Ms. Mukhtaran's case: Rape; Silencing; Intimidation; Pakistan

[Pure]

Ms. Mukhtaran's case is worth following.
Current story first, original story last.

The 11-Year-Old Wife


By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Published: June 21, 2005

When Pakistan's prime minister visits next month, President Bush will presumably use the occasion to repeat his praise for President Pervez Musharraf as a bold leader "dedicated in the protection of his own people." Then they will sit down and discuss Mr. Bush's plan to sell Pakistan F-16 fighter jets capable of carrying nuclear weapons.Skip to next paragraph

But here's a suggestion: How about the White House dropping word that before the prime minister arrives, he first return the passport of Mukhtaran Bibi, the rape victim turned human-rights campaigner, so that she can visit the United States? Despite Mr. Bush's praise, General Musharraf shows more commitment to his F-16's than to his people. Now he's paying the price. Visiting New Zealand the last few days, he was battered by questions about why he persecuted a rape victim, forcing him to cancel interviews.

Pakistani newspapers savaged him for harming Pakistan's image. And the blogosphere has taken up Ms. Mukhtaran's case, with more than 100 blogs stirring netizens to send blizzards of e-mails to Pakistani consulates or to join protests planned for Wednesday and Thursday at Pakistani offices in New York and Washington.

Yet it's crucial to remember that Ms. Mukhtaran is only a window into a much larger problem - the neglect by General Musharraf's government of the plight of women and girls.

Early this year, for example, a doctor named Shazia Khalid reported that she had been gang-raped in a government-owned natural-gas plant. Instead of treating her medically, officials drugged her into unconsciousness for three days to keep her quiet and then shipped her to a psychiatric hospital.When she persisted in trying to report the rape, she was held under house arrest in Karachi. The police suggested that since she had cash, she must have been working as a prostitute. Dr. Shazia's husband has stood by her, but his grandfather was quoted as suggesting that Dr. Shazia had disgraced the family and should be killed.On average, a woman is raped every two hours in Pakistan, and two women a day die in honor killings.

While Ms. Mukhtaran and Dr. Shazia have attracted international support, most victims in Pakistan are on their own. Earlier this year, for example, police reported that a village council had punished a man for having an affair by ordering his 2-year-old niece to be given in marriage to a 40-year-old man.In another case this year, an 11-year-girl named Nazan was rescued from her husband's family, which beat her, broke her arm and strung her from the ceiling because she didn't work hard enough.

Then there are Pakistan's hudood laws, which have been used to imprison thousands of women who report rapes. If rape victims cannot provide four male witnesses to the crime, they risk being whipped for adultery, since they acknowledge illicit sex and cannot prove rape.

When a group of middle-class Pakistani women demonstrated last month for equal rights in Lahore, police clubbed them and dragged them to police stations. They particularly targeted Asma Jahangir, a U.N. special rapporteur who is also the head of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.Ms. Jahangir says the directions to the police about her, coming from an intelligence official close to General Musharraf, were: "Teach the [expletive] a lesson. Strip her in public."

Sure enough, the police ripped her shirt off and tried to pull her trousers off. If that's how General Musharraf's government treats one of the country's most distinguished lawyers, imagine what happens to a peasant challenging injustice.I've heard from Pakistanis who, while horrified by honor killings and rapes, are embarrassed that it is the barbarism in Pakistan that gets headlines abroad.

A word to those people: I understand your defensiveness, for we Americans feel the same about Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. But rooting out brutality is a better strategy than covering it up, and any nation should be proud to produce someone like Ms. Mukhtaran. So while meeting the Pakistani prime minister, Mr. Bush could discuss not only F-16's, but also repeal of the hudood laws. And Mr. Bush could invite Ms. Mukhtaran to the Oval Office as well, both to hail a genuine Pakistani hero and to spotlight the goals of ordinary Pakistanis - not fighter aircraft but simple justice.

