110 Ye are the best community that hath been raised up for mankind. Ye enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency; and ye believe in Allah. And if the People of the Scripture had believed it had been better for them. Some of them are believers; but most of them are evil-livers.
Christians are considered disbelievers because they believe in Christ
5:17 They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary.
And don’t take Christians or Jews for friends
5:51 O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
When holy texts explicitly state that unbelievers, or polytheists, or those belonging to other religions, or those who are not “god’s chosen people”, are inferior to believers and deserve punishment, how can we expect believers themselves to think any differently? Even if believers do present a tolerant, politically correct version of themselves to the secular public space, we cannot ignore that by virtue of their faith, they are almost compelled to maintain the (albeit non vocalized) view that their own religion is superior to others, and that unbelievers or followers of other religions deserve the eternal wrath of god.
But is all hope lost? Not necessarily. As is already apparent in our society and the world around us, it is perfectly possible for people of different religions to coexist peacefully, and even enjoy each other’s presence. But to do so, a certain aspect of internal inconsistency or even cognitive dissonance is required. That is, at least for that point in time, one has to temporarily ignore his religious teachings, in order to allow himself to accept people with opposing beliefs as equals (and not simply some other inferior folk who are going to hell anyway). But religion is something that many would regard as over and beyond the self, the family, the society, the state, or even humankind – is it realistic to expect this of religionists?
Tolerance and harmony requires one to compromise his own deeply rooted beliefs about the superiority of his particular metaphysical views. Maybe religious moderates have the ability to compartmentalize their brains and momentarily disregard the sheer hostility that their holy texts encourage against nonbelievers. But to expect such sacrilegious compromise from holy text literalists, religious fundamentalists and right wing extremists (which I’m sure are not insignificant among religionists) is simply wishful thinking. Religious tolerance and mutual respect is and can only be possible when religionists themselves are willing to pretend that certain parts of their holy texts do not exist, for religion itself is anything but respectful or tolerant of other beliefs.
Gay marriage – the mythical threat to traditional marriage August 3, 2009
Posted by laïcité in Liberalism v Conservativism, Society.Tags: conservatives, gay marriage, homophobia, secularism
10 comments
Conservatives and religious fundamentalists have long argued that gay marriage would threaten traditional marriage. Now any reasonable person would find that claim to be ridiculous and baseless. It is simply not rational to suggest that gay marriage is in any way linked to divorce or the decline of marriage rates. All it takes is to ask a married person: if gay marriage had been legalized before you got your traditional marriage, would you have gotten a gay marriage instead? It seems that the only way gay marriage would threaten heterosexual marriage is if we assume that all men were really gay in secret.
But conservatives have also been known to make a slight variation of the above argument: gay marriage threatens traditional marriage because it deprives the term “marriage” of its fundamental meaning. But what really is the fundamental definition of marriage, and who are these conservatives to imply that there can only be one correct meaning for “marriage”, which conveniently happens to be theirs?
Legally speaking, a marriage is a partnership. It gives spouses certain rights and responsibilities, such as responsibilities for child care, tax deduction benefits, the power to make decisions about a partner’s medical care and legal rights to a partner’s estate and property upon his or her death. But above and beyond the legal aspect of this partnership, individuals and couples also attach their own meanings and symbolism to marriage. Depending on the people involved, marriage may mean anything from a sacred union, to a public proclamation of love and commitment, to a ritualized rite of passage, to an act of resigned compliance with social norms and expectations. Personal meanings and symbolisms are just that: personal. There is no reason why a same-sex marriage would have any effect on one’s own heterosexual marriage, or change one’s own definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
The problem arises when people seek to impose their own definition of what a marriage is onto others. It takes a judgmental, self righteous person to suggest that other people’s definition of marriage has any bearing on his or her owns’. Take for example the all too common “functionalist” argument that gays shouldn’t get married because a marriage has the practical function of providing a stable and convenient environment for child rearing, and therefore gay marriage would be pointless. But by doing so, are they not implying that married couples who are childless (by choice or otherwise) do not meet their functional definition of a marriage, and therefore have a less meaningful relationship than couples who are married with children?
It is not reasonable to dismiss the emotional significance of a marriage simply because the couple is unable or unwilling to fulfill the practical functions of a marriage as prescribed by someone else. In fact, as a straight unmarried woman, I would be incredibly put off the notion of marriage if self righteous conservatives tried to impose their own definitions of marriage as an institution for procreation onto me.
Another (more troubling) example would be the argument that marriage is a religious institution and that gay marriage would be contrary to their religious values. Aside from the obviously false premise that marriage is a historically religious institution (It isn’t; marriage predates religion. It is a human institution adopted by religions), such an argument is also religion centric, unsuitable for a secular state and a secular contract. If one were to argue that gays shouldn’t take part in the holy, religious institution that is marriage, then shouldn’t one also argue against atheists, agnostics and freethinkers getting married? How about banning pagans, fornicators or divorcees from getting married too?
