Friday, July 10, 2015

"Muslims" Killing Christians: Islam is Really About Peace

"Let there be no compulsion in religion" (Qur'an 2:256)

Based on this quote alone, I will refer to ISIS as Muslims with quotation marks around the word Muslim, because that's what they call themselves and I'll play along, as when someone sheepishly wants to talk about a problem they have but present it as, "I have this 'friend' who has a problem with carrying around tiny scissors and uses it for stealing locks of pretty people's hair..." and you're like "Okay, tell your 'friend' that..."


But Islam does have to do with violence. It has a lot to do with violence. That is, Islam came at a time when the commercial city of Mecca was oppressive to those who were left behind in the sudden influx of vast wealth that came in Mecca's relatively recent turn into a trading post empire. The idea of the powerful looking out for the poor and vulnerable, a tribal ethic most Arabs had outside of this city, had been fractured. And the deserts outside of this city were not faring much better; they were locked in a series of wars over the control of wells, which were few and far-between, as well as grazing-land rights.

Islam has to do with transforming this, and all, fractured societies.
Part 1- Humanity Was About War
Part 2- Making War: Non-Aggression and Chivalry
Part 3- Making Peace: Reconciliation and Forgiveness
Part 4- Last Resort: A Mass Killing
Part 5- Treating Captives/Slaves

Part 1-

Humanity Was About War

According to the book The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, in pre-state societies, when people were still tribes, villages with chiefs, and loose alliances of confederacies, prisoners of war and raids were either slaughtered while their women and children were taken as slaves, or the men were taken as slaves too. Torture, mutilating bodies, trophies from dead bodies, even cannibalism. This happened world over, including in Europe.

Islam Was and Is About Peace

Part 2-

Non-Aggression

 In Islam, war is seen as abhorrent in itself and should be done only in self-defense. In those days, you needed a guardian the way someone in Italy or Spain needed a don- for protection; since there was no government, and prisoners were turned into slaves, crimes were policed the old-fashioned way. If you were killed, your guardian had the right to avenge you by taking the life of one of the enemy; as it happened, this system itself was enough to deter people from murdering others, lest a retaliation go out of control and spiral into a cycle of endless retaliation, which no one could afford.

Muhammad was born in Mecca, and the city watched him go from an orphan to a Prophet. It did not comprehend to most of them that he could speak with the authority to condemn their ways, so they mocked him and, when his guardian (his beloved uncle Abu Talib) died, a hit was put out on him by the city elite. He and his followers were marked men, and he narrowly escaped assassination as he fled to the city that we now call Medina. Here, the trouble did not end. The elite of Mecca would send wave after wave of army, and as the time for the annual pilgrimage to Mecca came around, Muhammad worried that he and his army would have to defend themselves violently in order to perform his duty to God.

It is in this context that Allah gives a beautiful verse summing up Islamic war theory. It calls for self-defense only, and for restraint; if your attacker stops fighting, you must stop:

[2:190] You may fight in the cause of GOD against those who attack you, but do not aggress. GOD does not love the aggressors. [2:191] You may kill those who wage war against you, and you may evict them whence they evicted you. Oppression is worse than murder. Do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque [Mecca], unless they attack you therein. If they attack you, you may kill them. This is the just retribution for those disbelievers.[2:192] If they refrain, then GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.[2:193] You may also fight them to eliminate oppression, and to worship GOD freely. If they refrain, you shall not aggress; aggression is permitted only against the aggressors.

Chivalry

 Islam began with a progressive dream:

In one hadith (a narration from the Prophet), Prophet Muhammad comes across a slain woman while riding in battle, and he frowns with anger.
According to the American Army's Strategic Studies Institute, (the college for U.S.soldiers)

His attitude prompted a distinct code of conduct among Islamic warriors which includes:
• No killing of women, children, and innocents―these might include hermits, monks, or other religious leaders who were deemed noncombatants;
• No wanton killing of livestock and animals; 
• No burning or destruction of trees and orchards; and,
• No destruction of wells.


As this one article puts it, "In short, Muhammad wanted his armies to fight like freaking hippies. During the fucking Dark Ages. And they did.

"But the biggest territorial gains were made after Muhammad's death, right? Maybe that was when Islam earned its bloodthirsty reputation? Not exactly. His successor codified the existing rules and made them the standard for his army."

The Muslim army "exhibited a degree of toleration which puts many Christian nations to shame," argues one expert, Dr. Danial bin Zainal Abidin in his book Islam: The Misunderstood Religion. Forgiveness played a big role in this code of chivalry. The Prophet(P) refused to kill a woman who did intentionally try to poison him-

Narrated Anas bin Malik: A Jewish woman brought a poisoned (cooked) sheep for the Prophet who ate from it. She was brought to the Prophet and he was asked, “Shall we kill her?” He said, “No.” I continued to see the effect of the poison on the palate of the mouth of God's Apostle.

Part 3:

Making Peace: Reconciliation and Forgiveness

If the Meccan elite had won the battles they launched against the Muslims who fled as refugees to Medina, it would have been a genocide. And yet, all the pictures you see of Muhammad on horseback with a sword raised in the air, lacking this context. These were battles of self-defense, as the Meccan army came with their women to fight the Muslim militia, which had assembled to save their own lives.