Resources For more information about some of these issues, including the planned demonstrations outside Pakistani offices this week, see www.4anaa.org/projects/mukhtaran-mai.htm. That's on the Web site of the Asian-American Network Against Abuse of Women, run by a group of Pakistani doctors, and it's also the group that is arranging her visit to the U.S.

To help Mukhtaran, don't send checks to me. Instead, you can find out about contributing at www.mercycorps.org

E-mail: nicholas@nytimes.com

=====================

A Free Woman


By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: June 19, 2005

After the Pakistani government tired of kidnapping Mukhtaran Bibi, holding her hostage and lying about it, I finally got a call through to her.

Pakistani officials had just freed Ms. Mukhtaran and returned her to her village. She was exhausted, scared, relieved, giddy and sometimes giggly - and also deeply thankful to all the Pakistanis and Americans who spoke up for her.


"I'm so thankful to everyone that they keep a woman like me in mind," she said fervently. Told that lots of people around the world think she's a hero, she laughed and responded: "God is great. If some people think I'm a hero, it's only because of all those people who give me support."

President Pervez Musharraf's government is still lying about Ms. Mukhtaran, saying that she is now free to travel to the U.S. Well, it's true that government officials removed her name from the blacklist of those barred from leaving Pakistan, but at the same time they confiscated Ms. Mukhtaran's passport.

Let me back up. Ms. Mukhtaran is the indomitable peasant whom I first wrote about in September after visiting her in her village. Three years ago, a village council was upset at her brother, and sentenced her to be gang-raped. After four men raped her, she was forced to walk home nearly naked before a jeering crowd.

She then defied tradition by testifying against her attackers, sending them to prison, and she used compensation money to start elementary schools in her village. She herself is now enrolled in the fourth grade; a measure of her passion for education is that the day after the government released her, she was back in class.

Ms. Mukhtaran is using donations (through www.mercycorps.org) to start an ambulance service and a women's shelter, and she is also campaigning against honor killings, rapes and acid attacks that disfigure women. But President Musharraf, defensive about Pakistan's image, regards brutality as something to cover up rather than uproot.

So when Pakistani officials learned that Ms. Mukhtaran planned to visit the U.S. this month, they detained her and apparently tried to intimidate her by ordering the release of those convicted for her rape. This wasn't a mistake by low-level officials.

Mr. Musharraf admitted to reporters on Friday that he had ordered Ms. Mukhtaran placed on the blacklist. And although Pakistan had claimed that Ms. Mukhtaran had decided on her own not to go to the U.S. because her mother was sick (actually, she wasn't), the president in effect acknowledged that that was one more lie. "She was told not to go" to the U.S., Mr. Musharraf said, according to The Associated Press.

"I don't want to project a bad image of Pakistan." he explained.

I sympathize. From Karachi to the Khyber Pass, Pakistan is one of the most hospitable countries I've ever visited. So, President Musharraf, if you want to improve Pakistan's image, here's some advice: just prosecute rapists with the same zeal with which you persecute rape victims.

Ms. Mukhtaran says she can't talk about what happened after the government kidnapped her. But this is what seems to have unfolded: In Islamabad, government officials ferociously berated her for being unpatriotic and warned that they could punish her family and friends. In particular, they threatened to have the father of a friend fired from his job.

Fittingly, the government is facing its own pressures. Government officials have denounced Pakistani aid groups for helping Ms. Mukhtaran, and Mr. Musharraf added that they were "as bad as the Islamic extremists." So now the aid groups are threatening to pull out of their partnership with the government.

Mr. Musharraf has helped in the war on terrorism and has managed Pakistan's economy well. But in my last column, I reluctantly concluded that he is "nuts," prompting a debate in Pakistan about whether this diagnosis was insolent or accurate. After Mr. Musharraf's latest remarks, I rest my case.

On Friday, Ms. Mukhtaran told me that one of the prime minister's aides had just called to offer to take her to the United States. It seems Mr. Musharraf wants to defuse the crisis by allowing Ms. Mukhtaran a tightly chaperoned tour of the U.S., controlled every step of her way.

