With Liberty and Justice for All

In July of 2014, the French government initiated a ban on the traditional burqa or niqab head-covering for those of the Islamic faith.  The European Court of Human Rights rejected a claim that a young woman made that disallowing her to wear a burqa violated her rights as a citizen.  The most common of the arguments is a pitting of those who are proponents for religious freedom against those who believe that the burqa headcovering is demeaning to women.  Those on the side of the law argue that it does not issue disproportionate punishments, and it is in favor of the safety of all citizens.

In A Thousand Splendid Suns, Rasheed uses the burqa as a means of brute control over both Mariam and Laila.  Mariam, who cannot see and trips when she wears it, is physically incapacitated by its very nature.  She views it as a tool of imprisonment, and envies the women of the city who walk around in pants and without head coverings.  Laila uses the burqa as a way to hide, and veils her shame of being married to Rasheed behind its covering.  It is little wonder that many are against the burqa because of the women it does oppress, but it does not give the right to an entire community of innocent individuals to pay for the sins of others.

Religious freedom states that there must be separation of government and religion.  Laws may not be made favoring one religion over others, or demeaning one religion.  I understand that the safety of an entire nation cannot be compromised for the needs of a few, but the banning of an entire facet of a religion is persecution.

A girl who was banned from wearing her niqab in North London's Camden School for Girls writes the following, "I like to use it to promote feminism, however it is very hard to express it because of how people view it. There ARE a lot of women who are forced to wear it, and I think that's really wrong, no matter how religious or what country.

“The hijab is forced in some places in the world, or by certain people - especially men in many cases. I will not deny this. This is not feminism. I want to take this hijab and make it my own. First choose if I even want to cover or not. Define WHY and HOW. I will choose what colors I will wear. What materials. Not just black and white.

“I control if I want to use hijab pins, rhinestones, lace, or brooches. When I will wear it, how I will tie it. When I choose to take it off. It is my right. Also I will choose WHY I wear it. NOT wear it because someone told me to. These points combined promote feminism within women.

“If women can choose WHY and HOW, they are exercising basic rights. You decide if you want to, decide why, decide how.”

#YesAllWomen

In this blog post, I wanted to address a topic that has come up a lot recently even at lunch time or in my independent study period.  The concept and terms of feminism have come up a lot, and there seem to be three distinct demographics, from what I have witnessed:  first, there are the women who address feminism, whom I deem, as radicals.  These women usually operate under the assumption that all men are oppressive and hate-driven and that women have gained little to no status improvement.  This is the minority faction.  A large portion seem to exist in the second demographic- women should be equal to men and that is it.  Equal pay, equal job opportunities, equal anything and everything.  But many, however, cannot explain where the line of equality lies.  The third demographic is where the creators of #YesAllWomen lie.  The hashtag came up after a shooting at U of California, Santa Barbara, where the shooter (a man) expressed the notion that he retained the right to shoot women who spurned his advances. 

The wave hit overnight- by the morning after, over a million Tweets appeared with the hashtag #YesAllWomen in response to the #NotAllMen hashtag.  #NotAllMen aimed to express that not all men are psychopathic killers who objectify and view women as property.  #YesAllWomen did not disagree, which is where the distinction between the second and third demographics of feminism lie.  The notion that not all men are the perpetrators, but ALL women are the victims.  Every woman is forced to think immediately for her safety when she meets a guy, has to carry her keys between her fingers in the dark parking lot, and has pepper spray in her purse.  I looked into the movement about a month ago, and as we read A Thousand Splendid Suns, I was absolutely floored by the connections of the characteristics. 

Women everywhere were shown by #YesAllWomen that they were not crazy or alone just as Mariam and Laila did for one another under Rasheed's oppressive hand.  They learned that they should not have to live in fear for their lives every day, and that they were worth more than Rasheed made them out to be.  It is horribly sad, to me, that the western world claims to be so much more civil to women than the Middle East or than Asia, but women here are still oppressed every day.  It is almost worse to have a problem but not recognize it, and that is what #YesAllWomen aims to do.

Gina Denny, a friend of the woman who created #YesAllWomen, states "while, yes, we know not every single man is part of the problem of violence against women, it is all women who must deal with the fear of catcalling and any other type of harassment and sexual assault." 

To Condemn Inaction

About halfway through Waiting for Godot, Estragon states, "Don't let's do anything. It's safer." Theodore Roosevelt said, "In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing."The notion that inaction is a solution even in the slightest sense is completely heinous, which is where I find my flaw in existentialism.

Humanity, as a race, has always been discontent. It is that discontent that drives us farther and leads us to incredible discoveries. Last night, watching the Kennedy Center Honors, Meryl Streep stated about Sting that he always looked "scowly," but that was due to his incredible innovation. He is never content just to accept his existence and achievement as it is, and that is why he is the best at what he does. The idea that there is no end game or meaning for him is notwithstanding- the meaning is created in the journey.

Any that would argue that the actions of Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., or even Maya Angelou were voided by their death and ended in nothing would be wrong.