One crucial fact that proponents of such arguments ignore is that there are in effect two types of marriage: civil marriage and religious marriage. It is possible to have both; the civil marriage which is validated by signing a certificate of marriage, and a religious marriage conducted by a pastor in a religious ceremony. Religious marriages may make a couple married “in the eyes of god”, but only a civil marriage is recognized in the eyes of the state. A religious marriage is something people get on top of what is effectively a secular, legal contract, which is necessary if they wish to enjoy the rights and benefits of a legally married couple.
Religions have every right not to recognize gay marriages, but they have absolutely no right to dictate whether or not a secular, civil marriage between gays should be recognized by the state. As long as we live in a secular state, religious explanations have no place in arguments regarding legal contracts such as marriage. A secular government should not be involved in discussions about the sanctity or holiness of marriage, simply because it is only concerned with marriage as a legal contract.
If we unravel the nonsensical claims made by the defenders of traditional marriage, what we will find is a group of people too afraid to admit their true motives, that is, because of their own moral misgivings about gay marriage, they seek nothing more than to control other people’s lives. In other words, they are essentially arguing that “gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed because it goes against my values and is contrary to my definition of marriage.” Until conservatives can prove that allowing same-sex marriages actually causes harm to those outside the marriage, their protests remain as poorly disguised attempts to support discrimination based on sexual orientation, and as merely another means to control the minority by denying them something which is available to everyone else.
Homophobia is not just another point of view July 22, 2009
Posted by laïcité in Singapore, Society.Tags: homophobia
29 comments
It has been a couple of weeks since the Thio-NYU incident and I think I’ve finally figured out why it has been bothering me so much. It’s not as if homophobia and other forms of intolerance don’t already irk me enough, but for some reason, just something about Dr Thio Li-ann’s cool response to the reactions of the law school’s LBGT organization to her anti gay stance, including an open letter from NYU student Jim McCurley (reproduced here), gave me a fortnight-long sense of unease.
It wasn’t the fact that Dr Thio’s response seemed so calm and almost reasonable, so unlike her crass and tactless description of anal sex as “shoving a straw up your nose to drink” while arguing against the decriminalization of gay sex in Singapore. I did not assume for one second that she would present herself as anything less than professional in her capacity as a Professor, and especially to a more liberal audience such as NYU. It wasn’t even the irony that her course is about “Human Rights in Asia”, a topic that many have questioned about whether she is qualified to teach, given her failure to recognize the rights of homosexuals.
No, what I find most disturbing about this whole incident was Dr Thio’s polite and articulate defense of her homophobia, so cleverly disguising homophobia as an almost legitimate view. In an e-mail interview, Dr Thio wrote:
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, free conscience, free thought — that is a cardinal principle for every academic community. I hold to it, in my own law school, and I would expect the NYU law community to do so as well.
…
I am disappointed at the intolerant animosity directed at me by strangers who do not know me and have decided to act on their own prejudices,
…
Do some Americans by appropriating the rhetoric of human rights assume they can impose their views on another sovereign state? Is there a human right to sodomy? Is this a core right or a contested one? There are countervailing views that this is the wrong way to characterize the issue — so do students who dislike this view refuse to engage with dissenting views?
Skillfully and shrewdly directing the blame to the “intolerant” proponents of gay rights, Dr Thio’s articulate argument managed to fool me into questioning my own position regarding pluralism and freedom of speech, and even got me wondering why I was so uncomfortable with such a seemingly coherent and “rational” argument in defense of homophobia.
And then it hit me. Almost two distressing weeks later, I finally realized how faulty her sleek, astute argument was.
First of all, Dr Thio made the flawed assumption that “free thought” and “freedom of opinion” entitles one’s opinion to be free from criticism. Not all opinions are created equal; some are simply better than others, and consequently deserve more respect than others. Just because Dr Thio, or anyone for that matter, has every right to believe anything she wants about homosexuality, it does not make us obligated to accept her beliefs as valid. I have just as every right to treat her views as a load of rubbish.
Secondly, and perhaps most commonly ignored by many people, is the fact that homophobia is not merely another opinion. “Vanilla is the best ice cream flavor” is an opinion. But some things are not so simple. Let me illustrate. Consider the following “opinions”:
“I don’t want those Indians near my daughter. Who knows what they’ll do to her.”
“Blacks and whites should never get married to each other, let alone have mixed race kids. It’s just disgusting and wrong.”
“Women don’t have the ability to take part in politics. They should just know their place and stay home to take care of the kids.”