There were losses on the Muslim side, and the dead soldiers would be mutilated by these Meccan women, though Muhammad forgave them. And after winning the war, he also forgave the actual leaders of the war campaign against his followers- even though they had been on his "hit list" originally. He never refused their pleas for mercy, even if one woman (the body-desecration) was short with him in her plea.

In fact, reconciliation was key for Muhammad (PBUH), who formed alliances with tribes he formerly fought with, by having political marriages with the women of conquered tribes whose fathers were key leaders. This would help to ensure peace. The Holy Qur'an says:

"Perhaps Allah will put, between you and those to whom you have been enemies among them, affection. And Allah is competent, and Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." (Qur'an 60:7)

War and hatred thus do not go together; war is only done out of necessity in self-defense- never contempt.

Check out this article to read about Muhammad and the Golden Rule

As the time for the annual pilgrimage to Mecca came around, Muhammad worried that he and his army would have to defend themselves violently in order to perform his duty to God. Muhammad entered Mecca warily, and decided to try something extraordinary: he had all his men lay down their arms in the one of the greatest acts of non-violence in history. The Muslims walked right in to Mecca, the enemy's stronghold, unarmed as pilgrims. Muhammad was asking to pray in the area where he once denounced the stone gods. It was crazy enough to work- the Meccans actually surrendered to this large army of unarmed Muslims and admitted they had lost the war against Islam.

After this non-battle, word of a twenty-thousand man army had amassed at the nearby oasis of Ta'if to fight Muhammad. Muhammad battled two tribes here- one of which, the people of Hunayn, lost and joined Muhammad's confederacy. The city itself could not be secured by the Muslims, but with the loss of their ally the Hunayn, they were so isolated that they gave up a year later. When Muhammad divided the booty of the Hunayn, he gave most of it to his former enemies at Mecca- Abu Sufyan, Suhayl, and Safwan. These were the very people who had put the hit out on Muhammad in the first place. One of them, Safwan, was so moved by this gesture that he said:

"I bear witness that no soul could have such goodness as this, if it were not the soul of the Prophet." He converted on the spot, and became one of many former enemies that converted due to either hearing the words of the Qur'an or being moved by Muhammad's actions.

Part 4:

Last Resort- A Mass Killing

The only time Muslims went old-school on their attackers was during a siege in Medina when the Meccan elite, that is, the Quraysh, had surrounded the Muslims. The Muslims ingeniously built a ditch around their stronghold which their attacker's camels would not dare cross, and set up archers too. (The Quraysh probably saw this as poor sportsmanship.) Then there was word of betrayal: one of the tribes in Medina had made a deal with the Quraysh to put an end to the community of Muslim refugees once and for all.

This wasn't the first time Muhammad faced betrayal in which the town of Medina, which had accepted Muhammad as a Prophet and an arbitrator in their disputes in return for his allegiance in case they ever had to fight a war. The allegiance was mutual; the people of Medina were obligated to protect him from the mighty Quraysh of Mecca, who had come to see war as a kind of sport.

The last two tribes that had turned traitor on Muhammad before this- including one that had an assassination attempt against him - were merely exiled from Medina. No killings at all. And the exiled tribes simply set up camp nearby. Feeling scorned, they plotted to ally with the Quraysh to kill the Muslims. Muhammad, knee deep in a defense known as the Battle of the Trench, surrounded by the enemy, had to make a decision on how to deal with this betrayal. Would he exile them, like the others? He was likely afraid the third exiled tribe would form an alliance with the first two and become an unstoppable Muslim-butchering regime.

It was more than bad news that one of the tribes of Medina had double-crossed Muhammad and defected to ally with the attackers- and this left the Muslims vulnerable to imminent death. If a rainstorm hadn't driven the Quraysh away, it might have been over for the Muslims. After the Quraysh left and the Prophet was sure of this scheming tribe's plans, he asked a local chief to judge the traitor's fate for this breach of allegiance. The judgment was to go traditional on them- that all the men be killed and the women and children sold as slaves. Muhammad reportedly said, "You have ruled as if a king," which may have been a compliment (one of Allah's characteristics is The King), or a criticism at the despotic nature of the ruling (it is said in Islamic tradition that a caliph is a true human leader of men, as opposed to someone being a king, which is but a power-hungry lover of riches).

It is clear that Muhammad preferred violence only as a last resort, then. The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah was drafted by Muhammad with Quraysh, when they were ready to negotiate. So willing was he to make peace, that Muhammad's treaty with his enemies seemed to his followers disadvantageous and lopsided: the Muslims could go on the pilgrimage to Mecca but could not enter the main prayer grounds until next year; any Muslims who defected to Medina to join the Muslim community had to be returned if they had left without the permission of their guardian. However, the terms were not mutual- the Quraysh would not have to return any Muslims who defected to Mecca. The Quraysh didn't like how the treaty referred to Muhammad as a prophet, so Muhammad rubbed the words out himself since no other Muslim wanted to do it. If all this was the only way to secure peace, so be it; the Qur'an had said that if the enemy wants to negotiate, you have to prevent yourself from warring with them.


Part 5:

Treating Captives/Slaves:


When Islam was revealed to Prophet Muhammad, slavery was a worldwide common social phenomenon; it was much older than Islam. Slavery was deeply rooted in every society to the extent that it was impossible to imagine a civilized society without slaves. Today's economy still works this way.