Embracing existence in nothingness and embracing death are two entirely different things; existentialism is defined so that there is no purpose or explanation and that the only way to counteract this nothingness is to embrace it. I defer: the only way to counteract the chaos of existence is to embrace chaos and act anyway.

The notion of embracing existence is a demotivator- those who believe they will not succeed and "accept their existence" will be as thus. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Those who work for what they want and stop at nothing to succeed will eventually and in most cases do so! If children entering high school were taught this, there would be no mobility within the tracking system. Kids in academic and CP would accept their existence and have no drive to reach higher! It does not mean all of them will succeed, but having tried is better than having done nothing at all. The same goes for the socioeconomic status in the States, especially. More often than not, kids who exist in inner city schools believe that they have no chance to achieve mobility of their status, and they don't know any different from their parents. They are content to drop out, get pregnant, and God knows what else. I am not at all saying that all kids will succeed if they believe they can- that is, sadly, unrealistic. But a high degree of mobility could be achieved in self fulfilling prophecy if the idea of "accepting existence" was not a notion that people had.

To Each His Own: Cultural and Ethical Relativism

The philosopher Herodotus notes in his book The Histories that “If anyone, no matter who, were given the opportunity of choosing from amongst all the nations in the world the set of beliefs which he thought best, he would inevitably—after careful considerations of their relative merits—choose that of his own country. Everyone without exception believes his own native customs, and the religion he was brought up in, to be the best.”  James Rachels’ The Elements of Moral Philosophy includes a chapter discussing the differences between cultural and ethical relativism.  The former of the two concurs with Herodotus’ beliefs and consequently those of Okonkwo from Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart.  Rachels initially defines cultural relativism to be “a theory about the nature of morality,” and disproves it as a fallacy. 

            The argument follows that each culture, as they have their own beliefs, each have their own objective forms of truth (which are essentially opinions).  This is displayed in Things Fall Apart as the differences in cultures, tribes, religions, and values that Okonkwo experiences.  He holds that he is universally right that a man should be powerful and the patriarchal head of the family.  He should hold his wives submissive and raise his children with a “tough love.”  His religion should be based around a healthy fear and respect for the gods.  However, when the Christians move in they hold different values from his, and Okonkwo regards them as abominable intruders.  Rachels would denounce this “truth” that Okonkwo knows in the remainder of his essay.  He writes that truth in one society is fallacy in another, and that we could no longer censure other countries’ values without essentially disproving the argument altogether.  Not only would it forbid us from criticizing the values of other countries, we could not even criticize ourselves to make improvements.  Rachels would state that Okonkwo has no grounds in accusing the Christians of defiling his tribe and his people because what they know is their “truth” and he cannot reject their truth in favor of his own, as per cultural relativism. 

            Ethical relativism in its definition relies on the fact that humans are apt to distinguish between options A and B, choose one as more ethically right or wrong, and make grounded judgments off of these paradigms.  This is generally how the world today exists, and it is prevalent in the text as well.  The Christians in Things Fall Apart act on the notion that their religion is more civilized and less heathen than that of the tribes.  Thus, they conquer and set up establishment in the tribes.  Okonkwo rejects this in favor of his own beliefs and religion.  If this were to be evaluated by Rachels’ ethical relativism, the Christians would be justified in their approach, as would Okonkwo.  Each is perfectly in their rights to choose (as per the theory of ethical relativism) A or B, represented by Christianity or the tribes’ polytheism.  In the conclusion of the chapter, Rachels states that “we can come to understand that our feelings are not necessarily perceptions of the truth- they may be nothing more than the result of cultural conditioning.”  He would argue that Okonkwo fights for his tribe’s original beliefs because that was how he was raised and that Christians work to change the people they believe to be heathens because that was how they were raised. 

Struggle for Life of Women in Nigeria

In Nigeria, women on average are caring for five children.  Their average daily income for those who have it at all is $0.29.  69% of the female population is illiterate.  Women have very few opportunities for jobs and careers outside of family life in the first place, and their lack of basic education only furthers that problem instead of ameliorating it.  Their lack of education is only worsened by the lack of healthcare available to them.  Because of the very few doctors and healthcare facilities, the healthcare that does exist is made more expensive.  It is far away, hard to get to, extremely expensive, and on top of that it is limited in its scope.  In Things Fall Apart, Ekwefi was forced to utilize local, limited medicine when Ezinma was constantly ill.  Modern women face the same problems- chronically sick children's life expectancy is extremely low due to the lack of consistent, substantial healthcare.

Another struggle Nigerian women face is that the discriminatory practices that have been historically overarching across cultures and countries are made worse for African women.  The presence of extremist/terrorist groups in Nigeria worsens the situation further by instilling religious values that are of detriment to women.  Boko Haram is an Islamist extremist group which has been named terroristic in nature by the UK.  They are currently infiltrating and taking positions of power in the Nigerian Government and are making attempts to initiate the practice of sharia law (Islamist law) in the Nigerian government.  This is extremely dangerous for women, as Islamist institution in government is one of the most sexism-based in the world.

