Although one cannot deny the existence of a patriarchal based religion with the emphasis of men in power, there lies provisions in Islam which give and protect women’s rights. This fact is contrary to the popular western belief that Islam the religion is to blame for the oppression and discriminatory treatment of women.
While looking at the topic from a logical perspective, it is easy to reason that the cases on the mistreatment of women in Islam can be blamed on the followers of Islam and their own misinterpretations of Sharia Law. It is logical to blame the extreme oppression of women on extremists factions that control government in the in the politically unstable nations of the Middle East. It is also logical to believe that what may be viewed as oppression to the western world may be considered morally correct in the Islamic world.
Although we see previously that the oppression of women is not a result of the religion itself and that some of this oppression is actually ethnocentrism at work, this does not negate the fact that women in the Islamic world are being discriminated from many things that men are entitled to such as basic healthcare and education. Women are still being discriminated because of a lack of proper governance and self awareness of the equal rights they have as people given to them by the Qur’an.
To promote equality and to ease discrimination of women in the Islamic world, I believe that the first step toward real equal rights would be good governance on the part of each host nation. The creation and active enforcement of Laws which support women’s rights would allow women to go unharmed as they received education, political power, property, money, etc. Although traditionalists will ultimately try to prevent this from happening, a widespread feminist movement in the Islamic world would bring a new generation of Muslim leaders who understand a need for change in these modern times.
The cultural diffusion occurring between the Muslim and Western world is opening the eyes of men and women alike in Islam. In a case study performed by Leila Ahmed in the UAE, the issue of equal education was of interest at the time. Segregation between the sexes was prevalent during the time frame and Ahmed had passed out questionnaires regarding whether people were in favor of equal education for women. The local men and women both supported equal education.
“Whatever either sex felt about segregation and about women’s pursuing professional lives within a segregated context, they did not want to see women held back intellectually or prevented from pushing the professions they wished.”
Though segregated, both men and women agreed that women should not be discriminated from having the same education as men. Coupled with an organized feminist movement, the day will come when the mindset of Muslims will transcend traditionalist thinking.
Abu-Lughod, L.. Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others. American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 104, No. 3 (Sep., 2002), pp. 783-790 Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association. Retrieved on May 11, 2010 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3567256
Ahmed, L.. The Women of Islam. Transition, No. 83 (2000), pp. 78-97
Indiana University Press on behalf of the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute
Retrieved May 11, 2010 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3137476
Bailey, R.(2005, November 29). Women in Islam: veiled oppression or stigmatised misconception? BBC. Retrieved May 11, 2010 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A6359123
Edgar, A.. Bolshevism, Patriarchy, and the Nation: The Soviet "Emancipation" of Muslim Women in Pan-Islamic Perspective. Slavic Review, Vol. 65, No. 2 (Summer, 2006), pp. 252-272. The American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies
Retrieved May 11, 2010 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4148592
Parrillo, V.(2008). Understanding Race and Ethnic Relations Third Edition. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Ray, R. & Korteweg A. C.. Women's Movements in the Third World: Identity, Mobilization, and Autonomy. Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 25, (1999), pp. 47-71
Annual Reviews. Retrieved May 11, 2010 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/223497
Friday, May 14, 2010
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Women in Islam- Is Religion to be Blamed?- Part 2
The question on whether religion is to blame for the oppression of women is one that has had many Muslim scholars defending their faith. The implementation of Sharia law is one based on interpretation of the Qur’an and its teachings relating to gender equality. One example of a skewed interpretation of the Qur’an is the supremacy of men over women according to Al Qur’an 4:34
“Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others… those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping places and beat them.”
Explicitly, this verse from the Qur’an states that men are superior to women and that men have the authority to punish their women with a beating, should they commit a wrongdoing. Implicitly, according to Muslim scholars, the reason why men are considered supreme is because they are physically superior to women and are further expected to be more responsible for the world. The usage of the word “beat” is misinterpreted as the original meaning emphasizes all other forms of reasoning before physically abusing the spouse. Future conjunctions of the Qur’an condone beatings.
The misinterpretation of the law can lead to false social construction of reality by males in retrospect to women. If wrongly interpreted in this case, gender stratification occurs where women are subjected to being dominated by men, an indicator of a Patriarchal based culture.
Islam provides rights to women and states that women have the right to education, political office, money, and the ownership of wealth and property. Although Islam itself provides for the security and rights for women economically, socially, and politically, there lies the argument that the culture and/or law in place beside Sharia Law is the reason for gender stratification and discrimination.