It says in the Qur'an, slaves (which were P.O.W.s directly or indirectly) and concubines (slaves that acted as midwives, bearing their captor's children) could not be refused their freedom ( Noble Verse 24:33), must be treated with dignity (no overworking, no separating mothers and small children, no mistreatment, etc.) and wear and eat the same things as anyone else in the family. The penalty of hitting a slave was the slave's immediate freedom.

If this was not enough, in the Qur'an's very definition of righteousness, the freeing of your own slaves or buying other slaves / P.O.W.s to free them was actively encouraged as the righteous duty of a Muslim. Noble Verse 2:177 states: "Righteousness is not that you turn your face to the east or west (during prayer), it is...for giving wealth, in spite of love for it, for freeing slaves."

The biggest proponent of reforming slavery was 'Umar, Muhammad's successor and companion. A conversation between he and a man named Naafi, after the Muslim conquest of Mecca: "Who have you appointed as your deputy over the people of the valley (i.e. Makkah)?” asked Naafi. “One of our freed slaves,” replied Umar.
“Indeed your Prophet (salallaahu `alaihi wassallam) said: Surely Allaah raises people by way of this Book and makes others lowly by way of it.”

and,

"One day ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab passed by and saw some slaves standing and not eating with their master. He got angry and said to their master: What is wrong with people who are selfish towards their servants? Then he called the servants and they ate with them."

This stands in contrast to the Quraysh who fought the Muslims- they put heavy stones on the slave Bilal that crushed him painfully as the stones absorbed the scorching Arabian heat, all because he converted to Islam. Slave women were sexually harassed on the street, and Muhammad's wives were harassed in Medina under the pretense that, "Oh, sorry, I thought they were slaves," leading to the revelation about Muhammad needing to veil his wives and daughters and local harassed Muslims who went out traveling, so that others no longer had the excuse to treat them like prostitutes. Without Islam, slaves were treated like dirt, it is shown.

Conclusion


There are examples of early Muslims breaking the hinges of the institution of slavery, and we know that after a while caliphs got drunk with power when Islamic empires became the biggest slave traders in the world, with Muslims having racist views toward Black slaves specifically, but we should know that is about power, not religion. In fact, the current people killing Christians in Iraq are doing it out of power, too:

"The Isis demand for a caliphate is about power, not religion," writes one Middle East scholar.

Cultural practices and power plays have hijacked Islam, just like how power plays have turned president Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel into Pharaoh, in a land where Jews were once oppressed. With his human rights abuses and war crimes against the Palestinians, Netanyahu and the religious right of Israel, has thus turned Israel anti-Jewish the way in which ISIS's "Islamic State" is actually anti-Muslim. ISIS is "Muslim" in the way that Kony and the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda is "Christian," as they go around forcing children to be their soldiers so they can force Uganda to become based on the 10 Commandments; or the way some Christians in the Central African Republic are lynching and eating body parts of Muslims because they believe it brings them special powers.


The Muslim response to the rebellious terrorists in Iraq who call themselves "Muslims" has been swift and forceful. The terrorists have been called heretics. The International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS) issued a condemnation of the forced expulsion of Iraqi Christians. The terrorists are not only killing Christians, but these Sunni extremists started out killing Shi'a Muslims and any Sunni Muslims who got in their way (Sunni and Shi'a are the two main sects of Islam).

Yet the fact that ISIS is anti-Islamic doesn't help the arguments of people like Pam Geller and Ayan Hirsi who believe that Islam is inherently violent. Here is a photo of soldiers fighting these terrorists:


 Left to Right: I am Sunni, I am Shi'a, I am Kurdish, I am Christian

Wednesday, July 8, 2015

Five Ways We Contribute to Rape Culture Without Realizing It

What is rape culture? You might hear about a scandal in the news- say, for instance, that the U.S. air force reports that of 170,000 people surveyed in 2014, 20,000 men and women reported receiving unwanted sexual contact, many of which included violent, probing sexual assaults. Out of the 20,000, for half of those women and 34% of those men, the assaults involved penetration of some sort (sometimes with an object).

It is safe to say that there is an “epidemic” of rape- the air force calls the number of assaults “appalling.”

In December 2013, six school officials at Steubenville High School plead not guilty to charges  that basically amounted to creating a path of least resistance for rape culture to thrive: "allowing underage drinking," "contributing to delinquency of a minor," "obstructing justice," and "failure to report child abuse or neglect" are just some of the few. Given the turned heads, and even the encouragement of adults, young male athletes that represented the pride of their town were given free reign to drink their inhibitions away and engage in date rape.

It is easy to see how this contributes to rape culture, but what are some everyday things that other bystanders did to contribute? And are currently turning our heads more than we should be for the youth on our own communities? Should we hold the school officials accountable without wondering if our own local heroes are doing the same thing, and we are, by our attitudes, actions, and even inaction to our sisters, daughters, and mothers, contributing to a climate where a girl blames herself or would not want to disclose she had been raped? Serena Williams wondered aloud  about the Steubenville girl's lack of responsibility for "putting themselves in that situation." Does that sound like you? What does that have to do with contributing to rape culture?