“I send my kids to elite schools so that they won’t have to mingle with those Chinese speaking neighborhood school kids – they’re all poor and uneducated anyway.”
Let’s call a spade a spade, shall we. Those aren’t mere opinions. Those are examples of racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry. The difference is that bigotry and intolerance against races, sexes or classes are acknowledged as such, and not regarded as valid in a pluralistic society, whereas bigotry and intolerance against homosexuals are still treated as simply “differing opinions”, or mere disagreements.
Would we allow a distinguished professor to get away with racist or sexist comments by explaining them away as his or her opinions? Would we let someone with sexist or racist views protest with self righteous indignation towards those darn “intolerant” feminists and civil rights activists who dare suggest that he or she was being bigoted or prejudiced? Would we still give Dr Thio the same respect and welcome her into an open, liberal university if she had argued against women’s right to social and political equality with men – which is after all still a contested right, with differing opinions on it, in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran? (Which are interestingly two of the few countries left which continue to criminalize homosexual sex.) Would we allow a racist or a sexist with a similar rhetoric as Dr Thio’s get away so easily?
What bothers me most is the (correct or wrong) assumption that homophobia is still widely accepted by society as a valid opinion. Just like a racist, a homophobe has every right to his or her opinions, but should not feel anything less than ashamed to voice such intolerant views in public. A racist, a sexist, or a homophobe should have every reason to fear public backlash for proudly advocating intolerance and discrimination. To even suggest that such opinions should be respected is absurd.
I guess to me this was the crux of the matter. It wasn’t the “surprising” news that Dr Thio is still against homosexual rights. It was the fact that yet again, we let her get away with it, when she and other proud homophobes should be publicly chastised the same way we do with proponents of other forms of bigotry and intolerance. It disturbs and depresses me that as a society, we are still unwilling to see homophobia as what it really is: prejudiced, self righteous narrow mindedness, and not just “another point of view”.
Homophobes can’t handle being “the woman” July 16, 2009
Posted by laïcité in Feminism v Patriarchy, Rants, Society.Tags: feminism, homophobia
6 comments
After a few exchanges I’ve had with homophobes, I’ve found that they share one thing in common: they have an immense fear of being approached by an interested gay man, and believe that this fear is enough to justify discrimination against gays and the criminalization of homosexuality.
What I find so perplexing is how traumatized these men are by the mere thought of receiving unwanted male attention. You see, as a woman, receiving unwanted male attention is an annoyance so mundane that I wouldn’t even waste my breath complaining about it. Being approached by a man that you’re not interested in is a banal experience shared by almost every woman, and I have yet to meet any one who felt so offended by it to even suggest that legislation or violence against these men should be necessary. Regardless of how we feel about it – insulted, annoyed, flattered or even disgusted, we embrace the fact that these men have every right to approach us with interest, just as we have every right to politely decline.
Unfortunately, homophobic men do not seem to share this view. It is all too common for them to justify violence and discrimination against gays based on the fear of receiving unwanted male attention. From a feminist perspective, the reactions of these homophobes are quite troubling. Their reactions are not just reflections of homophobia, it also says a lot about how uncomfortable they are about straying from strictly enforced traditional gender roles. In it is the inherent implication that there is something undesirable about being pursued “like a woman”.
Traditional gender roles usually prescribe the active role of the pursuer to the man, and the passive, receiver role to the woman. In this way, being the recipient of male attention implies femininity. In the mind of a misogynistic male (and probably in a misogynistic patriarchal society), femininity is equated with weakness, and is thus undesirable. In other words, the fear that homophobes have against unwanted male attention is a socially conditioned fear that they have of being associated with submissiveness, vulnerability, weakness and other undesirable feminine traits.
By introducing a gay man into the equation, the misogynistic male is suddenly stripped of his sexually dominant role; that is, he is now the object of pursuit, just like a woman. It is this perceived threat to masculinity that causes the homophobe to be so offended by unwanted male attention, and fuels his attempt to reinstate his “manliness” through homophobic insults or physical attacks. Add to that the fact that men are much more socially stigmatized for gender role reversals than women are, and we can (sort of) understand why some men are so violently opposed to appearing feminine.
It is because of this that I am particularly wary of homophobic men. How a man views homosexuals reveals exactly what he feels about women and gender roles in sexual interactions. At the very least, a homophobe who is “traumatized” by unwanted male attention simply lacks the empathy and understanding that it is precisely the same unwanted sexual attention that we women receive and accept as an everyday occurrence. But perhaps most worrying is the intrinsic allusion that connotations of femininity are undesirable becaue they suggest inferiority. As such, homophobes and homophobia speak volumes about the individual’s (and society’s) acceptance of patriarchy and the perpetuated recognition of women being lower on the totem pole of social hierarchy.
