Join 3,494 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


You Say Double Standard, I Say Institutionalized Misogyny
October 12, 2004 12:13 PM   Subscribe

Two Women Sentenced to Death for Adultery, Men Released for Lack of Evidence
"Islamic courts in Nigeria sentenced two women to death by stoning for having sex out of wedlock, but two men whom they said they slept with were acquitted for lack of evidence."
posted by fenriq (30 comments total)

 
Note that the case will likely be tossed out on appeal but the main reason I posted this is because I find it incredibly hard to believe that a court could justifiably convict one person of adultery and not the person they commited the adultery with.

That and being sentenced to death by stoning for adultery. WTF? Yes, I know there are some drastically different cultural norms at work but still, group executions with rocks? Haven't we evolved beyond this yet?
posted by fenriq at 12:18 PM on October 12, 2004


According to the story, one of the women was unmarried/widowed/separated (which is why she has a "male guardian" who isn't her husband) and pregnant, so the evidence that she had had sex with someone was pretty obvious, yes?

This isn't to say I'm not appalled, etc., because I am. But the sentence isn't necessarily illogical. Just evil.
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:24 PM on October 12, 2004


Sidhedevil, yeah, I can see how the women were convicted but it bothers me alot that the men got off (sorry for the bad, bad pun) when their "partners" face death.

And thanks for the new slogan,

MetaFilter: Logically Evil!
posted by fenriq at 12:29 PM on October 12, 2004


Religion sucks
posted by Pretty_Generic at 12:44 PM on October 12, 2004


Nigeria is an ethno-religious time bomb (Muslim North, Christian South, sound familiar?) waiting to explode. The enthusiastic institution of Sharia law in the Muslim parts of the country is little more than a thumbing of the public nose at Nigerian Christians. Plus, Nigeria has oil, over which they're in the process of starting a bloody civil war. It's amazing that "democracy" has held out this long (about six years, I think).

I wish I could add some sort of sound policy advice to these comments, but I just have no idea; it seems so hopeless... It's quite depressing, really. Poor Africa.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:58 PM on October 12, 2004


Related:

The case of Amina Lawal.

The recent flap over adultery laws in Turkey.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:04 PM on October 12, 2004


Islam at it's finest!
posted by WLW at 1:26 PM on October 12, 2004


This reminds me of something I heard during the Clinton/Lewinsky thing. I remember hearing that possible argument being floated around was that Lewinsky had had sex with Clinton but not vice versa, since she was doing the sucking and he was just the suckee.
posted by Tin Man at 1:32 PM on October 12, 2004


Fundamentalism at it's finest! Let's not forget we have this bizarre gay marriage issue going on here... Make an issue out of nothing at all. A trademark.
posted by juiceCake at 1:41 PM on October 12, 2004


Islam at it's finest!

Ignorance at its finest!

Poor consenting adults for living somewhere where who they fuck is the business of anyone not involved. Poor Nigerians, poor us.
posted by dame at 1:43 PM on October 12, 2004


Damn you, juiceCake, at it's finest!
posted by dame at 1:44 PM on October 12, 2004


These sentences are necessary to protect women (and the institution of marriage) from the monstrous influence of female sexuality.

If you can't carve out a woman's clitoris, you can do the next best thing by simply killing them. Both God and ancient traditions demand it; women are hateful dirty creatures that need to be controlled at all costs.

...which is why the men can't be punished (unless they're gay) -- they simply succumbed to the malign influence of female sexuality, and they can't be blamed for that, now can they? Boys will be boys, after all.

Additionally, this is why condoms are anti-religious, insulting to our precious traditions and evil -- if people use condoms, you won't be able to tell which women need to be killed, and society will fall apart.
posted by aramaic at 1:51 PM on October 12, 2004


Sounds to me like a good enough reason to invade with American forces and topple the regime. ;-P
posted by mischief at 2:00 PM on October 12, 2004


that Lewinsky had had sex with Clinton but not vice versa, since she was doing the sucking and he was just the suckee.

Huh. I would have said the opposite. She got nothing-- he got the orgasm. Who is the one having sex?
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 2:08 PM on October 12, 2004


These are 'state' courts giving out these sentances, the federal courts won't allow these kinds of punishments, so these people won't actualy be stoned to death.

Just thought I'd point that out.
posted by delmoi at 2:15 PM on October 12, 2004


Who is the one having sex?