So we click off the TV and imagine that “Rape culture” is often a term associated with specific subcultures of America, such as fraternities, athletic teams, the air force; basically ones that has gotten a lot of news coverage lately. This serves a purpose to highlight places of highly concentrated sexual assaults, but can also serve to mask the fact that America itself is a rape culture.


Wait, what?
How could that be? Nobody is pro-rape. You do not sit around in front of the evening news with a foam finger and leap up to celebrate every time a rape is mentioned; in fact, the truth is likely to be quite the opposite. Most men surveyed in a study believe that rape should be met with severe punishment.

Yes! Throw the rapist in the alligator pit!! Yeeaahh! That's a mighty fine way to castrate!

Yet the conviction rate for rape is between two and four percent.  And this is coming from the FBI, where the "F" does not stand for “Feminist.” Victims of sexual assault are the least likely to get a conviction out of all victims of violence, and it has nothing to do with women lying, but everything to do with our beliefs about the world.

1. You Want Rapists to Look a Certain Way

Wait, what about my beliefs?
This appallingly low conviction rate is partly explained by the fact men believe the rape myth that “real rape” is a man jumping out of the bushes and forcefully raping a stranger, a belief which persists despite the fact that most rapists are acquainted with their victims. If rape is evil and should be punished, but most rapists know their victim, and, according to the Department of Justice, rape happens every two minutes (!), then there is a large amount of friends, boyfriends, husbands, peers and co-workers out there who are evil and should be put away for a long time.


Not pictured: reality

But they are not, and that is the fault of ignorant and fearful men who do not believe that most men accused of rape fit the profile of a rapist. Police officers were asked in a study to take a survey called the “victim credibility scale,” and about 20% said they were unlikely to believe a married woman who claims she has been raped by her husband . Most men fear being unjustly accused, causing a huge gulf between societal attitudes on the one hand and societal actions on the other likened to a “sexual schizophrenia.”  Thus, there is enough cognitive dissonance between our beliefs/feelings and our actions as a society about rape to keep a modern-day Freud busy for the rest of his life.

2. You Believe That Women Lie About Rape

FOX News and men's rights groups have argued that a discussion of alleged-Rape Culture needs to be balanced out by noting the rate of false accusations of rape. The men's rights argument goes like this: These instigating attention whores are vindictive, they might argue, and while a man might ruin a woman’s inner life by raping her, a woman can ruin a man’s inner and outer life (social life/career) merely by accusing a man of rape, forever tarring his image.
In other words, they argue "Those feminists are hiding from the fact that the FBI crime index counts 8% of rapes as unfounded, compared to just 2% of other crimes that turn out to be unfounded." 
Thank you for being so fair and balanced! This is big news!
Even scholarly reviews of the literature on false rape allegations note that most studies average out to a count of between 2 and 8%. FOX News (in a video I now cannot find) called the differences between the conclusions of the different studies in literature reviews irreconcilable and said because of this, we cannot learn anything from them. So, time to wipe off our hands and walk away from irrelevant feminism, and to conclude that the idea of Rape Culture is questionable at best.

Lauren Nelson, an author on rape culture, laid the smackdown in her criticism of this. Essentially saying, “Okay let’s go with the conservative estimate of 8% false rape accusations and go from there,” she proceeded to remind us how many flaws there are with using this number as the actual number.
The FBI says that rape is seriously underreported. Nelson takes an even more conservative estimate of reported rapes at 37 percent (32 is the current FBI number), and then computes the actual number of rapes into the equation of unfounded rape reports. This shows that 3% of rapists are falsely accused, more in line with the average of other falsely reported crimes listed in the FBI crime index. 

Because her math is a conservative estimate, the reality might be 2%.
Then she went further and looked at how most rapists get freed before a conviction is made, and how some police departments giving FBI their data use questionable standards for rape victims. 

Given the fact that some police documented a rape report as false if the victim did not appear disheveled in one study, this is not unwarranted. Nelson concluded that 1.5% of all rapes, then, are false reports.

The reality is that because most rape victims are acquainted with their attacker, the attacker can rely more on psychological control, such as intimidation or manipulation of family and friends, rather than force. If a victim knows their attacker, they might be unaware of the fact it was rape, have very complex emotions to process, and very heavy decisions to make about getting out of their attacker’s lives before they report the rape, due to fear of retaliation. The lack of physical evidence of force, and the fact that a woman waited a long time to disclose and report the rape might damn her in the face of family, friends, police, prosecutors, judges, and juries who are afraid they may judge and convict an innocent man.

The desire not to falsely convict someone of rape is all well and good. However, take a look at the next infographic and wonder if our caution does not have very unbalanced consequences:


In the final analysis, men actually have a higher chance of getting sexually assaulted themselves than of being falsely accused of it.

3. You Believe that the World is Predictable and Just
 

So your friend tells you they have been raped. One of the first things you might do is feel confused and want to make sense of it, and after a bit, feel horrified and want to stop thinking about it because it is too heavy.

But be careful- when someone discloses a rape to you, do not minimize, downplay, deny, or imply that the women did something to provoke it. This is not the time to play Devil’s Advocate or pseudo-marriage counselor, you know the suggestion- “I think you both made a mistake.” This is not the time to think about the sanctity of marriage or your family’s reputation if this ends in divorce. But chances are, you might end up thinking “This would have never happened to me, I did the right things to avoid a situation like this.”

