…women are more likely to be killed at home by their spouse, ex-boyfriend, or some other intimate… [link]
That statistic was made in reference to this country, but I think I’ll be forgiven for wondering if it is applicable everywhere. SM reader 3rd Eye submitted a story to our News tab; it does not have a happy ending. It involves a couple named Shah Jahan and Mumtaz, though this Mumtaz wasn’t anywhere near as adored as her namesake.
Shah Jahan Ali, in his late forties, has been arrested on the charge of murdering his wife after he found her drinking with two young men at home late last night.
Neighbours at Dinhata’s Village I, who often joked about the couple’s names, said Shah Jahan suspected the comely, 30-year-old Mumtaz of cheating on him.
The murdered woman had one thing in common, though, with the Mughal queen remembered with the world’s most famous monument to love. Neither was born Mumtaz, both being given that name by their doting husbands. [link]
The victim, a divorcee, was born “Khaimala Roy”. She received her new name after converting to Islam, to marry Shah Jahan, her second husband. He sounds like a real catch:
The already married man would spent some five days a week with Mumtaz at Village I and the remaining two days with his first wife in Navina.
“I knew Mumtaz was a woman of loose morals. Still, I fell in love with her. I had told her there will be no affairs, but she didn’t listen,†Shah Jahan is believed to have told the police.
Yesterday, the youths had fled at the sight of him and the couple had then quarrelled through the night. The police said that in the early hours, Shah Jahan slit Mumtaz’s throat. [link]
Then, he went to his first wife’s home, where he was caught after Mumtaz’s family reported the heinous crime.
Shah Jahan punched a sub-inspector and tried to flee. After the police caught him, the villagers gheraoed the force and tried to free him. [link]
Can I get a hearty “WTF” for that last, bolded bit? I know, I know…a woman’s life is worth so little, especially when she smells like dishonor.
In case you didn’t know about the original Mumtaz:
Empress Mumtaz, whose real name was Arjumand Banu, too, was Shah Jahan’s second wife and the favourite among the nine he ultimately married. They lived in wedded bliss for 19 years before the 38-year-old Mumtaz, while delivering her 14th child, died in 1631. [link]
::
Off Topic (and yet not, considering this suddenly bookish thread): I liked Mumtaz until I read The Feast of Roses. Then I found her annoying. Nur Jahan, all the way.
i cannot disagree with this statement. there have actually been several sociological and psychological studies done on jurors, and it wouldn’t surprise you that emotions tend to take over logic in many cases. lawyers are specifically trained to use certain key words, stand in certain ways, speak in certain tones etc to produce the desired result with the jury. it’s pretty interesting, and impressive, that you can manipulate the average person like that. it’s also sad…
You are correct – all of those above discussions do cross paths. But you’re forgetting the discussion of patriarchy, where I stated that some subtle forms of patriarchy are perpetuated by women, and in some cases even invited, and encouraged. Men are rewarded by being “men”
When women say, “I want a man who makes firm decisions and sticks to them” (which many women do), they are to some effect saying – “my decision making process is subjugated and not as important” aren’t they?
They are certainly not fit to decide most medical malpractice suits, where their emotions tend to get the better of them.
I agree with that, at least to some extent. I think the problem is not so much the emotions of the jurors, however, but the vast amount of complex factual information a jury has to absorb to decide a med mal, toxic tort or patent cases, for example. The cases often boil down to competing testimony from experts on both sides, and all this can be very taxing to a jury. That’s why I’m of the view that civil juries may be somewhat superfluous.
ak:
If you happen to have a copy of your paper, could I get one? This is a topic I have an outside interest in myself. Thanks!
I’m not forgetting this. Just as there are people of color who propagate racist institutions and policies, there are women who promote sexist/patriarchal institutions, also. But, that’s not really here nor there. My point is that these double standards don’t operate in a vacuum, and while women may also promote this inequality, it’s also hard to try to think “out of the box” of society when that’s what your norm. It’s like trying to be anti-capitalist in a society where capitalism is so deeply ingratiated that it’s almost impossible to fully extricate yourself.