You forget: women aren't supposed to enjoy sex, so ideally they'd never have orgasms anyway. Duh.
posted by aramaic at 2:18 PM on October 12, 2004


Thank God, I've been doing it right, then.
posted by Doug at 2:22 PM on October 12, 2004


"These are 'state' courts giving out these sentances, the federal courts won't allow these kinds of punishments, so these people won't actualy be stoned to death.

Just thought I'd point that out."


Oh, well, that's all right then!

Carry on, Nigerians!

Y'all be sure to let us know when this stoning thing gets serious!
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:47 PM on October 12, 2004


He wasn't sentenced to death, but a Virginia man was convicted of adultery in August 2004. (His former lover pressed charges against him and wasn't charged herself because she wasn't married.) Virginia's one of 24 states where adultery is a crime, and one of 10 states that prohibits sex before marriage. Meanwhile, Turkey has dropped a plan to ban adultery.
posted by kirkaracha at 2:56 PM on October 12, 2004


Does all this adultery stuff mean that Kobe can be stoned to death too since he's admitted to having sex with the teenager?

delmoi, yeah, even though the charges most likely won't be carried out doesn't make them any less reprehensible. The article says they haven't had a legal stoning since 2000 (I wonder if they've got a sign somewhere with that data on it?) but that tells me that there's been at least one illegal stoning.

And, call me crazy, but I'm thinking one stoning is one too many.
posted by fenriq at 3:33 PM on October 12, 2004


a Virginia man was convicted of adultery in August 2004.

I've been wondering when our moral-legislating leaders were going to start talking about adultry. After all, we keep hearing about how same-sex marriages are threatening the sanctity of marriage. Isn't adultery a much bigger threat? Maybe if the Christian Right would start demanding legislation outlawing adultery and divorce, Regular Joe would wake-up and smell the coffee forcing the Republican Party to shrug off their embrace.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:21 PM on October 12, 2004


I've never been a big fan of Nigeria's "Shariah" laws - they don't strike me as particularly Shariah compliant.. They're probably better than Pakistan's though. Now that's a proper mishmash/bastardisation of religion and culture.

Then again, in most third world countries the women would have been killed without trial. Suppose that's an improvement seeing as it'll be overturned..
posted by Mossy at 4:27 PM on October 12, 2004


Maybe if the Christian Right would start demanding legislation outlawing adultery and divorce, Regular Joe would wake-up and smell the coffee forcing the Republican Party to shrug off their embrace.

Well...except for the fact that many high powered politicos and "preachers" come complete with Barbie the Trophy Wife tm. Can't go preachin' against your own...might impact donations, doncha know.
posted by dejah420 at 6:58 PM on October 12, 2004


MetaFilter: One stoning is too many.
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:38 PM on October 12, 2004


Islam at it's finest! / Ignorance at its finest!

Considering WLW was plainly being sarcastic and his saying that seems to translate to – “This is Islam at it's worst” – what do you consider particularly ignorant about such a statement?
posted by ed\26h at 4:55 AM on October 13, 2004


Lololololol.... Peace lovin' religion at it's finest.

Is that better??
posted by eas98 at 6:49 AM on October 13, 2004


To be honest I’m not sure to whom that was directed.
posted by ed\26h at 8:52 AM on October 13, 2004


“This is Islam at it's worst” – what do you consider particularly ignorant about such a statement?

The misused apostrophe, basically.
posted by Tin Man at 1:32 PM on October 13, 2004


Yeah, the apostrophe struck me as particularly stupid.

Yes, this is Islam at its worst. It's also humanity at its worst, religious fundamentalism at its worst, and misogyny at its worst.

But for heaven's sake, if you're going to write a blanket dismissal of one of the world's major religious traditions, please at least have the common decency to punctuate correctly! Otherwise, your stance of intellectual and moral superiority is just going to look idiotic.
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:05 PM on October 13, 2004


Not that I really think anyone here truly believes that the grammatical or lexicographical skills of a person presenting an argument reflect on the truth value or validity of that argument, nor can work out were people are being serious and were not, let me rephrase my question:

Considering WLW was plainly being sarcastic and his saying what he said seems to translate to – “This is Islam at its worst” – what, considering that this was the ruling of an Islamic court, and whether or not it is also an example of humanity, religious fundamentalism and misogyny at its worst, do you consider particularly ignorant about such a statement?

Also, in suggesting that an event is an example of the worst of a certain ideal, how is this suggestion also a total dismissal of that ideal?
posted by ed\26h at 4:06 PM on October 13, 2004


« Older The life and times...  |  Has your local supplier of nin... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments