Extremists and Women

October 29, 2009 8:23 AM

"Somalia is in the grip of famine and chaos but officials there are inspecting bras". "..[T]he extremist ideology assumes that humans are a group of wild beasts that are completely incapable of controlling their instincts". In an editorial in The Independent, Alaa Al-Aswany discusses fundamentalist gender bias.
posted by gallois (51 comments total)

Since when does Somalia have "officials"? This is, I assume the Islamic Courts Union. It's not really a recognized body or anything. Or is this something new?
posted by delmoi at 8:32 AM on October 29, 2009

Wikipedia entry for Alaa Al-Aswany. To me, that's actually the interesting bit here; what he's saying is not really controversial or surprising to anyone who's studied patriarchal societies, after all. But I would like to know if being an Eqyptian male writer means his words are more widely discussed or have more impact outside of the west.

The idea that repression of women increases in times of crisis was also addressed recently by Faludi's The Terror Dream.
posted by emjaybee at 8:35 AM on October 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

Secondly, the extremists believe women to be the source of temptation and the prime cause of sin. This view, which is prevalent in all primitive societies...

Woah, back up. "primitive societies"? Thats such a loaded term, I'm not sure what he means by it. Hasn't this guy heard of the Bible, with Eve eating that apple? Or is he also calling Western Christianity primitive?

Actually, on second thought, I guess I'm ok with that. Carry on.
posted by fontophilic at 8:40 AM on October 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

I'm sure we can find a similar western debate about whether a woman wearing a wonderbra or who has had breast augmentation is "deceiving" and "fraudulent". I admire the Somali honesty in their policing of women's bodies, I really do.
posted by Sova at 8:44 AM on October 29, 2009

Disgusting
posted by gagglezoomer at 8:46 AM on October 29, 2009

Question:
"Anyone who visits the redlight district in Amsterdam can see for himself how wretched prostitutes, completely naked, are lined up behind glass windows so that passers-by can inspect their charms before agreeing on the price. Isn't that a modern-day slave market, where women's bodies are on sale to anyone willing to pay?"

Answer:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
posted by i'm offended you're offended at 8:46 AM on October 29, 2009 [8 favorites]

Now all the people who mocked Natalie Portman yesterday for comparing inhumane treatment of animals to rape can profess their outrage toward the cultures which domesticate and breed women like animals. It all comes full circle!
posted by hermitosis at 8:49 AM on October 29, 2009

This is like some crude 10 year old schoolboy sexual fantasy. If it weren't unhilarious in reality, it would be hilarious.

Q: If you ruled the world, JimmyBob, what would you do?

A: I'd make sure that all women had to wobble their bits on demand, and if they were found to be faking it I'd spank them.

And that, in a nutshell, is the whole deal with religious extremists. They are so fixated on sex they have to save the world from themselves.
posted by MuffinMan at 8:50 AM on October 29, 2009 [13 favorites]

Your Religious Ideology Sucks.
posted by Aquaman at 8:50 AM on October 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

Thank goodness I don't live in a society where religious extremists express their sexual inadequacy by trying to control women's bodies.

Hold on a sec...

What was that? ...

Uh... I'll have to get back to you.
posted by Joe Beese at 8:53 AM on October 29, 2009 [3 favorites]

Oppressing women is bad.

But, funny thing, so is that article.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 8:59 AM on October 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

Your Religious Ideology Sucks.

And so does yours. How many people who contribute to this website are of a Wahhabi/Salafi bent? Nice try, though.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:03 AM on October 29, 2009

Finally, let me say that religious extremism is the other face of political despotism. We cannot get rid of the extremism before we end the despotism.

Democracy is the solution.

Non sequuntur. What if people vote for the extremist or despotic parties? This article seems rather hackneyed and unscholarly. For instance,

Accusing the Somali woman of fraud and deception because she was wearing a bra is the same charge of commercial fraud which the law holds against a merchant who conceals the defects of his goods and make false claims about their qualities in order to sell them at a higher price.

This sentence leaves many important details out. Is it the same word in Somali or Arabic that refers to both offences? Are they merely allied ideas? Would a religious scholar say that Qu'ranic ideas about female modesty are similar to commercial deception, or is this just the author's sense?