"I told you never to move to the city! At least I can say I did all I could."

We take for granted certain things about the world: random acts of violence do not just happen, and good things happen to good people. Researchers call this “Just World Theory,” and belief in it explains much of the victim-blaming that goes on in cases of rape.

So rape victims break some kind of predictable rule of safety in order to get raped. Yet a vast amount of women would all have to have been acting like “bad people” if that were the case- remember, because as the FBI stats earlier showed, one woman is raped every two minutes. The notion that these women were acting out of some bounds is likely easier for men (and women) to believe than the notion that bad things could happen to anyone at any time, outside of our control. Yet the comfort people get from this core belief happens at the expense of the women whose reputations are put on trial when they charge their attackers with rape.

Studies have reported that men believe rape myths at higher rates than women, though some women who have disclosed rape to their own mothers have been told to “stop being such a nag” and “be a better wife to your husband." It is hard enough for women to press charges against men, knowing chances of getting a conviction are slim and that their character will likely be questioned. Family and friends should not make things worse by interrogating or criticizing the victim.

"I don't get it! You said you were dressed in a sweater and jeans, and watched your drink all night. You're not telling me everything, young lady!"

Not long ago, there has been controversy in the media about Serena Williams’ comment on the Steubenville Rape Case. She had implied that the rape had been a mix of boys acting stupid, bad parenting and girls who should have known better.

Even though she said the bulk of the blame should go to the men, she spent some time chastising the rape victims for putting themselves in a vulnerable position.  This is something which women are who are sexually assaulted are often familiar with: a counterfactual thought.
Counterfactual thoughts routinely begin with “If only I…” and end with “…this event wouldn’t have happened.” Women who go this route with their thoughts after a rape tend to blame themselves, and this often leads to depression. The problem with these kinds of thoughts is that rape is assumed to be a predictable and unchanging part of the background of everyday life, while women’s actions are seen as changeable (especially in hindsight).
But what Serena and others downplay is the fact that both men and women’s actions are mutable. There is no threshold of sexual arousal beyond which men cannot control how they act on their urges. Both genders are capable of change, and yet women are forced to do all the work. One third of women in a study reported that fear of being raped was ever-present, and another third reported altering their lives to take precautions. In essence, the big double standard of our Rape Culture is that rape-fearing women are asked to accommodate for rapists, to do all the rape-prevention work, while men who are worry-free about getting raped feel little to no push to organize against rape. This is male privilege. 

Pictured: The Rape-Prevention Industrial Complex


4. You Believe that Rape is a Woman’s Issue
 

Rape is part of the background of life, it will always be there, and so women must accommodate rapists. Everyday men have no responsibility. These are typical assumptions that play out in places like college campuses. A cross-cultural study turns the first assumption, that of rape being an inevitable part of society to look out for, on its head: some cultures have so few rapes each year that they were basically rape-free.  The study's author compared these societies to those he labeled "rape-prone," and discovered that "Rape is interpreted as the sexual expression of these forces in societies where the harmony between men and their environment has been severely disrupted." There is something unique about campus culture: about one in four college women have reported surviving a rape or attempted rape, while by comparison, one in six women in the general population have. College-aged women are four times more likely than other women to experience date rape. 

What about the assumption that everyday men have no responsibility to prevent this? While 99% of incidents at college are involve men raping women, sexual assault prevention has typically focused on ways for women to prevent rape. Has any university really asked why sexual assault prevention has focused on women instead of men? Even asking the question of why women are the targets of rape in significantly most cases, as opposed to men being the targets, asks the question of what many men must be thinking about women. If our actions are the results of our thoughts, then rape is the product of men’s mental content.
Why is rape a woman’s issue, then? If attacks on the United States lead to the U.S. sending soldiers and spies into the Middle East to fight terrorists instead of simply training Americans how to spot and stop a terrorist, then why are attacks on women seen as the victim’s issue, with all the resources devoted to educating and training women rather than sending resources to the battlefield of men’s minds? And what little resources women get at best: violence against women is prosecuted at the lowest rate compared to other forms of violence, as rape is prosecuted at a rate of 2 to 4 percent.
Terrorism works by making people afraid to go out and participate in daily activities of society. Rape is sexual terrorism. Women worry about being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but the essence of terrorism is that you never know when that is. 

If a man wants to take a walk in a woman's shoes, he might experience it more as jumping in a woman's shoes.

Rape is sexual terrorism because many women are left feeling less free than men to do the same exact things that men do, such as being in a self-service laundromat or apartment laundry room at night, and not any irrational fear, given the once-every-two-minute frequency of rape which the FBI estimates. 

And of these women, some will have internalized notions that rape is not random but happens to “certain kinds” of women. Rape myths like this, and myths that “good things happen to good people” so if someone gets raped they must have done something wrong, work together. They create a path of resistance against women who try and come forward after having been raped. The path of least resistance, then, becomes to “know her place,” and accept the inevitability of rape or some “failure” on her part to prevent it. And so in resignation women silence themselves before their family, friends, and the court system get a chance to silence them. Out of all campus rapes, only 5% of them will be reported to the police, a number far below the 40% of all sexual assaults which the general population reports to the police.