Your example, which I read as an example of perhaps subscribing to a trait attributed to masculinity, may or may not be supporting the status quo on gender roles. A woman who says she wants a guy who makes firm decisions may also want the right to make firm decisions and stick by them. If I said I wanted someone who is health-conscious, for example, that could be construed as saying I want a guy who is buff (playing into the de facto ideas about men), or it could just mean that I want someone who values his own physical and mental health (e.g. eating right, working out, taking out time for reflection).
I have witnessed fairly complex patent cases that hinge on the specific meanings of certain words, being decided by juries with absolutely no experience in the area at all. And they were subject to days of obfuscating testimony by expert witnesses and so on. I have no idea how anybody can trust the decision that would have come out of their discussion. It’s sort of like an SM thread 🙂
As for trial by judges, the danger is that they let their significant biases inform their decision. I think all these debates about which way the supreme court leans etc. are a good example of that.
Camille, don’t take this the wrong way, but I believe on another thread, you severly misrepresented the female on male DV statistic, to which I provided a report to counteract it. Not saying you’re above statement is false, women are on the receiving end more so, but you’ve err’d on the side of underestimating the male victim before.
As for this, I believe there is a biological reason, as it concerns sexual intercourse. For a woman, the risk is higher in terms of resources needed during pregnancy. Women produce one egg a month, males produce 5 billion sperm a day (or whatever the figure is). These are biological facts. So, to me, it’s only natural that society has evolved to ‘protect’ women more so than men. Now, I agree as those biological constraints can be circumvented (via birth control, etc..), it will take time for society to ‘catch up’ As things like abortion and birth control become normal, I’m all for women f*ckin’ till their hearts content – I would be lying if I said I was a willing servant to that cause.
That’s counterintuitive, the statement is usually made in the context of “I want a man who makes decisions for us“
I meant to say, “I would be lying if I said I wasn’t a willing servant to that cause.”
I have witnessed fairly complex patent cases that hinge on the specific meanings of certain words, being decided by juries with absolutely no experience in the area at all. And they were subject to days of obfuscating testimony by expert witnesses and so on
Exactly. Add to that the fact that witness testimony and evidence presentation is often interrupted by various objections, motions in limine, requests to approach the bench, etc., and I think the jury’s task become next to impossible.
One interesting idea that one of my colleagues has floated is that, at least in patent cases, all the expert testimony should be conducted separately, videotaped and then shown to the jury after the confusing legalese has been edited out. This doesn’t address the issue of the testimony being obscure in itself, but it does eliminate one potential source of jury confusion. It’s debatable as to whether this violates the 7th Amendment preservation of jury trials, however.
I am so disgusted by this that I can’t even type a response. It’s clear to me now — there is no point in discussing anything regarding women with you, because I’m just going to get frustrated, and then I’m going to have to read ridiculous statements like this.
Also, I did not “severely misrepresent” DV stats. The statistics I cite, and the statistics I’ve often used, come from reports and sources that are commonly accepted both in the world of DV-service providers, but also in the world of public health research. And, in addition to the prevalence of DV, it is important to take into account the severity. While all DV is reprehensible, there is a difference between being yelled at and being murdered! Is this really so hard to accept? You’ve often provided alternate statistics, but I think the same questions you ask of my stats (i.e. are these reports credible?) can be http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/004519.html#applied to your stats as well. We are not going to reach an agreement there.
We can list examples up the wazoo, but it’s not going to change the fact that context matters. I’m sure you’re right at times, I’m sure I’m right at times. It depends on the people involved, the conversation, the background, etc., etc., etc.
So I’m done. I just wanted to bring up my point because I think it is silly to pretend there are not larger issues, trends, and norms at play when we discuss horrific incidents like this.
This was also manipulated by both sides in the trial I saw. Crucial technical statements would be taken out of context and misrepresented, and while what was happening was clear to me as a technical person (watching the trial), if I’d been an untrained jury member, my head would have been spinning with all the statements, counter statements, clarifications etc.
There’s a book called The Gift of Fear in which the author asserts that a man’s greatest fear of women is that she will laugh at him; whereas a woman’s greatest fear of a man is that he will kill her. That’s the difference we’re talking about here.
I’m not saying that to man-bash or to downplay male victims of violence, I believe that all human beings have violent and selfish impulses. But in regards to DV I think the statistics clearly show the actual, on-the-ground consequences hurt women with greater severity and frequency.