"I said, 'No,' " she said. "I only want to go of my own free will."

Hats off to this incredible woman. President Musharraf may have ousted rivals and overthrown a civilian government, but he has now met his match - a peasant woman with a heart of gold and a will of steel.

E-mail: nicholas@nytimes.com


* * *


See www.mercycorps.org. Mercy Corps is working with Ms. Mukhtaran in administering the funds that Times readers sent for her.
------


==========
original story

FOREIGN DESK | July 17, 2002, Wednesday

Account of Punjab Rape Tells of a Brutal Society

By IAN FISHER (NYT) 1623 words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 3 , Column 1

ABSTRACT - Gang rape of Mukhtaran Bibi in Punjab village of Meerwala, horrifyingly common in remote regions, has shocked Pakistanis because it was ordered by tribal council as punishment for illicit sex that never happened, and was tale concocted to cover up sodomy of Bibi's 11-year-old brother by men of wealthier family; 18 men are now under arrest in government crackdown and six face death penalty; photos; map; rights advocates insist tribal councils, which for centuries have settled small disputes, are not 'Islamic' and must be curbed; case became public when local imam, Abdul Razzaq, condemned attack during prayers; 28-year-old teacher has received $8,300 from Pres Pervez Musharraf and village has been promised road, electricity, police outpost and school to be named for her (M)

 

[BlackShanglan]

Thanks for the link, Pure. It's good to know where and how to send aid.

 

[rgraham666]

This is one of those cases where I can't overcome my 'cultural bias'.

I want the people who raped Ms. Mukhtaran, and the ones who jeered at her as she walked home, to walk home themselves, tripping over their intestines every inch of the way.

Wish there was a smiley for naked fury.

 

[shereads]

Pure, I couldn't make myself finish reading it; my Impotent Anger meter has been in the red for so long, I can't stomach anymore. But I'm grateful that you posted this. There's so little awareness or concern in developed nations about the status of girls and women in most of the world. Several years before 9/11 made it politically expediant to despise the Taliban, I remember reading about a 12-year-old girl who was stoned to death for wearing a skirt that exposed her calves. Some international women's rights groups tried to make the western world notice, but no government gave a damn. Afghanistan wasn't Russian; nothing else mattered.

Horrors like this are the natural byproduct of a deep-rooted, widespread belief that women are property; property that has little value beyond whatever dowry their parents can afford. Girls are sold to pay off family debts. In some parts of the world, as compensation for a rape, it is considered fair for the rapist's family to offer one of his sisters to be raped by the victim's brothers. We only hear about these stories when a journalist somehow becomes involved, and manages to get a story published. For every one that makes the news, how many tens of thousands of stories just as nightmarish are never told. Politically, it's business as usual as long as the governments who allow these abuses are useful to the U.S. That's how it was with the Taliban and will be with Pakistan.

 

[Pure]

Ally,

It's worth emphasizing that Pakistan is one of US strongest allies in the war on terror, so called, which is said to be bringing progress and democracy to the middle East. Saudi Arabia is another 'democracy' where adultresses are shot and female fornicators (or rape victims, same thing) are killed by their families.

Weren't the women under Saddam better off, rights wise, than these present Pakistani women?

 

[shereads]

It's worth emphasizing that Pakistan is one of US strongest allies in the war on terror, so called, which is said to be bringing progress and democracy to the middle East. Saudi Arabia is another 'democracy' where adultresses are shot and female fornicators (or rape victims, same thing) are killed by their families.

Weren't the women under Saddam better off, rights wise, than these present Pakistani women?

Yes; with the obvious exceptions of women who were targeted for rape because their families made political enemies in the regime, women were definitely better off. They had legal rights under Saddam's regime that they have in no other predominantly Islamic nation.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Sorry, can't buy that this is a GWB/neocon induced problem (which is the slant I am, perhaps inaccurately, perceiving here). The UN has been a shame to the world on this topic for years, continuing to classify the enslavement of women as a "cultural choice" or similar euphemism. Sure, why not? It's not like the women from those countries are going to show up at the UN protesting their treatment.