The Muslim faith is defended by claims that extremist regimes, such as the Taliban, are bringing attention to Islamic world with their unfair treatment of women. The Taliban in fact are not representing the true beliefs and intentions of Islam and are not following proper Sharia Law. In the examples of genital mutilation for women and rape used earlier, these are explained as examples of remote events out of the jurisdiction of the centralized government and are not true reflections of Islam.
Though Muslim Scholars and Muslims alike defend their faith through reasonable explanations on the treatment of Muslim women, one cannot ignore that, “The men who wrote the foundational texts of official Islam were living in societies and eras where men believed that God had made them superior to women and that God fully intended them to have dominion over women.”
While there are truths to the extreme segregation of women from men in Islam, westerners are often criticized for judging Islamic customs as unjust and not acceptable in terms of western standards. An example of this misunderstanding of oppression is the use of a hijab (covering scarf) and/or niqab (veil). Westerners believe that oppression is at work and the Islamic dress devalues women, when in fact the reasons deal much more with equality then oppression. This is an example of ethnocentrism because of the fact that western women do not have to cover their faces and are free to dress in whatever they please.
Due to religious and social customs, Muslim men and women cover up in order to hide the physical aspects of lust and desire. This ensures that when members of the opposite sex meet, they are allowed to talk to each other without the question of physical appearance coming to mind, allowing women and men to be treated in the same way as the Qur’an dictates.
“Protected on her own symbol of dignity (her dress), the woman can feel free to take whichever role in her society that she wishes to do without the added burden of having to constantly look beautiful…”
Categoric knowing is an important issue as the oppression of women in the Islamic world is often misconstrued as a widespread phenomenon that is based on the religious teachings of Islam. When presented with the facts as to why women are discriminated; misinterpretations of the Qur’an, misunderstandings between the western world and the Islamic world, the lack of self awareness of rights by Muslim women, and a lack of proper governance protecting women’s right, it is evident that the teachings of Islam do not devalue women as is assumed by western society.
“Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others… those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping places and beat them.”
Explicitly, this verse from the Qur’an states that men are superior to women and that men have the authority to punish their women with a beating, should they commit a wrongdoing. Implicitly, according to Muslim scholars, the reason why men are considered supreme is because they are physically superior to women and are further expected to be more responsible for the world. The usage of the word “beat” is misinterpreted as the original meaning emphasizes all other forms of reasoning before physically abusing the spouse. Future conjunctions of the Qur’an condone beatings.
The misinterpretation of the law can lead to false social construction of reality by males in retrospect to women. If wrongly interpreted in this case, gender stratification occurs where women are subjected to being dominated by men, an indicator of a Patriarchal based culture.
Islam provides rights to women and states that women have the right to education, political office, money, and the ownership of wealth and property. Although Islam itself provides for the security and rights for women economically, socially, and politically, there lies the argument that the culture and/or law in place beside Sharia Law is the reason for gender stratification and discrimination.
The Muslim faith is defended by claims that extremist regimes, such as the Taliban, are bringing attention to Islamic world with their unfair treatment of women. The Taliban in fact are not representing the true beliefs and intentions of Islam and are not following proper Sharia Law. In the examples of genital mutilation for women and rape used earlier, these are explained as examples of remote events out of the jurisdiction of the centralized government and are not true reflections of Islam.
Though Muslim Scholars and Muslims alike defend their faith through reasonable explanations on the treatment of Muslim women, one cannot ignore that, “The men who wrote the foundational texts of official Islam were living in societies and eras where men believed that God had made them superior to women and that God fully intended them to have dominion over women.”
While there are truths to the extreme segregation of women from men in Islam, westerners are often criticized for judging Islamic customs as unjust and not acceptable in terms of western standards. An example of this misunderstanding of oppression is the use of a hijab (covering scarf) and/or niqab (veil). Westerners believe that oppression is at work and the Islamic dress devalues women, when in fact the reasons deal much more with equality then oppression. This is an example of ethnocentrism because of the fact that western women do not have to cover their faces and are free to dress in whatever they please.
Due to religious and social customs, Muslim men and women cover up in order to hide the physical aspects of lust and desire. This ensures that when members of the opposite sex meet, they are allowed to talk to each other without the question of physical appearance coming to mind, allowing women and men to be treated in the same way as the Qur’an dictates.
“Protected on her own symbol of dignity (her dress), the woman can feel free to take whichever role in her society that she wishes to do without the added burden of having to constantly look beautiful…”
Categoric knowing is an important issue as the oppression of women in the Islamic world is often misconstrued as a widespread phenomenon that is based on the religious teachings of Islam. When presented with the facts as to why women are discriminated; misinterpretations of the Qur’an, misunderstandings between the western world and the Islamic world, the lack of self awareness of rights by Muslim women, and a lack of proper governance protecting women’s right, it is evident that the teachings of Islam do not devalue women as is assumed by western society.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Women in Islam- Is Religion to be Blamed?- Part 1
In the eyes of the western world, Islamic women appear as the faceless, voiceless, and helpless figures of the male dominated Muslim culture. The issue of face coverings, veils, genital mutilation, gender stratification, honor killings, forced marriages, are all examples of how cruel and extreme Islamic culture can be to women.