HMF, You may be interested in knowing that some 20+ years ago the then Shankaracharya ( of Puri ,I think) said exactly this when justifying Sati in India .I cannot begin to explain what an outcry there was .I was really young then but I felt absolutely horrified and betrayed that someone who is supposed to be a revered figurehead of my religion could say such a thing. And this may contribute to the fact that even today I have a big distrust of so-called religious leaders /god men and the like.
So why am I sharing this : because ,while your intentions may be the best unlike aforementioned Shankaracharya, you really need to rethink how you say it.
Thats it for me because the conversation has kind of veered where it should not be going
Disgusted? How about you point out a logical flaw, and prove its ridiculousness. Isn’t it true that sexual intercourse involves a higher risk for females in terms of physical strain on the body? I have no idea what you read from the comment, but it wasn’t anything more than what I stated. Seriously, most women I know don’t really find an issue with this.
Here was the stat report I quoted. And it wasn’t you, but someone else that exaggerated the stat, so I apologize for that.
See? this is what I mean by cop-out. It’s such an easy thing to accuse a point like I had made, in support of self-immolation?? I see it’s much easier to assuage one’s conscience by accusing the other of “blaming the victim” as it is to understand the true point being made.
HMF, if you’re going to quote sociobiological arguments, pick slightly more sophisticated ones, please. Human behaviour has evolved in many many layers with many more variables at play than the simple sperm and egg numbers game.
And the nice thing about being human is being able to make moral judgements and decisions and not being completely driven by biological imperatives.
I never said completely, nor did I even make any claim on “morality”
Hi all,
Longtime lurker, first time poster. My compliments to the bloggers– I’m hooked!
On the issue of DV against women vs. against men– I worked last year as a counselor at a domestic violence shelter in Pennsylvania, where I live. I think it’s important to remember that DV isn’t a zero-sum game. Yes, violence against women is much more widespread, and because of the sexist way the laws and police force are set up, there’s very little justice for it. I’ve met plenty of women who were burned, cut, beaten, etc. and called the cops, only to have the cops show up two hours later, ask what she did to make her husband so angry, and leave. As for violence against men– it happens much more often than is reported. In the state where I live, there is ONE bed– one bed, in any shelter in the state– for a male DV victim. Men who call the police to report violence against them, by a woman or by a male lover, are ridiculed and sometimes subjected to further violence. So it’s hard to go by the statistics of reported incidents.
In the case of the Mumtaz story, it sounds like there was some history of power and control– his description of her as a “woman of loose morals,” to whom he was showing kindness despite her flawed nature, reminds me of the way so many of our residents’ abusers indoctrinated their wives. DV isn’t just about physical violence– the abuser has to make the woman believe that she deserves the violence, that she has no intrinsic worth, and that she’d be worse off without him (or reverse the genders). If you hear it enough, you begin to believe it and even to submit to the violence.
I’ve never been to India and can’t speak to the cultural factors at play here. But I did grow up in a poor, industrial neighborhood in the US where DV was common, and where women were occasionally killed by angry husbands. (Sometimes my mom’s friends would come over in the middle of the night crying, and we’d lock all the doors.) There was something of a cultural perception that this was a normal state of affairs, maybe not great, but men, what can you do? It took those women speaking out and fighting back to even begin to start changing that. I don’t think anyone could have come in from the outside and changed things by telling people they were backward– which rich liberal types love to do. People would defend themselves from that, and rightly so– but that didn’t make wife-beating something worth defending. I guess my point is that change has to come from the oppressed themselves, or else it becomes paternalism.
Sorry this is so long! Argue away… 🙂
HMF, Read what I wrote carefully.At no point did I accuse you of blaming the victim.I quoted one statement you made and requested you tothink about tempering the way you say something because the very same words have been used to justify terrible crimes against women.
I have already apologized if anything I said has touched a nerve with you .There is no need to get so defensive !
OK, can people educate me about male victims of DV? I just can’t understand it. Unless you’re physically weaker than your wife (I’ve never seen that) OR you’re afraid that if you hit her back she’ll call the cops (or her male relatives) on your ass. Or you’re just so nice that you can’t hit a woman, regardless of the fact that she’s abusing you physically in the first place. Or, perhaps, out of concern for your kids on some level. But overall, I can’t grasp this concept of a woman consistently and chronically abusing a man. The man must have some personality problems himself.
because u love her even though she hits u. u think shes still the sweet grl u met when u first fell in love, and cant change that image in your mind. u feel like its ur fault that shes hitting you. you feel bad about urself. u dont know whats wrong with u.