5. You Get Defensive For Your Tribe


Whether you are a sports fan, a fan of a celebrity, or there is a star teacher or other public favorite in your life, you are at risk for getting defensive for your tribe. Also, it may be especially hard to identify yourself as part of Rape Culture if you are in a historically oppressed group. Jewel Woods, a black feminist, writes that when he engages people in conversation about items on the Male Privilege Checklist (see part 1 of 3 in this blog series), he encountered the most resistance from black and brown men. Indeed, he says, some items on the Male Privilege Checklist did not apply to men of color. He created the Black Male Privilege Checklist, which is here:

http://jewelwoods.com/node/9
"If it look as though I have something profoundly interesting and enlightening I'm about to say, it's because I do."

The truth for many people of color is that of intersections in their oppressed identities- for example, a Black woman may feel pressure to keep domestic violence a non-police matter, due to the way the criminal justice system treats Black people in this country. Note the following on Jewel Woods’ list: “I do not have to worry about being considered a traitor to my race if I call the police on a member of the opposite sex, (number 75)” and “I don’t have to choose my race over my sex in political matters (number 1)”. 

In addition to this, whether you are black, brown, LGBT, Muslim, or Jewish, you might know and respect the person a woman is accusing of rape- maybe he is even a community leader or a “symbol of strength” and you don’t get how they could rape anyone. Maybe you are at a gay-friendly event where the leader of the event is well loved by all, but sexually harasses you. Maybe you do not wish to “air our dirty laundry,” and reinforce negative stereotypes about homosexuals as promiscuous. But Male Privilege, Sexism and Rape Culture wins every time a woman or man is silenced because she feels as though she has to choose her minority group over her sex.

The straight white Christian majority is in on this, too, and have the media as a powerful psychological tool. Nearly everyone loves athletes and soldiers, which is why so many people are quick to defend them, and may be why rape is so extraordinarily prevalent in college fraternities, school and professional sports teams, and the armed forces: no one wants to believe anything bad about their tribal heroes, whether that tribe is Duke University, Steubenville High School, or the symbolic vanguards of America itself- the troops.


At the outbreak of the Kobe Bryant alleged-rape case, a team of researchers at Aurora University in Illinois counted the number of online articles from ESPN and CNN to local and regional newspapers (156 in total). They then tallied how many articles presented rape myths without challenging them, and how many presented them and then challenged them. The alleged victim in this case might have guessed it: the majority of the articles (there were 102) contained at least one myth-endorsing statement that went unchallenged. The researchers also documented that the media made more positive comments about the athlete ("the boy next-door") than about the victim, and more negative comments about the victim than about the athlete. As the alleged victim backed off moving forward with the trial, the attorneys said "that she believed she could not get a fair trial after all of the leaks and errors in this case." This influential media bias is the kind of resistance we give to people who go after our favorite athletes, our symbols of strength and hope.  

===========


Conclusion

Whoever we are, internalized myths and male privilege push as along the path of least resistance that keeps the Monopoly game of sexism operating. In essence, by assuming women are lying, or by trying to explain away their rapes as something that could have been prevented if they had done something differently, we are acting as gender police who keep women as a group down below men in society’s hierarchy. You do not need a law to dictate how women should dress in order to pressure women to conform. All you need are the unwritten laws of the game of Male Privilege to create resistance. All you need is the smug thought "I never would have put myself in that position," and for that attitude to be read loud and clear.




Link to part 1- "Three Reasons Men Are Sexist  and White People Are Racist Without Realizing It" 

Link to part 2- "Three Reasons We Are All (Gender) Police"




Thursday, July 2, 2015

How One Trip to the Mall Explains our Dependence Upon Modern-Day Slavery

Yes, we still own slaves. Here are five things we use every day that shows American demand sponsors slavery around the world.

Yes, slavery was common in the ancient world. It is in the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, and the Qur'an. Yes, the Prophet Muhammad owned slaves. Now, as then, slavery is the backbone of the economy. It's just not cool to enslave Americans anymore, that's too visible, but trust me, you still own slaves indirectly, the same way you might sponsor a child in Africa indirectly.


1. Our Cars


After watching a news story about a scandal-plagued factory in Bangladesh that make our clothes, we might feel guilty. We might get in our car-made (by Chrysler/Mercedes) in Mexico to avoid American taxes and high union auto worker salaries. 

Wait, what?


Right across the Rio Grande, factories who left rich countries come to hire workers to work in the maquiladoras, assembly plants where the workers are exploited under all types of abuses. This website, SlaveryInthe21stCentury, explains these conditions further.



We will turn the ignition (soon to be recalled by GM again for defects), made in China sweatshops for GM and Ford, where a deadly explosion last year forced the Chinese government to pay attention to the lack of regulations for worker's safety in the plants.


and turn the tires from rubber plantations using Liberian child labor (Firestone) from the same U.S. company that once stopped production in Liberia, thus depriving their government of being able to collect needed tax money, leading the gov't to miss a loan payment to Firestone, who promptly requested that President FDRoosevelt send a warship to Liberia to enforce the loan repayment. FDR rejected the idea, calling it "gunboat diplomacy".

2. Our Phones

On your way to Kohls or Wal-Mart or Target, while talking on our phones, we steer the vehicle- both of which are made of metal, metal that comes from dictators using slave labor in Africa (Columbite-tantalite or coltan, the colloquial African term, used in our brakes and airbags, cellphones, DVD players, laptops, hard drives, and gaming devices).