In fact, I was appalled to hear my quite liberal cousin arguing that the women in Afghanistan were happy under the Taliban's rule because they "didn't know any other way of living" and were therefore content in their utter servitude - as were women across the world, evidently, who were treated as chattel by the men of their societies. I honestly could not think of a polite answer to this. I could see that it was all tied in to an "all military, ecnomic, and cultural interventions are horrible things" premise, but to listen to an educated woman raised in the freedoms that many have fought all their lives for suggest that they were not important to other women quite shocked me.

Plenty of that in the mix as well, is my thought.

 

[R. Richard]

Yes; with the obvious exceptions of women who were targeted for rape because their families made political enemies in the regime, women were definitely better off. They had legal rights under Saddam's regime that they have in no other predominantly Islamic nation.

I would beg to differ. Saddam and his sons targettted young, sttractive women for rape. The women targetted had nothing to do with politics per se, but were simply targetted because they were wanted for sexual purposes by Saddam or his sons. Frequently such women were killed after they were used, apparently so that they would not tell about their treatment.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I would beg to differ. Saddam and his sons targettted young, sttractive women for rape. The women targetted had nothing to do with politics per se, but were simply targetted because they were wanted for sexual purposes by Saddam or his sons. Frequently such women were killed after they were used, apparently so that they would not tell about their treatment.

I think RR's got the right of this. At least, one of the detailed stories that most sticks in my mind is that of a doctor whose 14-year-old daughter was abducted after one of Hussein's sons met her at a state function to which he'd been invited. I assume that political enemies would be unlikely to be present at such a function. His repeated demands for her release were met with the threat that his other daughter could easily be abducted as well.

 

[Pure]

of course the neocons didn't cause the repression of women in Pakistan, they [in the form of US gov] are just presently lavishly funding Pakistan's current leader who has no interest in the issue (betterment of women's or the poor's position) and wantd to be the preeminent military power in the area; neither did they *cause* dictatorships in Kyrgistan, Kazachstan, etc., they merely keep them fat and happy.

neocon and GWB talk of 'bringing democracy' or 'human rights' is mostly pure hot air. BUT, in that respect they are not different from many predecessors, e.g., Eisenhower, JFK, Johnson, Nixon.

RR-- any source for that little nugget? doesn't it strike you as a fairly transparent attempt, found in US and Britain press and politicians, to make Saddam the Prince of Evil, and portray the US--*whatever else its sins*--as the Savior of the world, from Him.

 

[BlackShanglan]

of course the neocons didn't cause the repression of women in Pakistan, they [in the form of US gov] are just presently lavishly funding Pakistan's current leader who has no interest in the issue (betterment of women's or the poor's position) and wantd to be the preeminent military power in the area; neither did they *cause* dictatorships in Kyrgistan, Kazachstan, etc., they merely keep them fat and happy.

neocon and GWB talk of 'bringing democracy' or 'human rights' is mostly pure hot air. BUT, in that respect they are not different from many predecessors, e.g., Eisenhower, JFK, Johnson, Nixon.

Agreed, but how precisely would you like them to do that? I mean, what could any one country actually do to change the circumstances of every woman in every repressive society across the globe? I agree that no one has succeeded in doing that, but I think it's a pretty unrealistic goal as well. How would they accomplish that?

RR-- any source for that little nugget? doesn't it strike you as a fairly transparent attempt, found in US and Britain press and politicians, to make Saddam the Prince of Evil, and portray the US--*whatever else its sins*--as the Savior of the world, from Him.

Don't know about RR's, but mine comes from an Iraqi, not an American. While I agree that attempts to demonize the enemy are often part of war, Hussein's got an awful lot of Iraqis throwing the accusations. And personally, I have my doubts about any regime that outlaws modems. What don't they want people to know, either inside or outside? I agree that there is plenty of mud on the US, but that doesn't make Hussein any less of a thug and murderer.