But overall, I can’t grasp this concept of a woman consistently and chronically abusing a man. Domestic violence really isn’t about the ability of one person to physically overpower the other. It’s about power and control, and I can see situations where a woman could exercise power and control over a man, even where he is physically larger/more imposing than she is.
Also, at least some domestic violence against men occurs in same-sex relationships, so the whole “the man must be stronger” thing is a bit of a red herring anyway.
The man must have some personality problems himself.
I find this statement fairly objectionable. Many people say DV victims (even female ones) have “personality problems” that lead to their abuse in the first place. I think this becomes a way to blanket and ignore the real problems of domestic abuse victims, which are not necessarily related to gender.
People in abusive relationships all have personality problems – insecurity, dependency, low self worth – that’s why they stick around and put up with the abuse. The physical aspect of the abuse is one thing, and the emotional aspect is another. It’s not so strange that a man might put up with an abusive spouse even if he’s physically bigger (and that’s not always the case, particularly if one partner makes up in weight and assertive personality what he or she lacks in height). The restraints of shame, a sense that there are no options and divorce is not respectable, that the other person is just going through a phase and is an adequate spouse in other regards, could apply to men as well as women. It helps to be big if you’re going to be a bully, but some of the most effective bullying is psychological, so why shouldn’t a women be capable of bullying too?
Are you the same Sp as SP? I’ve worked in a coding environment before, we’re used to case-sensitive nomenclature.
Fire can be used to heat a home, or burn it down. But fire is fire.
HMF, my disgust is with the complete lack of sophistication regarding the argument. I would love to have a conversation that wasn’t about my ovaries justifying why I am going to be chronically underpaid, have a higher risk of abuse/rape/murder at the hands of a partner or colleague, and be treated like a child in most legal and social contexts. I would also like to see how this operates in the context of matriarchal societies. I think the paternalistic view of women certainly predates any “biological” arguments about eggs. I don’t actually want to discuss this — I’m just pointing out my immediate reaction to reading this.
What I meant by saying “there’s no point in discussing this with you” was not a judgment of you or your pov. I’m just saying, outloud, that I recognize that when you and I talk about DV it doesn’t really go anywhere. We just say the same arguments in different ways over and over again. This is totally ok. It’s the same way with my friends — there are some topics we just don’t bring up because it doesn’t go anywhere. It’s what we do to stay congenial. I know I’m opinionated, but when I engage in conversation I’m trying to take in other views and think, reflect, or grow in my understanding of the issue. I don’t have that experience when I talk about DV, or women in society, with you. I also don’t have that experience when I talk affirmative action with melbournedesi or Manju. This doesn’t mean I don’t respect your viewpoint, it just means that we’re not moving anywhere, so what’s the point?
As hema mentioned, DV is not just about getting (physically) beaten up. It’s entirely possible to be a male victim of DV. DV is also about controlling someone, whether this is through emotional abuse, financial abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse… the list goes on and on. I’m definitely sympathetic to male victims because I do think they aren’t given sufficient resources and there are strong gender norms/ideas about masculinity that make it hard to report DV and even harder to see some kind of legal resolution. That said, I understand the rationale that if incidence and severity is greater among women, it’s logical that there are more resources (although certainly not enough) for women.
It helps to be big if you’re going to be a bully, but some of the most effective bullying is psychological, so why shouldn’t a women be capable of bullying too?
Absolutely. There are all sorts of forms of abuse and control, and often the physical bullying is only one aspect. DV workers use the Power and Control Wheel to help illustrate the various forms it can take.
People in abusive relationships all have personality problems – insecurity, dependency, low self worth – that’s why they stick around and put up with the abuse.