The rates of domestic violence in Nigeria are staggering, as more than two thirds of Nigerian women are believed to have been sexually and/or physically abused.  It is not only the religious beliefs of some that supposedly justify abuse, but the patriarchal societal stances that the tribes have had for hundreds of years.  Domestic violence is not against the law, nor is it looked down upon in general society.  Incidences such as when Okonkwo beat his wife for not cooking him dinner and leaving to braid her hair instead is not uncommon.  Stephanie Mikala, from Amnesty International, stated, "On a daily basis, Nigerian women are beaten, raped and even murdered by members of their family for supposed transgressions, which can range from not having meals ready on time to visiting family members without their husband's permission."  When the abuse is consistent, some women may choose to leave (in today's society; women leaving husbands did not happen during the time period of the novel) but many do not because they do not receive the support of the law.  Many others would not leave for fear of facing shame and verbal abuse for existing outside the bounds of marriage.

As women of Western society, it is very difficult for us to recognize and empathize with the difficulties that these women endure on a daily basis.  We live in a society that, by comparison, affords us so many opportunities and freedoms that these women do not have.  We do not live in a world where murder is considered just punishment for not cooking dinner on time.  Women such as Ekwefi and Okonkwo's other two wives are representative of Nigerian women today, and it speaks to the stagnant nature of society that they have to live this way while we enjoy the luxuries and opportunities of western society.  Groups such as Women and Child Watch Initiative (WOCWI) and Business and Professional Women (BPW) are dedicated to bettering the lives of the women of Nigeria.  They work tirelessly to get the word out about these women, and in the words of Elie Wiesel, acclaimed author of Night and Holocaust survivor, "I swore never to be silent wherever and whenever human beings endure suffering and humiliation... Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim.  Silence helps the tormentor, never the tormented."

Race Culture in the 21st Century

I've come to the acute conclusion that living in the 21st century is like walking on glass with a bullhorn against your mouth.  Every single thing you say is heard by everyone and is at the careful scrutiny of the general public, but yet it is impossible not to say obtrusive things.  With the prevalence of social media and the societal norms of projecting one's every waking thought out to the general public,  politics and social discrepancies are often up for debate and many different viewpoints are pushed along social networks.  This contrasts strongly with the era before the Civil Rights Movement, where the public did not have an open forum of interconnected people to debate in without being publicly and sometimes brutally persecuted for their beliefs.  Truly beginning in the 1960s, racism was spotlighted by the nation and addressed as a national problem.  This contrasts strongly with our nation today because we are blind to our prejudice.  As a nation, we are told we are fair and equal to all, we spurn nations who still enslave and persecute, and yet we are walking on a tightrope to maintain this face of "equality" we claim to have embraced and adopted.

It is clear that racism still exists in modern society by events such as Ferguson and Treyvon Martin that racism still exists in this country and everywhere, and we are ignorant to ignore it.  In studies published by Princeton University Press, "studies continue to reveal commonly held stereotypes of African Americans as less hardworking and less intelligent than whites" (TheRoot.com: Quiet Bias- the Racism of 2013).  Events such as what is happening currently in Missouri show the startling similarities of today's acts of racism to those which happened in the late 1940s and 1950s.  Events of white cops shooting men who are considered minorities in questionable situations that are made to seem like self defense is an act as old as the dawn of time.  However, what is different about these acts in terms of today's society is the response that society gives to them.

In the early 1940s and 1950s, white extremists voiced their opinion loudly and were heard across the nation. Blacks were quashed and destroyed where they stood- their voices rose no louder than a whisper due to strict efforts of the upper echelon of society.  However, the tides of today's society have turned- white extremists are judged and silenced by the voice of our "race conscious" society and minority voices are amplified by politics.  We as a society have no problem saying that someone who is white is the oppressor and that they keep the rest of the races oppressed, but to say that we make concessions for people solely based upon their minority status is equivalent to heresy.  We implement measures such as Affirmative Action to reconcile the sins of the past, but we fail to see the inherent racism in the measures we enact!  If we wish to define racism as the judgment of the color of one's skin and the country of one's origin rather than "the content of [one's] character" then the enacting of measures such as Affirmative Action and special minority supplementary programs is, by simple fact association, racism.

In Invisible Man, the narrator states " I didn't understand in those pre-invisible days that their hate, and mine too, was charged with fear.  How all of us at the college hated the black-belt people, the "peasants," during those days!  We were trying to lift them up, and they, like Trueblood, did everything it seemed to pull us down" (Ellison chapter 2, The Invisible Man).  I believe strongly that the implementation of measures meant to provide recompense for the sins of the past is insinuating that those who are minorities need the help of the upper classes to survive- this is an offensive assumption to many and is little stated due to its controversial and uncommon nature. Thomas Sowell, author of Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality, states the situation with finality: "No policy can apply to history but can only apply to the present or the future.  The past may be many things, but it is clearly irrevocable.  Its sins can no more be purged than its achievements can be expunged.  Those who suffered in centuries past are as much beyond our help as those who sinned are beyond our retribution."  Racism is recognizing differences and making judgments based upon the color of skin- the cure is not to blur and blind skin color from our vision, but to see it and not think about its implications.  Racism in today's society is based upon the former half of this notion, and it is slowly infecting our nation from the inside outward.