Wait, what?

Not only that, the people who manufactured our Apple phones work at a plant (Foxxconn, in China) where worker suicides to protest labor conditions have gotten so bad that the company has installed "suicide nets" and threatened to punish those who attempt to commit suicide.

3. Our Gasoline

We steer our cars into the gas station and merrily fill the tank with crude oil from a Gulf of Arabia elite who uses migrant labor from South Asia in slave-like conditions because their working papers were confiscated by him. 

Wait, what?

The surge in slavery and human trafficking in the Gulf States has come due to the demand for increased construction thanks to oil wealth profits.


4. Our Credit Cards

Finally, we make it to the store. We return the item with our credit card, which has 1/3 of the American public over it's limit.
The credit card industry, with its cycles of poverty traps, likes it this way.


Wait, what?

An article in Mother Jones begins with:
Signing up a new credit card customer: $58. Buying off Congress: $8.5 million. Keeping Americans in hock for life: priceless.
The result? Americans owe $850 billion in credit card debt. The world's 54 poorest countries owe $412 billion in foreign debt.


5. Our Clothes

So we walk out of Kohls or Wal-Mart or Target after returning our clothes, because we were feeling guilty about rampant worker mistreatment in the textile (clothes) industry.

Click here for "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Fashion" to see how cheap clothes that are also fashionable come at an enormous cost to people, particularly those in Southeast Asia toiling under slave-like conditions.


I don't mean to depress you. I mean for you to follow my posts about the Prophet Muhammad and see for yourself how Allah expressed concern and siding with the weak and oppressed, defined righteousness as freeing slaves, and came up with solutions to scarcity, both basic-needs-or-I'll-starve scarcity and I-feel-empty-inside-without-my-toys-and-food-and-sex scarcity. 

8 Ways in Which Civilized Humans Have Not Evolved Out of Being Raiders

Reading the Old Testament or the Qur'an involves reading stories about nomadic peoples- people who did not developed settled farms, but instead took their cattle and roamed in search barren wasteland for grazing land and water. This was preferred to joining civilization, because at the time civilization mean slavery to a king who worked you in their fields until near-death, and then taxed the hell out of you. However, with their freedom, nomads faced a new kind of slavery: to that of dependence upon the luck of scratching out a meager existence by luckily stumbling upon water and grass. 

Needless to say, there were tons of battles of rights to grazing land and wells. These battles lead to the have-nots conducting raids on the haves, in a raid the Arabian nomads called the "ghazu". It was not out of hatred, but a kind of national sport, with fixed rules that limited bloodshed and avoided murder, as that would lead to retaliation. 

Finding out that the Prophet Muhammad took part in some of these raids once he fled civilization (he fled the political and religious elite there were trying to kill him and stamp out his small following of women, slaves, and other people considered the bottom of society). This leads to judgments and false dichotomies: Islam is a religion of violence, Christianity is a religion where at least its leading figure was all about peace. Actually, you and I are just as violent as Muhammad was. In fact, we are worse:

Wait, what?


Our middle-class lifestyle is only possible due to low-costs of goods and services. Those low costs come at a price that I will explain. Thus, our lifestyle increases poverty for the people our cost-cutting and land-grabbing happens at the expense of. Modern life now, as then, runs on the ghazu raid.

(in no ways a comprehensive list)
1. Treating Black and Latino people like we did Native Americans during the Expansion into the West

Wait, what?

We live in condos built in neighborhoods near hospitals and universities that the city gave huge tax relief to (including 30-year-tax abatements near Rutgers University), but the low-income people who were there first cannot afford to live in them- despite the fact they helped pay for it with their tax dollars.

We go to colleges and work at hospitals built on former housing projects of struggling Black people, while these eds-and-meds do not often hire locally, and they often price out the local citizens. And these projects are given tax relief at the expense of the low-income people who were there first (Rutgers University, John Hopkins University, etc.). Former Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling, who was accused by the Justice Department of the United States in 2006 for racial discrimination in his apartments, is just one example of overt discrimination- though a lot of the times the language is coded as "those people."

We gentrify neighborhoods. According to the American Housing Survey's study of NYC, in 2003 alone, 225,000 renters were forced to move out of their neighborhood for financial reasons. Of those 225,000 renters, 96,000 of them were directly displaced either by their landlord or a government official.

Banks and landlords play a big role in this, in an extraction economy that feeds on the most vulnerable. And the banks that crashed the economy in 2008 had a pattern of exploiting vulnerable Latino immigrants who spoke little English, as well as Blacks; Wells Fargo paid $175 million to settle a racism lawsuit. Even without overt discrimination, the housing crisis lead to many foreclosures, which in turn decreases the property value of those around the home, in a ripple effect that turns many Black and Latino communities into graveyards where the remaining people are stuck because they cannot sell their homes (or, if they can, at a loss). In the end, so much wealth had been plundered by banks that after the crisis, African-Americans and Latino-Americans lost an astounding amount - over half- of their wealth- while whites only lost 16%!

2. Having Our Businesses Cut Corners and Mark Up Prices to Cut Costs

Wait, what?