It's interesting in a few respects, but the thesis— that the most extreme versions of Islamic fundamentalism demean women— is hardly ground-breaking.
posted by Electrius at 9:03 AM on October 29, 2009

You know, we can compare this with Christianity all day and night but ultimately this pious bigoted hypocrisy is exactly the sort of thing the biblical Jesus railed against the Pharisees and their ilk for. Which isn't to say he wouldn't have the same response against many (most?) "Christian" groups today, but it's worth pointing out that once upon a time Christianity was the resistance movement to crap like this. And there are still practitioners who hold to that ideal.
posted by The Winsome Parker Lewis at 9:16 AM on October 29, 2009 [4 favorites]

You know, we can compare this with Christianity Islam all day and night but ultimately this pious bigoted hypocrisy is exactly the sort of thing the biblical Jesus historical Mohammed railed against the Pharisees Quraish Tribe and their ilk for. Which isn't to say he wouldn't have the same response against many (most?) "Christian" Islamic groups today, but it's worth pointing out that once upon a time Christianity Islam was the resistance movement to crap like this. And there are still practitioners who hold to that ideal.

Fixed that for you, etc. Who's talking about Jesus here?
posted by Burhanistan at 9:19 AM on October 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

Who's talking about Jesus here?

Well, fontophilic and Joe Beese, for two.
posted by The Winsome Parker Lewis at 9:29 AM on October 29, 2009

This is a dumb article.

Secondly, the extremists believe women to be the source of temptation and the prime cause of sin. This view, which is prevalent in all primitive societies, is unfair and inhuman, because men and women commit sin together and the responsibility is shared and equal. If a beautiful woman arouses and tempts men, then a handsome man also arouses and tempts women. But the extremist ideology is naturally biased in favour of the man and hostile to the woman, and considers that she alone is primarily responsible for all sins.

Translation: Different culture is different. My values, let me show you them.

This guy isn't actually arguing anything (I wish he were) he's just expressing a lot of outrage. I happen to belong to his liberal western feminist culture, and would like to see it propagated, but I don't think we're going to win any converts to our system of values through repeated bald assertion.
posted by phrontist at 9:30 AM on October 29, 2009

Given the abundance of messed up evil women in the news recently maybe they're on to something.
posted by HTuttle at 8:44 AM on October 29

booyah brother . .. classic htuttle 0wnage right here . . all women are slutz
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:34 AM on October 29, 2009

Burhanistan: I did not know that about Mohamed. Where could I read more?
posted by phrontist at 9:40 AM on October 29, 2009

phrontist: Here's a start.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:46 AM on October 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

Is it about sexy sex? Not like they want to think.

To paraphrase Marx: The "fundamental" concept of authority is to control the means of re-production. And, when your philosophical/ideological system is so skewed, dysfunctional, and distorted, I think it's a very default social primate thing to attempt to do. When nothing else seems to be working for your social group, get control of the baby-makers.

When ever you see that sort of thing in humans it is the earmark of a failing and regressive social economy.
posted by tkchrist at 9:48 AM on October 29, 2009 [2 favorites]

The Winsome Parker Lewis: "Well, fontophilic and Joe Beese, for two."

To be precise, I was talking about the noisier worshipers of Jesus - as opposed to the man himself.

About the latter, there's barely enough evidence to conclude that he existed - let alone what he might have thought about the proper disposition of Palestinian women's breasts.
posted by Joe Beese at 9:59 AM on October 29, 2009

When ever you see that sort of thing in humans it is the earmark of a failing and regressive social economy.

No, controlling female sexuality is what males in power tend to do, in the absence of egalitarian tendencies, and a society can do this and be stable forever. Look at the Roman Catholic Church, or some other group of primates.

Still causes untold suffering, though.
posted by sebastienbailard at 10:04 AM on October 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

No, controlling female sexuality is what males in power tend to do, in the absence of egalitarian tendencies, and a society can do this and be stable forever.

First. NO society can be stable forever. Even excluding the laws of thermodynamics.

Second, the Roman Catholic church is shrinking in all wealthy countries and is only growing less stable, poor, economically unstable societies.

Third your statement would only hold partial truth of civilization and technology were historically static, which they are not.

And to be a sustainable, verdant society capable of moving forward in an increasingly economic and culturally interdependent word societies evolve egalitarian tendencies or they regress. They only move forward by leeching the innovations and economies of other healthier more diverse societies. See oil economies. While there may be a few exceptions, they will not last moving forward.
posted by tkchrist at 10:45 AM on October 29, 2009

"truth if civilization"
posted by tkchrist at 10:46 AM on October 29, 2009

Yup, this sound pretty bad, but you know, Somalia didn't ask me for my opinion.