 

[rgraham666]

How do we always end up back in Iraq?

The differences between Iraq and Pakistan in this case are, as usual, merely appearances.

In both cases women are treated as property, not very valuable property, by those with power.

I love the human mind. It can handle the most complex things. Unfortunately, it often adds complexity where it shouldn't.

 

[Couture]

It's worth emphasizing that Pakistan is one of US strongest allies in the war on terror, so called, which is said to be bringing progress and democracy to the middle East.

This the same Pakistan whose top general paid 500K to the 9/11 hijackers and sent plans to build a nuclear bomb to Libya, Korea, and Iran?

 

[shereads]

I would beg to differ. Saddam and his sons targettted young, sttractive women for rape. The women targetted had nothing to do with politics per se, but were simply targetted because they were wanted for sexual purposes by Saddam or his sons. Frequently such women were killed after they were used, apparently so that they would not tell about their treatment.

I didn't intend to understate the severity of suffering by women who had the misfortune to be noticed by Saddam and his sons. But it remains true that most women in Saddam's Iraq benefited from secular law. The incidence of rape rose along with the mortality rate among the civilian population after the fall of Bagdad. Whatever protections the current government accords to women against the imposition of Islamic law will be as stable and lasting as the government.

We've done a lot of social engineering, to get Ahmad Chalabi his new, un-elected position as Minister of Oil. Not that I think that was part of a plan or anything. That would be cynical, wouldn't it?

Shanglan, I haven't heard anyone claim that GWB and the neocons cause the sexual abuse of women in the third world. I maintain that the governments of all developed nations, ours included, are guilty of turning a blind eye to torture and other human rights abuses when it's politically expedient to do so. Granted, the Bush administration has earned the U.S. the special shame of being an Amnesty International listed violator of human rights, thanks to the continued disregard of due process and the Geneva Conventions. It's likely that many of those detained at Guantanamo as "Taliban" were simply forced into service, like the Hitler Youth. Since they are held without charges , indefinitely, we'll never know how many of those prisoners deserve prison. Any credibility the U.S. had on human rights issues, particularly regarding the treatment of POWs, has been flushed down the john. Unlike the Koran, which wasn't flushed but just accidentally had urine splashed on it.

 

[shereads]

How do we always end up back in Iraq?

The differences between Iraq and Pakistan in this case are, as usual, merely appearances.

In both cases women are treated as property, not very valuable property, by those with power.

The difference is that there was secular law in iraq under Saddam. Women weren't officially chattel. I suspect that we ended up back in Iraq, in this thread, because our middle east policy is so closely woven with our inability/unwillingness to raise a fuss over the abuse of women and girls living under Islamic law. The Taliban didn't suddenly begin abusing women after 9/11, but suddenly the U.S. "discovered" the abuses and the president expressed shock, as if it was news. In the case of Iraq, as heinous as the crimes of its dictator were, the majority of women fared better under Iraq's secular law than their sisters in neighboring states. Employment and legal protection for women suffered substantially as a result of economic sanctions after the Gulf War, but they were still equal to men under the constitution. When we invaded, we liberated them right back to the middle ages.

 

[shereads]

This the same Pakistan whose top general paid 500K to the 9/11 hijackers and sent plans to build a nuclear bomb to Libya, Korea, and Iran?

He apologized and received a stern reprimand.

 

[Pure]

Returning to Pakistan,

You would think the US would have some leverage, because of plowing billions into Pakistan. Somehow it doesn't work that way. Could it be that women's issues in the 'third world' so-called are not on the Bush & co. agenda?

Wait, I lied, Bush and co., are *very interested that these women neither have access to condoms or abortions. How could I have forgotten. Oh, and that little matter of access to AIDS drugs.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Nah, the real reason Pakistan calling themselves our allies is the fact that the hub of the Al-Queda training camps is in Pakistan and it is most likely that Osama binLaden is still there and if not, was there for the entire course of the war in Afghanistan. But then Bush doesn't want to find Osama either so maybe they are allies after all.