The moralistic notion of chastity till marriage July 8, 2009
Posted by laïcité in Feminism v Patriarchy, Religion, Society.Tags: conservatives, feminism, virginity
8 comments
It makes a lot of sense to discourage teenagers from having sex. After all, they have neither the financial capability nor the emotional maturity to deal with unwanted pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases. But moralistic conservatives do not see this issue with such practical sensibilities. (If they did, they’d be all for comprehensive sex education programs – which not only keep teenagers from having sex, it also helps prevent unwanted pregnancies and STDs in those who do.) Instead, conservatives tend to attach the notion of morality to premarital sex, self righteously assuming that they are in a position to judge the sexual practices of others. The emphasis on virginity and “saving yourself” till marriage as a virtue in itself is disturbing and distasteful in both the misogynistic expectations it places on women and the nasty historical origins of the practice.
A man who requires his wife to be a virgin
A man who requires his bride to be a virgin is at the very best an insecure man who cannot handle comparison, or at the very worst a controlling possessive misogynist who felt the need to control his wife’s body and sexuality even before they met. Marriage is a pact for the future, not for the past. The need for loyalty and commitment within the present relationship does not necessitate the ridiculous assumption that you should have a say in the past choices of your significant other. That is simply a sign of possessiveness, insecurity, and a chauvinistic desire for the territorial ownership of women and their bodies.
We only have to look to glaring examples of such men: those who explicitly seek mail order brides who can “prove” their virginities. Notions of “purity” and “innocence” are simply euphemisms for the obvious reality that these women are valued for their subservient, demure nature and sexual inexperience. With society’s obsession with virginity (especially equating virgin girls as desirable and non virgin girls as whores) we are creating misogynistic expectations for women and perpetuating the notion that marriage is an unequal relationship between a dominant male and a submissive virgin bride.
That is not to say that men are immune to society’s virginity obsession. In Singapore at least, there is an almost equal societal expectation for both men and women to remain virgins till they get married. But this does nothing to ameliorate the problematic issues that will arise out of glorifying virginity and demonizing fornicators: the notion of marriage as the “ownership” of your spouse, the possessive control of your spouse’s past, and worst of all, the flawed belief that your status of virginity says anything about who you are. Whether conservatives like it or not, the truth is that having sex before marriage doesn’t make you morally repugnant, and being a virgin all your life doesn’t make you a saint. Character judgments based on virginity are simplistic, inaccurate, and frankly, rather lazy.
The nasty historical origins of “chastity till marriage”
Way back before the advent of reliable birth control or paternity tests, requiring your future bride to be a virgin was a means to ensure that you do not end up handing over your land or property to someone else’s child. Before marriage, girls and their sexuality were in effect the property of their fathers, and upon marriage, this ownership would then be transferred to their husbands. We see evidence of such beliefs in the bible:
Deuteronomy:
22:13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
22:14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
22:15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
22:16 And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
22:17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
22:18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
22:19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
Translation: If a man hates his wife, he can claim that she wasn’t a virgin when she was married. If her father can’t produce “the tokens of her virginity”, the woman will be stoned to death at the door of her father’s house by the men in her city. Thus it is clear that in such a culture, women were seen as property, and their virginity was supposed to be guaranteed to their husbands by their fathers.
Deuteronomy:
22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
Translation: if a man rapes an unbetrothed virgin, he must pay her father 50 shekels of silver and then marry her. From here we see that rape is not a crime against the woman, it is a crime against her father, because he is the one who owns her and her virginity.
Though the examples I mentioned were from the bible, this misogynistic notion of women as property is by no means limited to religion. Confucian and African cultures also have practices involving virginity testing and proof of “deflowering” on the wedding night, where if it were discovered that the bride were not a virgin, her family would face considerable shame and the marriage could even be annulled. Under Anglo-Saxon law, rape law was a form of property law, whereby the rapist was punished by having to make compensation to the victim’s husband or her father, depending on who exercised ownership over her. In effect, rape was treated as an act of trespass on a woman’s body, which was male property.
Today, such reasoning is not only archaic, it is simply sexist and offensive. Yet we still see similar cases made for the promotion of chastity until marriage, where the woman’s body and virginity is “reserved” for her future husband and rightful owner.
But as long as we respect that women are people too, with the freedom to make their own choices, we cannot dictate one way or another whether and when a woman should have sex. A woman’s sexuality is of no one’s business but her own. To take it a step further, a person’s sexuality is of no one’s business but their own, and society’s obsession with chastity till marriage is simply a self righteous intrusion onto an individual’s personal choices.