Islam, a religion founded on a patriarchal standpoint by the prophet Mohammed, does have its provision for male and female equality. As stated from the Al Qur’an 3: 195
"So their lord accepted their prayers: I will not suffer to be lost the work of any of you whether male or female. You precede one from the other."
While religious doctrine states equality between men and women, the Qur’an also allows for provisions which take into account a woman’s physiological make up and physiological changes. However, in these nations which are Islamic in nature and practice Sharia Law, the discrimination of women is still apparent in the current day.
Women in some countries such as Saudi Arabia are not allowed to drive, leave the country, leave the house in improper dress, or hold high ranking jobs, and/or hold government office.
Women in the UAE are not entitled to the same right to education as men are. Only a handful of women have a formal education. The issue of equal education is still hotly debated as the men who oppose the equality of women in terms of education were Arab men “who belonged fully to the oral, living culture of the region.” Men who had a traditional Islamic view towards women in society were the very ones with the oppressive attitudes.
In Pakistan are stories of Honor killings, the killing of a female by her relative on the suspicion of adultery. This can be as simple as a female being seen in the company of a male who she is not closely related with. These crimes go unnoticed in the global community because the crimes are not reported, are ignored, or if caught and sentenced, only a light punishment is given to these offenders.
Gender equality has made its way to the forefront of in the Islamic world as western influence and thought has made it a primary human rights issue in the past few decades. In 1981, the Egyptian government passed the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women. This act sought equal access to education, employment, pay, social security, and land ownership. Sadly however, although this law protects women’s rights, these laws are not being fully implemented as the restrictions in tradition, lack of government enforcement, and the lack of awareness of their rights on the part of women, contribute to the continued discrimination.
The unfair treatment of women in Islamic society can be seen in numerous examples in different Muslim countries. This leads to the question on whether the Muslim religion is to blame.
Islam, a religion founded on a patriarchal standpoint by the prophet Mohammed, does have its provision for male and female equality. As stated from the Al Qur’an 3: 195
"So their lord accepted their prayers: I will not suffer to be lost the work of any of you whether male or female. You precede one from the other."
While religious doctrine states equality between men and women, the Qur’an also allows for provisions which take into account a woman’s physiological make up and physiological changes. However, in these nations which are Islamic in nature and practice Sharia Law, the discrimination of women is still apparent in the current day.
Women in some countries such as Saudi Arabia are not allowed to drive, leave the country, leave the house in improper dress, or hold high ranking jobs, and/or hold government office.
Women in the UAE are not entitled to the same right to education as men are. Only a handful of women have a formal education. The issue of equal education is still hotly debated as the men who oppose the equality of women in terms of education were Arab men “who belonged fully to the oral, living culture of the region.” Men who had a traditional Islamic view towards women in society were the very ones with the oppressive attitudes.
In Pakistan are stories of Honor killings, the killing of a female by her relative on the suspicion of adultery. This can be as simple as a female being seen in the company of a male who she is not closely related with. These crimes go unnoticed in the global community because the crimes are not reported, are ignored, or if caught and sentenced, only a light punishment is given to these offenders.
Gender equality has made its way to the forefront of in the Islamic world as western influence and thought has made it a primary human rights issue in the past few decades. In 1981, the Egyptian government passed the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women. This act sought equal access to education, employment, pay, social security, and land ownership. Sadly however, although this law protects women’s rights, these laws are not being fully implemented as the restrictions in tradition, lack of government enforcement, and the lack of awareness of their rights on the part of women, contribute to the continued discrimination.
The unfair treatment of women in Islamic society can be seen in numerous examples in different Muslim countries. This leads to the question on whether the Muslim religion is to blame.
Monday, April 19, 2010
The Chef does everything but cook-- That's what wives are for!
The advertising industry has long been one that perpetuates ideas and feelings through images, audio, video, etc. The industry of advertising relies on persuasion techniques which may not be politically correct. Advertising has always relied on themes that pique the interest of consumers. One theme that is repeated throughout advertising history is the use of sexism in ads. As men are usually in charge of these media/advertising companies, the image of woman has been subject to ads that promote inequality of women in society. These ads usually discount women from productive members of society to objects of men who only know how to serve, cook, and look pretty. In the past few decades however, women's rights have come a long way in fighting these sexist advertisements.