I think this is at best an oversimplification. You don’t have to have pre-existing “personality problems” to be a victim of domestic abuse, any more than you have to be from one specific culture or class. It happens everywhere, to all kinds of people. When I began my DV training, I thought, naively, that as a feminist with some education about the issue I was somehow “above” abuse– surely I would have the wherewithal to just walk away, right? But when we actually delved into both the emotional dynamics of relationships, marriages, families etc. and also the material barriers that keep people in abusive relationships (financial dependence, shame and guilt, stability), I was disturbed to see some of my own relationships reflected– and every single person in my training found the same thing. Are we all just deeply neurotic? Yes, the traits you mentioned certainly don’t bode well for a person’s ability to resist abuse, but they exist to some extent in everyone. A smart abuser can cultivate those traits in a perfectly healthy person and make them grow to the point where they override the victim’s limitations.
I also agree that such thinking can easily lead to a “those abuse victims are all just crazy/weak/deserving” mentality. It’s a slippery slope…
That’s the thing though, I’m trying to separate this type of sexual/relationship “paternalism” from the equal pay for equal work, etc.. etc.. I’m saying women are protective of their daughter’s sexual behavior for the same reasons pertaining to biological risk. My guess is that matriarchal societies would develop the same kind of precaution against female sexual activity.
believe it or not, the inverse isn’t true. I appreciate the responses you and others provide, even if it’s pejorative, hostile and combative in tone.
My guess is that matriarchal societies would develop the same kind of precaution against female sexual activity.
There aren’t any truly matriarchal societies, but in matrilineal, matrilocal societies like the Nayar of Kerala, there’s considerably less policing of female sexuality than in patrilineal ones; Nayar women were expected, even encouraged, to take several lovers. I don’t buy the ‘sexual double standards evolved to protect women’ argument, especially when those double standards lead to honour killing – dead women don’t bear too many babies, you know. More rigorous policing of female sexuality is designed to protect men from the shame of cuckoldry; it isn’t meant to benefit women.
Thanks for all the responses. I can see how psychological or emotional manipulations (of a susceptible person) over a period of time could potentially lead to male DV. By the time it’s happening, the guy is buried so deep in it that he doesn’t see it for what it is, or feels powerless to stop it. I can see how a lot of it could be mental and not physical. I think with female DV, in addition to all the psychologic factors, there are also cultural and social factors, as well as physical ones.
.
Just when I want to back out of a thread, another gem comes along…is the above true? Who encouraged them to do so? So pre-marital/extra-marital sex is encouraged in matriarchal (or matrilocal, whatever) societies? My understanding of matrilineal/matriarchal societies is that men are still in control, but instead of your father (or father’s family) or your husband, it’s your maternal uncles (or the males on your mother’s side in general) who are in charge. No?
And Camille, coming from a society as patriarchal and patrilineal/patrilocal as the Punjabi culture (or northern Indian culture in general), do you wish that you came from a matriarchal culture instead?
I don’t know too much about this, but a quick read here, shows the women were encouraged to take different lovers as part of a “group childraising” model, not some kind of “let the women be free” attitude. Either way, a societal institution (group child rearing) was in place to care for women during this period.
Regardless of the society, place, and time, you’re not getting around the 9 months of taxed body resources. That will indeed have some implications in which male and female sexual behavior is looked at.
Anyway, going to Las Vegas tonight (yeah boyeeeee!), won’t be checking back on SM until Monday….thanks in advance to all responses.
There’s a city where women make bank
What I find grating here is the blithe sense of ignorance that “the way it’s always been” is unfair. I don’t think you’re even right on the on-the-fly explanation you give about biological realities HMF. But, given that, do you not see how blatantly unfair this situation, and most similiar situations are, more often to women? There are double standards, you are pretty correct. What part does fairness play in this discussion? I am not getting your strident defense of masculinity here; there’s almost totally no need, since the ledger is so plainly already tilted in your direction
And by that, I mean the direction of dudes who are both clueless and happy to be clueless about the basic structure of such discussions. Really its pretty galling and I can totally empathisize with Camille. Its not that you bring out wonderful airtight arguements of logic. You’re just bandying about tropes that have the force of a biased social system on their side. Without the pre-existing weight your arguements have by virtue of already being normative, nothing you have said would make any sense at all
Amitabh, here’s an article about Nayar kinship practices:
http://orion.oac.uci.edu/~dbell/html/body_gough.html
Nayar society certainly wasn’t some sexual free-for-all; there were heavy penalties incurred for women who had liaisons with lower caste men, for example, but they still had more sexual freedom than women in patrilineal societies.