You'd think other Islamic countries would be outraged, etc and say something about it though. I think that might hold a bit more sway with the Somalis.
posted by Ruthless Bunny at 10:46 AM on October 29, 2009

To those complaining about his overly comfortable western perspective, I observe this is reprinted from an Egyptian newspaper, suggesting that his arguments are more directed towards his Islamic readers than reaffirming a self-regarding ex-colonial viewpoint.
posted by anigbrowl at 10:51 AM on October 29, 2009

I think that might hold a bit more sway with the Somalis.

We're talking about Al-Shabaab here. Those dickheads think that every other Muslim that doesn't subscribe to their narrow interpretation of Islam is a kafir, or at best a munafiq. They are an unreasonable bunch and having other Islamic governments "say something about it" would only stoke their rage.
posted by Burhanistan at 10:57 AM on October 29, 2009

What an interesting article.

You might argue that control of women isn't a distraction from real issues like corruption and famine: it's more important than corruption and famine. Control of women and their sexuality is the most important thing there is to the patriarchy or our primate behavior.

Another form of control, for example, is the requirement in Western societies that women may not share a single male mate (polygamy). This restriction is good for ensuring that less attractive males get mates, which reduces the pool of violent and aggressive young men who otherwise have no purpose in life and tend to cause trouble, which may be why it has survived. But it's still a societal restriction on women's sexual choices that most of us would find quite sensible.

It's one I support, I should add, for many reasons: but that might just be my culture talking. I find religious fundamentalism abhorrent, but I have no problem with criminalising polygamy. But then I'm male, so maybe it's just that I have no innate problem with justifying control of women as some kind of social good?

Sorry, this is terribly solipsistic. But am I managing to make sense? I'm trying to say that attempting to control women is something we just do quite naturally, and while condemning these "others" and their behavior we must also watch our own.
posted by alasdair at 11:28 AM on October 29, 2009

Sorry, this is terribly solipsistic. But am I managing to make sense?

Yes, it is, and no, not really.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:32 AM on October 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

Control of women people and their sexuality is the most important thing there is to the patriarchy or our primate behavior.

Fixed that for you.

While I understand that Shabab and its ilk are more repressive of women than they are of men, I think it's important not to view all repression involving women through the lens of gender politics - if for no other reason than the resulting shrill sound.
posted by Fraxas at 11:38 AM on October 29, 2009

Well, sure, Fraxas, at one level you're absolutely right. But this seems a quite gendered situation, right? It's not like there is a particular caste or class of people, men and women, who are being policed in this way. Differentiation is on sex. So analyses based on sex seem sensible rather than shrill, surely?

Burhanistan, I'm sorry: let me try again. I'm struck as I get older how much of our behavior, even in the relatively enlightened West, is gendered and primal. I wonder if that should suggest to us if there are common threads to human behavior that can be usefully examined. Does that make sense?
posted by alasdair at 11:50 AM on October 29, 2009 [2 favorites]

I'm struck as I get older how much of our behavior, even in the relatively enlightened West, is gendered and primal.

Indeed. This is typified by the disparity between men's and women's clothing at such events as proms, weddings, award shows, etc.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:52 AM on October 29, 2009

Indeed. This is typified by the disparity between men's and women's clothing at such events as proms, weddings, award shows, etc.

We're talking about women being beaten for daring to wear pants (Sudan) or being harassed for wearing bras. If it is sarcastic, I fail to see how your comment is relevant.
posted by sebastienbailard at 12:38 PM on October 29, 2009

We're talking about women being beaten for daring to wear pants (Sudan) or being harassed for wearing bras. If it is sarcastic, I fail to see how your comment is relevant.

It was a response to another comment, not an attempt at equivalency. I didn't claim it as such.
posted by Burhanistan at 12:40 PM on October 29, 2009

Control of women and their sexuality is the most important thing there is to the patriarchy or our primate behavior

To which of our primate ancestors are you referring? The ancestors we share with the bonobos, the most closely related group? Because the bonobos have a female-dominated social structure.

When people talk about how patriarchy is "part of our primate heritage" they generally cite primate groups, like great apes, that actually aren't very closely related to humans at all.
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:55 PM on October 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

I think it's important not to view all repression involving women through the lens of gender politics

WTF? Are you joking? That makes zero sense.
posted by tkchrist at 1:25 PM on October 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

To which of our primate ancestors are you referring? The ancestors we share with the bonobos, the most closely related group? Because the bonobos have a female-dominated social structure.

Yeah but we don't throw orgies to diffuse tension or because we just found a nice bunch of fruit trees. I note a similar absence of female-dominated social structures.
posted by sebastienbailard at 1:35 PM on October 29, 2009

To which of our primate ancestors are you referring? The ancestors we share with the bonobos, the most closely related group? Because the bonobos have a female-dominated social structure.

DERAIL/: I'm no scientist but according to Wikipedia we are closely related to both the Bonobo AND the common Chimpanzee. I'm not sure it's settled if there is a closer tie to one or the other. And it seems there is a great deal of rampant ideology in the Bonobo camp for what ever reason ( I don't understand why).

Anyway. It's irrelevant since we have no way of knowing for sure what social structure our closest extinct hominid relatives may have had. However it is some what safe to assume that since most hominids have, to some degree, a male dominated social structure our closest relatives did to. /DERAIL
posted by tkchrist at 1:39 PM on October 29, 2009

Yeah but we don't throw orgies to diffuse tension or because we just found a nice bunch of fruit trees.

Wait, you don't do this? Wow. You need a better circle of friends, I think.
posted by hippybear at 1:42 PM on October 29, 2009 [2 favorites]

And it seems there is a great deal of rampant ideology in the Bonobo camp for what ever reason

I think that stems from the fact that bonobos tend to have much more peaceful relations with each other than chimpanzees, and researchers are eager to paint humans in the best light. The fact is that humans are humans, regardless of how you track the genetic heritage of their organisms, and it's rather silly to base any kind of sociological models on apes.
posted by Burhanistan at 1:43 PM on October 29, 2009

and it's rather silly to base any kind of sociological models on apes

I think sometimes yes, I agree. But we have learned a great deal of important information applicable to ourselves from studying chimps and the Great Apes. And, in terms of making hypotheses about our behavioral ancestry, really what else do we have to model from? It's at least a starting point.
posted by tkchrist at 1:55 PM on October 29, 2009

And, in terms of making hypotheses about our behavioral ancestry, really what else do we have to model from? It's at least a starting point.

It is a starting point, as is paleontology. Of course, some people use ants as models for human behavior too.
posted by Burhanistan at 1:59 PM on October 29, 2009

Of course, some people use ants as models for human behavior too.

Some people call their fellow men and women consumers rather than 'neighbor' or 'citizen' but that doesn't mean we have to follow their example. (I wish we were set up a bit more among bonobo lines. But then chimps would probably end up come sailing in big shiny aircraft carriers and kill and eat us.)

On the other hand, some people seemed have managed to set themselves up as 'Federal Booty Inspector' and it seems to be a lot less funny in real life. Maybe it's the threatened floggings.
posted by sebastienbailard at 2:58 PM on October 29, 2009

I appreciate this post. Regardless of our relationship to primates, I think it is important to recognize profound infringements of human rights like those documented in this article. I also appreciate the author's point that sexuality is not attributable to just one of the sexes -- too bad such an elementary point still needs to be made in any culture. And finally, I am grateful to read an intelligent discussion of differences within the Islamic faith, including Burhanistan's linked comment in this thread, especially because many in the US still see Islam as monolithic.
posted by bearwife at 3:26 PM on October 29, 2009

Somalia today
posted by millardsarpy at 7:47 PM on October 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

While I understand that Shabab and its ilk are more repressive of women than they are of men, I think it's important not to view all repression involving women through the lens of gender politics - if for no other reason than the resulting shrill sound.

Beg pardon?
posted by bakerina at 8:33 PM on October 29, 2009

I think that stems from the fact that bonobos tend to have much more peaceful relations with each other than chimpanzees, and researchers are eager to paint humans in the best light.

They do? Last I checked bonobo tribes may solve their internal disputes by fucking, but they still, like chimps, will have inter-tribe warfare. And, of course, there's ample record of bonobo killing other species for lulz, warfare against other primates, and so on. They aren't as vicious as chimps, but that's saying much.

The whole ideology around the bonobo mostly seems to be a sort of biologist equivalent of noble savage/Margaret Mead anthropology.
posted by rodgerd at 12:24 AM on October 30, 2009

not saying much, rather.
posted by rodgerd at 12:26 AM on October 30, 2009

I'm sure we can find a similar western debate about whether a woman wearing a wonderbra or who has had breast augmentation is "deceiving" and "fraudulent". I admire the Somali honesty in their policing of women's bodies, I really do.

It's always interesting to see how the bar can be lowered (or raised, depending on your point of view) for "most absurdly stupid comment on MetaFilter".
posted by rodgerd at 12:27 AM on October 30, 2009 [1 favorite]

Yeah but we don't throw orgies to diffuse tension

GAAAK

/chokes on rage
posted by clockzero at 10:42 AM on October 30, 2009 [1 favorite]