Marital rape and the presumption of consent July 2, 2009
Posted by laïcité in Feminism v Patriarchy, Singapore.Tags: feminism, law, traditional values
7 comments
Maybe I have been too engrossed in the Aware saga, but I realize that many of my posts have been about homosexual issues, even though I am not homosexual myself. Today, after stumbling upon NoToRape.com (a campaign started by Jolene of Glass Castle) I decided to address a topic that hits much closer to home, but receives a lot less airtime: marital rape.
In Singapore, it is legal to rape your wife. That special contract that we call marriage not only has economic and cultural significance, it also grants men immunity from being charged for the rape of their wives. In giving them this immunity, the inherent message is that men are entitled to have sex with their wives, regardless of the latter’s consent.
Now, any decent, civilized person would be appalled at that archaic notion. It reeks way too much of the obsolete (and misogynic) idea that marriage is the transfer of ownership of a woman and her body from her father to her husband, thereby entitling her husband to sex as and when he pleases. Many Western countries have now recognized that marital rape is contrary to human rights and have criminalized the practice. Even England, from which Singapore’s marital rape exemption originated, abolished the exemption in 1991. But yet again, the Singapore government holds its conservative position and is against the repeal of this archaic law which protects husbands from being charged for rape, on the basis of “family values”.
How does permitting marital rape preserve “family values”? Well, their argument goes something like this: marital rape is a private affair and should be sorted out amicably by the couple involved (Funny how that logic doesn’t apply to homosexual sex) and the law should not interfere so as not to disrupt the traditional family unit which is the building block of society.
But what exactly are we preserving here? The notion that women are property, for their husbands to do whatever they see fit with them? The conservation of marriages involving abusive husbands? The perpetuation of misogynic messages and abusive behavior to be passed on to these couples’ children? Only with our conservative government’s logic would a woman staying with an abusive husband be viewed as a positive thing. It seems that the government sees the absence of reported marital rape as a good thing in itself, conveniently forgetting that simply not recognizing an act as criminal does not make it any less harmful, or cause it to occur any less frequently.
At the heart of the marital rape exemption is the issue of presumed consent. The marital rape exemption is usually justified by the assumption that marriage implies consent to sexual intercourse. On the surface, this seems quite reasonable. After all, we do not expect our husbands or wives (or even boyfriends or girlfriends), with whom we are in a long term sexual relationship, to ask for permission at the initiation of every instance of sexual intercourse. In fact, I do not think it is uncommon for such presumed “green lights” for assumed consent to exist within individual long term sexual relationships, where prior informal arrangements are made such that consent to sex can be assumed.
But such presumed “green lights” to sex are not concrete. There always exists a partner’s right to give a “red light” at any time he or she wishes. Regardless of whether consent was presumed, as long as you refuse someone’s request to stop doing something to them, you are committing an offence against his or her personal sovereignty. By retaining the marital rape exemption, we are effectively saying that marriage switches on a permanent “green light” to sex, and women are left without any option to retract this “green light” and say “No”. This notion is exemplified by the statement made by England’s former Chief Justice Sir Matthew Hale:
“the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract.”
Marriage was and is treated as a kind of “automatic” consent to sexual intercourse which cannot be revoked. Women were and are mere sex objects for their husbands, with no power or right to refuse sex.
By keeping the marital rape exemption, we are allowing men, especially abusive men, to make the claim of prior consent (by marriage) and basically protecting those who carry out the intentional rape of their wives. In my opinion, regardless of all potential problems (difficulty to prosecute, potential for false accusations, compromising of “family values” – all of which apply to many other crimes as well, I might add), it is not justifiable for the law to give immunity to someone who commits abusive acts. Dropping the presumption of consent would reduce the possibility that such abuse would continue with impunity.
No matter how offensive or inoffensive we find the notion of marriage implying presumed consent, this is ultimately an issue of choice. The marital rape exemption denies a woman the option of saying “No” to her husband. And in doing so, it legitimizes an abuser’s actions to violate his wife’s personal sovereignty over her own body. It is simply preposterous that this form of violation can be passed off as a “private issue” in the name of Family Values.
If you believe that the marital rape exemption should be repealed, and that marital rape should be a crime, I urge you to sign the petition here.
The tyranny of the majority June 29, 2009
Posted by laïcité in Liberalism v Conservativism, Philosophy, Politics.Tags: john stuart mill, liberalism, personal liberty, Philosophy, Politics
3 comments
Many of us mistakenly concede to arguments that end with “…well this is what the majority believes, so it’s just too bad for gays/liberals/whoever”. We erroneously believe that a law, a policy, or a practice can be justified simply because the majority agrees with it, because of the flawed notion that democracy, or majority rule, is equivalent to mob rule.
What is mob rule? Well, simply put, it is the tyranny of the majority. It is the tendency of the majority to put its interests and opinions over those of the minority. It is the assumption that the majority has the right to impose their will to enforce discriminatory laws or policies on the minority simply by virtue of their strength in numbers. In his work, On Liberty, John Stuart Mill wrote:
“…there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling: against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them.”
Just because an opinion is held by the majority, that does not automatically mean that the opinion is correct, or that implementing a rule based on that opinion is justifiable on that basis alone. If the majority of Singaporeans were to believe that say, Hindus, or Muslims (or the people belonging to some other numerically minority race or religion) should be deemed as second class citizens, that alone would not legitimize discriminatory laws against them. Similarly, even if the majority of Americans were to agree with discriminatory Jim Crow laws, that alone would not legitimize the reinstating of such unconstitutional laws. In the same vein, when homosexuals are denied certain freedoms on the basis that the majority of Singaporeans do not approve of those freedoms, there is no reason to presume that the will of the majority is sufficient to vote away the rights of homosexuals.
When it comes to practical issues, it may be perfectly sensible to go with majority rule. But I believe that the majority (or even a political or moral authority) should not be given that power when it comes to issues of personal liberty (as long as these liberties are not in violation of the harm principle). Allowing the majority to deny rights and freedoms to minority groups is no better than despotism.
I am no philosopher or political theorist, and I do not intend to argue about the conservative principles which value the sacrifice of individual freedoms to the collective will of society. (Not at this moment, anyway) But I do know that from a liberal perspective, there is little room for the government or society to impose discriminatory laws or opinions onto minorities, because of the ideology’s emphasis on the respect for individual rights and distaste for governmental or societal interference. After all, the smallest minority is the individual, and liberalism is simply the protection of individual freedoms from oppression by the tyranny of societal conformity, the tyranny of the magistrate, and the tyranny of the majority.
The full text of J. S. Mill’s On Liberty is available here. Highly recommended as a thorough introduction to liberalism. :)
French secularism and the burka June 24, 2009
Posted by laïcité in Feminism v Patriarchy, International, Liberalism v Conservativism, Religion.Tags: feminism, law, Politics, Religion, secularism
8 comments
France is considering a ban on the burka, on the basis that the garment is a symbol of female submissiveness and male dominance, and is thus contrary to the French republican principles of women’s rights. To be honest, I am completely torn as to which side I would take regarding this issue. On the one hand, as a liberal, I am opposed to the idea of the government having a say in the personal choices of its people. But on the other hand, as a woman and as a feminist, I am totally and completely offended by the burka and the rationale behind its use. In this post I will attempt to explain my views, and perhaps come to a rational and consistent position.
Why I am against the ban
As I mentioned earlier, (and perhaps way too many times in this blog), I am a liberal when it comes to the limits of government control. This means that I believe that the government has no right to interfere in the personal choices and actions of its people, as long as those choices and actions cause no harm to others. In the case of the burka, I find it alarming that the government would deny women the right to choose how they wish to dress. To me this is no less atrocious and authoritarian than the governments of those Muslim countries which impose the burka or the veil on its female citizens. I don’t think it is wise for a civilized Western country sink to that level.
Why I am against the burka
Firstly, the notion of “the freedom to choose the burka” is problematic because how much of these women’s decisions are actually made freely without coercion? Is the choice to cover oneself up really free if that choice is being made by someone who has undergone a lifetime of indoctrination with the message that this is the only proper way for a woman to dress? If a man tells his wife, “you’re free to decide whether or not you want to wear the burka, but only immodest women and bad wives choose to expose themselves.” then that is no longer considered a choice; it’s considered social pressure and coercion.
Of course the argument could then be turned around to the western women. Isn’t our society pressuring us to wear makeup and short skirts too? While that may be true, the key difference lies in the degree of coercion. If I choose to go out without makeup, I am merely considered an anomaly amongst women. But if a woman pressured to don the burka chooses not to, she may be shunned by her family and community, often without sufficient education or resources to fall back on. In this way, it is no longer considered a free choice when the “choice” is between the burka and a woman’s means to existence.
Secondly, the reasons behind the burka are flawed and incredibly insulting. The main premise behind the burka is this: women should cover themselves up in order to protect themselves from unwanted advances and sexual assault from men. This premise is insulting to both men to women: it assumes that men are sexually aroused at the mere sight of female flesh, it assumes that men cannot control their sexual urges, and it assumes that female sexuality is a negative thing.
Take for example, the outrageous and offensive comments made by a Muslim cleric in Australia a couple of years ago, blaming women for getting gang raped because of how they dressed:
“The uncovered meat is the problem.”
The sheik then said: “If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred.”
He said women were “weapons” used by “Satan” to control men.
Such is the rationale and mindset behind the coercing of women to cover themselves up, and the punishing and ostracizing of those who choose not to. It involves the abhorrent notion that women and their bodies are mere sex objects and should be covered up to prevent men (weaker beings with no self control or dignity) from temptation.