We set out to cut costs of labor (exploitation- see Wal-Mart here here and here and Driscoll strawberries as just two examples of corporations who do this) and cutting corners of regulations (like VW) outsourcing to third world wage slaves or hiring people under the table to work for cheap(see the U.S. trade policy NAFTA which created malquiadoras - global corporations formerly in the US but now right near the U.S.-Mexico border, on the Mexican side, where human rights abuses of workers are rampant), disposal (illegal dumping; see how European countries treated Somalia- we dumped tons of trash off their coast and thus inspired the birth of Somalian piracy, which initially was to fight off illegal European dumpers), and craftsmanship or lack thereof (making things far less than durable, cutting corners where we really need regulation, outsourcing to countries that have no regulations- again see NAFTA), overbid contract jobs (and keep what is left over for ourselves), price gouging (see here for just one example in the prescription drug market to gouge AIDS and cancer patients, not even getting into the gouging that occurred by companies during Hurricane Sandy)

3. Ensuring the Avenues to Getting Rich are Paved with Raiding:

Wait, what?

we work for Silicon Valley(which depends products made in China by factories so exploitative of workers that they installed suicide nets and punishments for workers who tried to commit suicide- see FoxConn), Wall St. (which...just see the film Inside Job), play for the NBA (Nike uses slave labor; the NBA got in trouble in 2014 for selling clothes made by wage slaves in Burma) or NCAA (which exploits its own players, mining them for millions and not paying them a penny, and in fact suing them if they try to make money off of their fame) or play soccer(soccer balls are made from slave labor) to try and get rich

4. Using Corporate and Government Turf Wars and Acquisitions as Raids:

Wait, what?

We have aggressive mergers and acquisitions (see the aggressive war for Family Dollar; google "hostile takeover"), trade warscurrency warsvulture capitalism (see Bain Capital, Mitt Romney's former company, which preyed on corporations who were falling apart), disaster capitalism (see the book of the same name; after natural disasters, the land which corporations had been gunning for but was the site of poor people's housing is now cleared for their takeover), redistricting, eminent domain, the corporations behind big corporate projects (the Keystone XL pipeline are currently trying to kick Americans off of land they want in an aggressive manner).
And then there is the old-fashioned bribe for privileged status, such as Wal-Mart's recent bribe to Mexico to locate their superstore on the national grounds of a pyramid.

5. Ensuring American and Western Europe is Still an Empire

Wait, what?


we elect leaders who install puppet governments and have Western education and Western loan-and-debt-relief institutions (such as the International Monetary Fund- the IMF) make the political process and debt relief in the 3rd world as elite so that future politicians are brainwashed to believe in, or can't avoid, 

neoliberalization (pro "free-trade") that will let U.S. corporations extract resources. See the movie Blue Gold: World Water Wars; see Coca-Cola in India; see U.S. propping up of right-wing dictatorships in Latin America and Britain doing the same in Iran; see the very recent Wikileaks about Royal Shell gasoline company infiltrating the Nigerian government; see how quickly U.S. oil contractors were in Iraq after our illegal war there; Former Prime Minister Michael Manley was elected on a non-IMF platform in 1976. He was forced to sign Jamaica's first loan agreement with the elite Western institution the International Monetary Fund in 1977 due to lack of viable alternatives-- a global pattern common throughout the Third World.

and sell them to the U.S. while simultaneously flooding the country with cheap U.S. goods to put local businesses out of business (see U.S. corn in Mexico; U.S. milk in Kenya; U.S. garments in Africa),

6. Brainwashing -

Wait, what?

We Aggressively Acquire the "Loyalty" of Consumers: We add sugar and other addictive things to our foods and drinks (and then market it to children), we use sex to ensure the limbic system (our animal brain) hijacks our prefrontal cortext (our human brain) in order to get people to buy our products all while turning women into mere bodies in the media so that a whole gender is turned into a prop just for cash, we use subtle techniques in advertising taught by neuroscientists and psychologists to influence decision making,


7. Demonizing Those Who More Baldly Raid While Overlooking the Fact Our Country Was Built by Raiding and by Hustling

Wait, what?

I wrote a blog about how America's founders, like the 7th century Bedouins, hustled. Some of it was noble- in order to support the fact they had to abandon their farms during the revolution (Abigail and John Adams ran a hustle where they overpriced goods they sold on the black market), or to support their retirement (George Washington selling drugs just for the profit motive) they hustled. Some was less noble- to sell more farmer's almanacs (Ben Franklin, the liar) (rich land speculators likeThomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson who double-dealed the Native Americans). I compared the way they are treated against the modern-day Bedouins of America in terms of scarcity - people of color in inner cities (whose unemployment rate is always double that of white people) - to highlight America's racist hypocrisy on hustling - the modern ghazu - to survive. 

8. Having our personal ghazus

Wait, what?

Binging (on food, social media, drugs/alcohol, entertainment shows) at the expense of our bodies, and Over-shopping and Hoarding at the expense of our financial or space situations, Stealing people's significant others, the list goes on

but we middle-class and upper-class really have no need to do all this (1-6 on that list), since we are all better off than people actually on the brink of starvation. Later on, we will learn that Muhammad would not go on ghazu raids, unless they were against the wealthy elite who had declared war on him and his followers. Also, Muhammad's successor would cancel the punishment for stealing during a time of famine. The ethics of the ghazu, and of the first Muslims, in regard to a response to scarcity, seems more enlightened to me than our own ghazus.