My understanding of matrilineal/matriarchal societies is that men are still in control, but instead of your father (or father’s family) or your husband, it’s your maternal uncles (or the males on your mother’s side in general) who are in charge. No?
Well, in matrilineal societies, maternal uncles and brothers don’t have any particular reason to police the sexuality of their female relations; a husband has an acute interest in ensuring that the children that his wife bears are his, but your sister’s kids are still your nieces and nephews, no matter who fathered them.
Uhh. so all the women who give birth stuff pillows under their shirts for 9 months? I don’t mean to be so sarcastic here, but to admit the huge gap in biological function, and not even entertain the possibility it determines the attitudes towards the act that causes the biological function, is frankly, beyond me.
Again, connecting it to larger behaviors of women not getting paid, being more likely to get attacked, murdered, raped, not being treated equally in the legal system, etc.. is misquoting me to the fullest. If you’re saying that women having a gestational period of 9 months, that it involves various levels of heightened hormonal flow, etc is normative, then yes, I agree, I’m taking refuge in this fact.
You’re tethering the discussion on what you consider biologically fixed ideas; but, which came first, the point of view that sex costs women more somehow, or the biological “reality”? If you want to go that direction, it can go any number of ways. It might not be plausable to you, but biology could just as easily be used as a means to enhance women’s sexuality. Imagine a society in which its thought that a pregnant woman, more than any other deserves the majority of social services. Then, not only is she free to have sex during the majority of those 9 months, but she would be rewarded for being pregnant by society as whole
So what I mean by that is, I think a lot of the arguements you make are already laden with this baggage that the normative way of looking at things is already tilted towards your position
I don’t see a distinction between the two. Nearly every women I speak to agrees that being pregnant is physically uncomfortable as the body has to get used to providing nutrients for two. Are you really trying to argue the point that sex bears an equal biophysical risk to men and women?
What social services are you talking about? Pregnant women are offered seats on trains, subways, as well as maternal leave from work, etc..? I don’t know what you mean by this question.
I don’t see how this connects to social services.
….Or for example, maybe there is a biological reason or reasons that women live longer than men. Combine this with menopause and the suggestion could be made that the optimal individual for a society’s success is not an 18 year old dude, but a 60 year old grandmother. I’m not saying this is the only way to look at it, but, you have to admit, there’s a plausability there that is negated by just going along with the same old way these issues have been thought about in the past
The distinction is that what you consider evidence for your position given a biological fact could be weighted by social expectation regarding this fact.
I think you would need to say context matters more than may have previously been assumed
Well take these social interactions, and expand them to include any number of things that are provided to by a social structure to selected members. tickets to the playoffs, ect, ect
That’s like saying, “newtons law of gravitation could be weighted by a socialized expectation that people have for things to fall towards the earth.” At some point you must concede a scientific fact exists, irrespective of social opinion regarding that fact.
Are you saying there should be a pregnant section in the staples center? You’re all over the place.
No, I’m really only saying a few basic things, but giving you examples, and also joking around a bit (about the playoffs). I’ll stick with a sports analogy. NBA players don’t perform a social function that is neccessary, or by itself really all that important. But they are given quite a lot of social services and benefits. That’s because, somehow, society has made it so that, if you are good enough to make it to the NBA, you can lead a pretty sweet life, all out of proportion to what you contribute back to society.
As a thought experiment, think about if pregnancy was so valued by society that, as soon as someone became pregnant, they got all the benefits that now accrue to NBA players
Admittedly, this is an unconventional example. But its meant to suggest that, if you look at the context around a biological fact, the meaning of that fact could change. I’m just saying to consider that possibility.
What you consider a scientific law is just a material phenomenon. People mitigate their material world through social action.
… anymore 🙂 And I don’t know if there were “true” matriarchal societies in the past, either. I think Sahej brings up excellent points about how we internalize our judgments and norms re: women and then turn around and code this in what we think is “natural” or “biological.”
I don’t know, but I don’t really think my Punjabi-Umreekan upbringing has much to do with my feelings. That is, my feelings are not a reaction to some kind of unfair, uniquely Punjabi sex-biased upbringing or any of that. I did, however, grow up with a strong appreciation for the importance of working towards the equality/equity of genders. My fam has always stood by the “Punjabi culture was not always so patriarchal” line as well. Whether or not it’s true, that’s the household culture I was raised in.