These cultures though piss me off and it isn't all foreign. Sure, it's not that bad and open and shameless here, but the same attitudes are prevalent among our men. There are a many number of men in this country who would see nothing wrong with ridiculing a "slut" who let herself get raped and who in fact do it. Feminism always has an uphill battle against this shit in every country. This is a culture that should not be fermented in any country, that should be fought against and brought to heel, to learn to respect women as living human beings instead of unpaid workers, incubators, and blow-up dolls.

No matter the country, the culture, the attitudes, the pathetic justification rituals, each man must learn that raping a woman is a terminal act. Maybe then, men will get it through their thick fucking skulls.

 

[R. Richard]

If I might politely point out that the intitutionalized mistreatment of women is rooted not in national attitudes or a male superiority cult as such, it is rooted in fundamentalist interpretations of the Qran, the Muslim holy book. If you think that anyone can reason with the Muslims about their religious beliefs, you are not thinking properly. I can only suggest the following equivalence: go into a synagogue and reason with the Rabbi that his avoidance of the eating of pork is ridiculous [pick a synagogue with a small Rabbi.]

Slick Wille went to Yasser Arafat and tried to convince Fat Boy that there were two previous Jewish temple built on the Temple Mount site in Jerusalem. Fat Boy looked Slick Willie in the eye and told him, "I don't believe that." Slick Willie backed down.

There is a solution to the problem, but I do not have a PhD in a relevant field and I cannot get anyone to listen to reason. JMHO.

 

[rgraham666]

There are plenty of Muslims that you can discuss their religious beliefs with, just as there are plenty of Christians, Jews, agnostics and atheists who are willing.

Shrugs. Same old, same old. 'Us' is a complex and subtle structure with many shadings. 'Them' is monolithic, filled with darkness and evil to the core.

Makes it easy to hate 'Them' though, doesn't it?

 

[Pure]

RR said,

If I might politely point out that the intitutionalized mistreatment of women is rooted not in national attitudes or a male superiority cult as such, it is rooted in fundamentalist interpretations of the Qran, the Muslim holy book. If you think that anyone can reason with the Muslims about their religious beliefs, you are not thinking properly. I can only suggest the following equivalence: go into a synagogue and reason with the Rabbi that his avoidance of the eating of pork is ridiculous [pick a synagogue with a small Rabbi.]

I've discussed many things with orthodox Jews and rabbis of various sizes. Also sometimes with Muslims. Unlike some of our evangelical friends, I don't consider the Koran an esp. evil book, and I'd suppose penalties it speaks of do not exceed the penalties of the OT/Tanach (no longer practiced), e.g. putting to death a disobedient son.

RR, I think the Mukhtaran scenario, involving repression of women and unfair and dire penalities against them can be found in a number of cultures, esp. poor and peasant ones, e.g., in Eastern Europe (where it's Christian) and in Africa, not to say Latin America. If you remember the Zorba movie, Greek peasants lyched an alleged prostitute (impure woman). I think death penalties against adulteresses and weird concerns about 'family honor' can be found quite commonly aside from the Koran.

 

[R. Richard]

RR, I think the Mukhtaran scenario, involving repression of women and unfair and dire penalities against them can be found in a number of cultures, esp. poor and peasant ones, e.g., in Eastern Europe (where it's Christian) and in Africa, not to say Latin America. If you remember the Zorba movie, Greek peasants lyched an alleged prostitute (impure woman). I think death penalties against adulteresses and weird concerns about 'family honor' can be found quite commonly aside from the Koran.

The violence against "impure women" is found in many cultures and most often heartily endorsed by the women in the culture. I do not agree with the concept but can understand the reaction of people forced to follow a code of behavior while others flaunt the same code.

However, let me point out a little problem basically found only in Muslim societies. Women in many of the areas ruled by fundamentalists are not allowed education. Thus, they cannot become doctors. A woman in a fundamentalist Muslim society cannot be examined by a male doctor.