But as an educated woman, I know that it is not my obligation to dress in order to prevent men from being tempted. Educated, self-respecting men should know that it is their own responsibility to control their urges and actions. Men are not children, or worse, animals, who have no control over their desires and who require women to remove temptation away from them. Assuming that they are is insulting and simply untrue. Furthermore, the burka is also a symbol of the belief that female sexuality is a threat to men, or even society. At best, such a belief is simply unfounded paranoia. At worst, it is a manifestation of male dominance and the need to control women by limiting their freedoms, their intellect, their voice, and their sexuality.
Thirdly, the burka is alienating and dehumanizing. As a garment, it does an effective job of making its wearers both literally and figuratively invisible and indistinguishable to others. Unlike the hijab, which is commonly worn by Muslim women in Singapore and allows us to see their faces and facial expressions, the burka covers the woman’s entire face, only allowing a mesh screen for her to see through. This alienates the woman by preventing her from effectively communicating and engaging with the outside world. It also dehumanizes her because the rest of us can’t help but see her as a mound of cloth, rather than as an actual thinking, feeling human being.
Fourthly, arguing that the burka should be respected because it is justified as a religious practice is not good enough. I am against the burka for the same reason why I am against female genital mutilation, female illiteracy, the practice of sati, honor killings and other misogynistic practices which are often justified using religion. In this way I somewhat agree with the French government’s reasons for bringing up the issue:
“If it were determined that wearing the burka is a submissive act, and that it is contrary to republican principles, naturally parliament would have to drawn the necessary conclusions,” he said.
Religious justification is simply not enough. There should definitely be a limit to religious freedom, and that line should be drawn when religious practices encroach onto human rights, no matter how deeply entrenched such practices are in the religious community. In the case of France, where laïcité is a core principle in their constitution (because of historical problems the State had with the Catholic Church, outward displays of religion in France are now taboo), it is understandable why the French would want to ban something that threatens their hard fought secular values.
Fifth, the burka is not “freeing”. It is sometimes argued that women who expose flesh are not taken seriously by men because they are only valued for their looks, while a burka frees a woman by allowing her to be judged for who she is rather than what she looks like. Other than the fact that this is simply false (People will now judge the woman based on her overt and extreme expression of religion more than her intellect or her personality), the burka is in fact highly impractical and restricts many practical freedoms. For example, a burka clad woman would not (and should not) be allowed into a bank for security reasons, and would be ineligible for many jobs as face-to-face interactions are a prerequisite for engaging interpersonal interactions, professional or otherwise.
A conclusion?
Are the atrocities that are represented and perpetuated by the burka worth compromising my liberal values of non interference in personal choices? For now I don’t think I can resolve my own internal conflict. But ultimately, a burka ban would only treat the symptoms of the problem, and not the true evils of misogyny, female oppression and victim-blaming.
Instead, I believe that education is key. Secular, unbiased education (as opposed to religious indoctrination) for women and girls opens up options and opportunities so that these marginalized women have the ability to make informed choices for themselves, so that they can truly be emancipated from such social and religious coercion.
The ineffectiveness of abstinence-only sex education June 21, 2009
Posted by laïcité in Education, Science.Tags: conservatives, sex education
3 comments
Although this is by no means a new issue, I thought it would be useful to have the facts of the issue in one post, at least for easy access to “ammunition” against those who push for puritanical and fruitless abstinence-only sex education.
Studies have indicated that abstinence-only sex education programs are ineffective
Based on over 15 years of research, the evidence shows that comprehensive sexuality education programs for youth that encourage abstinence, promote appropriate condom use, and teach sexual communication skills reduce HIV-risk behavior and also delay the onset of sexual intercourse.
In contrast, scientifically sound studies of abstinence only programs show an unintended consequence of unprotected sex at first intercourse and during later sexual activity. In this way, abstinence only programs increase the risk of these adolescents for pregnancy and sexually transmitted illnesses, including HIV/AIDS
The full article is available here.
According to a research team from Oxford University which reviewed 13 US trials involving over 15,000 people aged 10 to 21, it was found that none of the abstinence-only programs had an impact on the age at which individuals lost their virginity, whether they had unprotected sex, the number of sexual partners, the rates of sexually transmitted diseases or the number of pregnancies.Their research, which was published in the British Medical Journal, showed that in comparison, programs which promote the use of condoms greatly reduce the risk of HIV.
A study by the nonpartisan Mathematica Policy Research also showed that abstinence-only sex education does not keep teenagers from having sex. The study used a rigorous, scientifically based approach involving two statistically equivalent groups – a program group which received abstinence-only education, and a control group which did not.
