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

[rgraham666]

So when did men become more equal and entitled to hold rights over women? Why?

The day they realised their spears could be used on things other than the animals they hunt.

The man who was fastest with his spear got power. This meant he could define his small society anyway he wanted. He liked getting laid, so women became property. If they weren't property, the woman could say 'no' and he wouldn't get laid as much since like most people handy with weapons he had little else to recommend him as a partner.

There you go, sex and power. Always a bad combination.

 

[CharleyH]

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.

I do understand your sentiment, and respect it greatly, believe me, I do. Believe me I DO. However, one has to assess American involvement in other nations, oh yes, even about traditions. There is a ton of awareness of other nations, and the atrocities "by our standards", and many people/us do things to help. BUT, what do y'all do in your own country, may I ask? Do you fight to change the misogynistic laws that govern it, misogynistic and christian, I might add.

Not too long ago here, I recall reading of a rape of a 14 - 16 year old in Montreal. The verdict was, in a nutshell, (I have no facts, only memory): she WAS STILL a virgin, afterall, he only raped her anally and the guy got 3 years max. How many women do not have rights - here? Still. Legally, medically, politically?

Now, this case did create controversy, and Judge was fired, but what makes anyone think that North America was not, and still is not, so different in attitude and morality than any 3rd world nation, and why are we not fighting for our own freedom, per se?

Do you know what is happening in your backyard?

 

[Lauren Hynde]

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.

That's just ridiculous. The main reason why Islam became more than a cult followed by a tribe or two, the reason why it spread so rapidly through all middle-east and northern africa, was because women and the poor were a lot better off under Islamic rules and ideals than what they were before, under tribal law, where they were indeed slaves. The fundamentalist interpretation of the Qran is "all men (and women) are equal."

The intitutionalized mistreatment of women, as you called it, is rooted on those pre-Islamic tribal laws. It's rooted in the powerful's need to stay powerful.

 

[cantdog]

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?

I used to wonder that, too. And why all dominator gods were male. It turns out to be the same answer. Joseph Campbell takes it up most convincingly, coming from a direction unforeseen to an answer to that question, in Primitive Mythology, the first vloume of The masks of God. All the oldest cults of which we have any record were woman-centered. Cults of the Goddess were and are (some are still with us today) pretty stark stuff, lots of blood and human sacrifice, lots of bodily mutilation to signify the bloody opening in the Goddess's body which produces creation. Aboriginal Australians "modify" the genitals to make such an opening in the penis, and so on.

At some point, the males rebelled and instituted male-God-dominated myths and, coincidentally, male dominated theocratic societies. Lots of detail from all over the world in Campbell's book.

 

[R. Richard]

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?

In hunter gatherer days there was a sort of equality of the sexes. The men hunted and the women gathered and took care of the children. It did not take the women long to realize that the men were dominant because of their strength. It also did not take the women long to realize that men sometimes did not come back from the hunt. The best way for a woman was to make sure she had a baby by a hunter who was going to survive. Thus, hunter gatherer women found it useful to have sex with all of the hunters so that each man believed that her baby was his baby. When Oog didn't come back, no problem Moog also thought it was his baby and the mother got a share of the hunters kill.

When humans turned to agriculture a problem arose. There had to be some way to know who owned land. Thus marriage was based upon one man and one woman so that the children would inherit the land [of course, this is theory here]. A woman could not do the physical labor needed for primative farming, so she had to have a man to do the work. If a husband died, the farm wife damn well got herself another man and became a slave in the process.

 

[cantdog]

That's just ridiculous. The main reason why Islam became more than a cult followed by a tribe or two, the reason why it spread so rapidly through all middle-east and northern africa, was because women and the poor were a lot better off under Islamic rules and ideals than what they were before, under tribal law, where they were indeed slaves. The fundamentalist interpretation of the Qran is "all men (and women) are equal."

The intitutionalized mistreatment of women, as you called it, is rooted on those pre-Islamic tribal laws. It's rooted in the powerful's need to stay powerful.

Islam liberated women in many ways. They got to inherit in their own right. Lots of things like that. It was Persian ideas that fucked it up. Persians practiced the veiling thing and segregated women. The golden age of Islam was Haroun al-Rashid, after they'd conquered Sassanid Persia and assimilated some of the traditions of poetry and absolutism. And the veil, and much that goes with it.