What happens to a woman in a fundamentalist Muslim society if she becomes seriously ill? She cannot receive medical treatment other than perhaps a little herbal medication from other women. Most likely she dies. Death is a very severe penalty for the "crime" of being female.

 

[Pure]

RR said,

The violence against "impure women" is found in many cultures and most often heartily endorsed by the women in the culture. I do not agree with the concept but can understand the reaction of people forced to follow a code of behavior while others flaunt* the same code.

However, let me point out a little problem basically found only in Muslim societies. Women in many of the areas ruled by fundamentalists are not allowed education. Thus, they cannot become doctors. A woman in a fundamentalist Muslim society cannot be examined by a male doctor.

What happens to a woman in a fundamentalist Muslim society if she becomes seriously ill? She cannot receive medical treatment other than perhaps a little herbal medication from other women. Most likely she dies. Death is a very severe penalty for the "crime" of being female.

*should read 'flout'.

It feels to me like I'm hearing items from a list "Evils of Islam." Your statements are vague and undocumented.

Women in many of the areas ruled by fundamentalists are not allowed education.

Specify which areas you are talking about where, at present, women are not allowed education. Please say what is a 'fundamentalist Muslim society'.

In cases with which I am familiar, the *well to do* but STRICT muslim societies like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the segregation of women does not sentence them to death, as you claim. They are educated separately; there are female doctors, and so on. (I do not say there is no disadvantage,e.g., in walking about, unaccompanied, in driving a car, etc.)

As to your whole claim
However, let me point out a little problem basically found only in Muslim societies. Women in many of the areas ruled by fundamentalists are not allowed education.

The failure to educate women is a common feature of many societies, including rural US poor areas, not to say urban US poor areas where they are not allowed by parents, to finish high school. In Catholic parts of Europe, in times past, illiterate women were accepted by the RC church as nuns, and not educated. A good many developing countries, esp. in rural areas, do not figure it's worthwhile to educate women, and stats as to educational attainment will bear this out (e.g., finishing grade 8 or 10 or12). Kenya, an example with which I'm familiar, is an exception in the government's interest in educating girls.

As to your claim:

A woman in a fundamentalist Muslim society cannot be examined by a male doctor.

You do not, as I've said, state who you're talking about. I know there is an element of truth to what you're saying, but in the conservative Arab society with which I am most familiar, the Bedouins, there are ways around some of the prohibitions, i.e., having nurses and female relatives present, having the husbands permission, etc. So I'd like to see your evidence, as regards an specific claims.

Incidentally, how much education did your grandmothers receive? in what country?

I find it odd to be defending conservative Muslim societies, but I think the matter deserves fair treatment, and an awareness of Christian societies strictures--past and present-- against women. They were allowed into medical school, here (Canada), only in the 20th century. I remind you that there are less than 10 women in the US Senate.

 

[LadyJeanne]

I've been reading this thread with interest, as I'm heading to India in a few weeks and I've been doing a little reading on the Hindi culture as it concerns the status of women. The times are changing there, at least in the major cities, due to the technology revolution and proliferation of Western culture and economy.

What I'm really curious about is how did it come about that women have to struggle for equality and to hold the same rights as men? If a Pakistani woman is raped, why does another woman from the rapist's family have to suffer the same instead of the rapist himself actually being held responsible? I get it that the women are considered the property of men, so it's similar to if you poison my cow, I get to poison yours. But why did women become property?

Why did civilizations not develop in such a way that men and women were considered equal, maybe different, but equal? Surely, in caveman days, it had to be apparent that survival of the species was dependant on both sexes and that both were equally important to the success of the societal structure. So when did men become more equal and entitled to hold rights over women? Why?

 

[Couture]

Why did civilizations not develop in such a way that men and women were considered equal, maybe different, but equal? Surely, in caveman days, it had to be apparent that survival of the species was dependant on both sexes and that both were equally important to the success of the societal structure. So when did men become more equal and entitled to hold rights over women? Why?

Only Allah knows . . . and he's not telling.