“There’s not a lot of good news here for people who pin their hopes on abstinence-only education,” said Sarah Brown, executive director of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, a privately funded organization that monitors sex education programs. “This is the first study with a solid, experimental design, the first with adequate numbers and long-term follow-up, the first to measure behavior and not just intent. On every measure, the effectiveness of the programs was flat.”
Brown said Mathematica’s results underscore what other, smaller studies have shown: “The most effective programs are those that say abstinence is the best choice but birth control and protection are also worth knowing about.”
An official at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States agreed.
“Comprehensive education means teaching about abstinence and a myriad of other topics,” said spokeswoman Martha Kempner. Among them, she said: “contraception, critical thinking, one’s own values and the values of your family and your religious community.
“Abstinence-only was an experiment and it failed.”
Virginity Pledges
In addition to abstinence-only sex education, we are also seeing more teens taking so called “virginity pledges, where they (or sometimes even creepier still-their parents) pledge to stay virgins until they get married. However, it was found that not only are teenagers who make such promises just as likely to have sex, but they are also less likely to use protection.
By 2001, Rosenbaum found, 82 percent of those who had taken a pledge had retracted their promises, and there was no significant difference in the proportion of students in both groups who had engaged in any type of sexual activity, including giving or receiving oral sex, vaginal intercourse, the age at which they first had sex, or their number of sexual partners. More than half of both groups had engaged in various types of sexual activity, had an average of about three sexual partners and had had sex for the first time by age 21 even if they were unmarried.
“It seems that pledgers aren’t really internalizing the pledge,” Rosenbaum said. “Participating in a program doesn’t appear to be motivating them to change their behavior. It seems like abstinence has to come from an individual conviction rather than participating in a program.”
From these findings it is highly possible that these teens were pressured to take such pledges, either by their peers, parents or religious community. Their purity rings aren’t a symbol of their dedication to celibacy, they are a symbol to prove how conservative and religious they are. As a result, not only are the pledges ineffective, they are also counterproductive in that the teens end up engaging in unsafe sex.
Expecting all teens to abstain is unrealistic
In addition to the facts that almost all humans have a natural desire for sex, and that we are hit with an especially potent cocktail of hormones during our teenage years which make us all the more horny (tsk tsk), the brains of teenagers also make them more prone to impulsive behavior. Brain scans have shown that the frontal lobes, the part of the brain that control impulses, don’t mature until age 25, and their connections to other parts of the brain continue to improve to at least that age. This results in teens making bad judgments. (Incidentally, this is also the reason why teens are usually not tried as adults in the court of law.) Given this, it is simply unavoidable that some teens will eventually have sex, regardless of how much the abstinence message is drilled into them, and even regardless of their own plans to abstain.
So the question is, do we just want to let these teens to fall through the cracks, and punish them (by means of pregnancy and STDs) for their inability to control themselves, nevermind the fact that unwanted pregnancies, teen marriages and STDs all have negative impacts on society? It seems like the conservative right wants to do just that. By continuing to push for abstinence-only education in schools despite overwhelming proof that it is ineffective, it is clear that the conservatives care more about their own consciences than about the real consequences faced by individuals and eventually faced by society. Our society can do with less of such selfishness and self-righteousness, and more respect for our youths.
Atlanta: Court throws out ban on exposing children to gays June 18, 2009
Posted by laïcité in International, Liberalism v Conservativism.Tags: conservatives, homophobia
add a comment
From the article (emphasis mine):
The state high court’s decision overturned Fayette County Superior Court Judge Christopher Edwards’ blanket prohibition against exposing the children to their father’s gay partners and friends.
“Such an arbitrary classification based on sexual orientation flies in the face of our public policy that encourages divorced parents to participate in the raising of their children,” Justice Robert Benham wrote.
The Fayette County judge’s prohibition “assumes, without evidentiary support, that the children will suffer harm from any such contact,” Benham wrote. But there is no evidence that any member of the gay and lesbian community has engaged in inappropriate conduct in the presence of the children or that the children would be adversely affected by being exposed to members of that community, he said.
More:
“Placing a blanket ban on children’s association with gay people not only hurts this father’s relationship with his children, it is blatant discrimination,” Littrell said. “The court has done the right thing today by focusing on the needs of the children instead of perpetuating stigma on the basis of sexual orientation.”
I wonder what a pro- “family values” conservative would think about this issue, and if they truly have the interests of the children at heart. Would they support the maintaining of the children’s relationship with their father, regardless of gay friends and all, or would they plead “traditional family values” again and argue that the potential and unproven harm from associating with gay people is so severe that it is not worth preserving the parent-child relationship? Perhaps we should pose this questions to the anti-gay people that we know in order to differentiate between a well-meaning person who misguidedly thinks homosexuals are harmful to children, and a true bigot who hides his homophobia behind a mask of “family values”.
9crzgdmtks