I’m glad, and I have great conversations, even when I disagree with you, on other things. Just not DV. 🙂
What you consider a scientific law is
justa material phenomenon. People mitigate their material world through social action.Wait a minute. are you saying because pregnant women don’t get sneaker deals, it’s automatically incredulous to consider biological differences when evaluating attitudes towards male and female sexual behavior? What?!
As for NBA players not contributing to society, I believe they actually do, in advertising and revenue dollars. Trust me, they wouldn’t get paid that much money if they they didn’t earn it back somehow to the people that pay them. You might find it morally incomprehensible that in our society so much money goes into professional sporting, but that a different discussion altogether.
but then if not biological, then where do these norms and judgements come from? There must be some kind of source, correct? Let’s assume the “carefullness of who women should have sex with” is solely a male-centric view (which it’s clearly not) – and this view is somehow used to a priori classify pregnancy as more physically taxing, then where does the view come from? Some kind of internal hatred for women? If that’s the case then why would a woman ever enter into any social contract with a being bent on preventing her from having unbridled sex and Nike sponsodred Air-Jordans, or I guess Air-Amniotics, she’s entitled to?
Sure, so they’ll use english/latin/greek symbols (like G for the universal gravitation constant, and a for acceleration, etc…) to describe the concepts, but the phenomenon doesn’t change. In the same way, english words like “amniotic sac” and “hormonal shifts” and hindu-arabic numerals such as “9” are used to describe # of months.
HMF,
I think I made that as exchange as clear as I can, hope you get my point, or some of it. Its just ideas, as sure of it as I sound!
But I do think in general, there’s more “give” around some facts than we assume, biological, social, ect
HMF, the idea that the differential parental investment of men and women might make women more reticent about casual sex and more choosy about who their partners are is a reasonable hypothesis. However, that isn’t what you were arguing upthread; at #156, you put forth the idea that societally imposed restrictions on female behaviour are designed to ‘protect’ women. Really, do you think practices that restrict female freedom of movement, mate choice, and in extreme cases lead to injury and death came about with the wellbeing of women in mind? Sexual double standards serve to assuage the fears of men; they aren’t meant to protect women.
I agree that it is totally ridiculous to assume that our cultural and social realities in any way, shape or form, resemble the cultural and social realities of an Indian village.
Drinking alcohol is HARAM in Islam. That means it is forbidden and viewed as a sin.
As Kush Tandon pointed out, as per Indian law, muslim men are allowed up to four wives. This is an Islamic thing as in Islam, men are allowed to be married to up to four women at a time, but women are allowed only one husband at a time.
Regardless of religion, the culture(s), conditionings and folklores of rural India are thick with concepts such as “pati-vrat-dharma” (intense and unbreakable loyalty to one’s husband), “sati” (in this context “sati” means “chastity”, as a woman who is intensely chaste to her husband is often referred to as a “sati-savitri” – those familiar with the stories of Sati (Shiva’s wife) and Savitri (another glorified woman in Indian folklore/mythology/history) will know what I’m talking about here.
In the states of U.P., Rajasthan, etc, it is not at all uncommon to see non-Muslim women veiling their faces when in public, or even when at home, in front of other male members of the family such as one’s father in law and elder brothers in law.
Codes of conduct can be really, really, really, intense there.
So no, it’s not likely that women of rural India just casually sit around and drink alcohol with male “friends” – either friends known to their husbands or not.
Can it happen? Yes. Does it? Probably, but rarely.
Another factor – a woman over here who is having an affair might say to her lover, “meet me tomorrow at that little obscure Thai cafe on the West end of town, then from there we will check into the Hilton around the corner”
In a small village in rural India there are no discreet cafes to meet at or Hilton’s to check into!!!!!
If you are having an affair it will have to be in someone’s home. If you think your spouse will be gone for the day or out of town for a few days, you would try to pull off a rendevous in your own home.
Mean to point out that even Hindu and other non-muslim women often observe this “purdah” system in many North Indian villages, towns, even cities — in keeping with concepts of “modesty” and “chastity”.