 

[Pure]

Honor killing in Canada? (Indo-Canadian; Sikh)

Honor killing in Canada?

I wonder if 'selfish' is the correct word, here? "a great human being"?

---------

Jun.*23, 2005. 01:00*AM


Dad `selfish' for killing girl


CAMILLE BAINS
CANADIAN PRESS

VANCOUVER—Rajinder Atwal gazed down from the prisoner's box and appeared on the verge of tears yesterday as a judge detailed how he repeatedly stabbed his daughter — disfiguring her face even after she was dead.

"This was a cold, brutal and sober attack of his completely defenceless young daughter, carried out with the intention to cause her death," Justice Catherine Wedge told a sentencing hearing in B.C. Supreme Court.

Wedge ruled that Atwal, who was convicted of second-degree murder in March, won't be eligible for parole for 16 years.

Amandeep Atwal was 17 in July 2003 when her father decided to end her life after discovering she'd been having a secret love affair with schoolmate Todd McIsaac.

After the discovery, Amandeep decided to leave her home in Kitimat, B.C., and move with her boyfriend to Prince George in central British Columbia.

When Amandeep told her family she would be returning to Prince George, her father insisted on driving her there himself.

It was during that trip in Atwal's car that he stabbed his daughter 17 times at a rest area near Cache Creek, B.C.

"Amandeep remained in the car throughout the attack, still secured by her seatbelt," Wedge said.

"Her final moments in life must have been terrifying," she said.

"While he must have loved his daughter at some level, he permitted that love to be displaced by anger at her unwillingness to comply with his values or accept his view of the world and his plans for her future," Wedge said.

"This was a selfish act of the highest order, beyond the comprehension of any reasonable person."
-----

Mother of teen killed by father still supports him


CAMILLE BAINS, CP 2005-06-15 02:52:30


VANCOUVER -- The wife of a man who killed their teenage daughter says she still supports her husband, even though her life has been destroyed since his arrest.

"He's a good person," Kulwinder Atwal said yesterday outside B.C. Supreme Court, where Rajinder Atwal's lawyer had been arguing for early parole.

Atwal refuses to believe her husband stabbed their daughter, Amandeep, 17 times in July 2003 because of her love affair with school pal Todd McIsaac.

She added: "Even if my husband is guilty, I still support him."

Atwal, 49, stared back from the prisoner's box several times at a dozen supporters in the gallery.

He has been convicted of second-degree murder, which carries an automatic life sentence -- although parole can be considered after 10 years.

Court has heard Atwal brutally and repeatedly stabbed his daughter while he was driving her home to Prince George, B.C., from a family gathering in the Vancouver area.

He then drove her to a hospital and said the girl had committed suicide.

Kulwinder Atwal said her family was raked through the mud during open-line talk shows on a Punjabi radio station that made a big deal of the story while her husband was on trial.

"We don't want to make this bigger," she said, refusing to discuss why her husband would have resorted to killing Amandeep if he didn't approve of her relationship.

"She was my daughter and I loved her and I love my husband," Atwal said. "We were a happy family."

Atwal, who moved to suburban Surrey from Kitimat, B.C., two years ago, said she is holding down two jobs to care for her two children because she longer has the financial support of her husband.

David Butcher, Atwal's lawyer, wants his client to be considered for parole after 12 to 15 years behind bars, while the Crown is asking for 20 to 25 years.

Butcher read from letters of support written by Atwal's friends, a former school teacher, a priest at a Sikh temple and various family members, including his son and daughter.

"My dad has been here for me all my life," wrote his daughter, Tejinder, who is about to graduate from high school.

Atwal's son, Narinder, called his father "a great human being."

Atwal's parole eligibility is scheduled to be set June 22.

Butcher said support from friends and family, with offers to help Atwal reintegrate into society after his release from prison, are an unusual feature of the case.

"In many homicide cases, the accused either comes into the court process as an isolated individual with no community support or certainly by the end of the process becomes isolated with no support," he told Justice Catherine Wedge.

Atwal came to Canada from India in 1975.