One instance of sexism being perpetuated by the media is an ad for Kenwood chef kitchen mixer. The advertisement shows a man and his wife in a kitchen with the man wearing a suit as if he is going off to work. The wife is shown in a submissive posture wearing a chef’s hat. This kind of scene is not very degrading on its own, however, in large print; the ad reads “The Chef does everything but cook- that’s what wives are for!” This advertisement while meaning to sell a kitchen mixer, is devaluing women as a whole and supports the stereotype that all women can do is stay at home and cook for their husbands.
As this advertisement is trying to merely sell a mixer(intended purpose), the ad contains a message that suggests that women are cooking machines and that staying at home are all that women are good for(unintended consequence). This advertisement probably circulated in the 1960s does not take into account the active women in the workforce. This advertisement when examined however, does not appeal to women directly as the buyer of the product. The product is actually aimed at the husband, most likely because the male has more spending power in the household which would make him responsible for buying new equipment for his wife to use. This article affects both sexes as men may only see women as cleaning machines/household specialists while women may see this as their only identity to identify with and conform to the stereotype that women are only good at home and are not active contributors to society. This can be detrimental to all age groups in women as well as identification of these advertisements from young girls may create a false image which shows that all they have going for them later in life is serving their husband and taking care of the home which can be detrimental to the formation of goals and dreams for many of these young children.
I believe this advertisement was done in a time where it was considered politically correct to circulate this kind of advertisement. If this advertisement were circulated in the present time, women’s rights activists would jump on and protest such an absurd advertisement. However, this article was created where the workforce consisted primarily of men at a time where only one member of the household was needed to support the family. Although this advertisement definitely perpetuates sexism, I do not feel that it was created purposely to devalue women.
One instance of sexism being perpetuated by the media is an ad for Kenwood chef kitchen mixer. The advertisement shows a man and his wife in a kitchen with the man wearing a suit as if he is going off to work. The wife is shown in a submissive posture wearing a chef’s hat. This kind of scene is not very degrading on its own, however, in large print; the ad reads “The Chef does everything but cook- that’s what wives are for!” This advertisement while meaning to sell a kitchen mixer, is devaluing women as a whole and supports the stereotype that all women can do is stay at home and cook for their husbands.
As this advertisement is trying to merely sell a mixer(intended purpose), the ad contains a message that suggests that women are cooking machines and that staying at home are all that women are good for(unintended consequence). This advertisement probably circulated in the 1960s does not take into account the active women in the workforce. This advertisement when examined however, does not appeal to women directly as the buyer of the product. The product is actually aimed at the husband, most likely because the male has more spending power in the household which would make him responsible for buying new equipment for his wife to use. This article affects both sexes as men may only see women as cleaning machines/household specialists while women may see this as their only identity to identify with and conform to the stereotype that women are only good at home and are not active contributors to society. This can be detrimental to all age groups in women as well as identification of these advertisements from young girls may create a false image which shows that all they have going for them later in life is serving their husband and taking care of the home which can be detrimental to the formation of goals and dreams for many of these young children.
I believe this advertisement was done in a time where it was considered politically correct to circulate this kind of advertisement. If this advertisement were circulated in the present time, women’s rights activists would jump on and protest such an absurd advertisement. However, this article was created where the workforce consisted primarily of men at a time where only one member of the household was needed to support the family. Although this advertisement definitely perpetuates sexism, I do not feel that it was created purposely to devalue women.
Monday, April 5, 2010
Toys: Racism, Sexism, False Ideals.
As children, most of us have had toys that we played with while growing up. The toy industry is a large industry aimed at selling products that these kids will spend countless hours playing with. Toys will always be a part of society as children need to be occupied with objects that stimulate brain activity. While it is evident that toys do play a part in creating some kind of social construct for children in their earlier years, some of the messages that toy packages send out may hurt the self image that these children are trying to develop.
In the Blog entry titled “The Wal-Mart Barbie Scandal,” Wal-Mart was involved in a scandal where the pricing of a darker-skinned version of the Ballerina Theresa doll was less than a similar doll of white skin. Wal-Mart claimed that the lower price was due to trying to sell more inventory of the darker skinned doll. Another proposed notion was that because people of all colors tend to associate a color hierarchy where whiter is nicer, the white doll was indeed outselling the dark-skinned doll. In a move to maximize profit, Wal-Mart had no choice but to price the overstocked dark-skinned dolls at a cheaper price. The blogs goes on to mention that even though companies should follow practices to maximize profits, companies should be aware of the context in which they price their products. Even though there may not be any conscious stereotyping at work in this instance, we live in a world where actions such as this can indirectly devalue dark-skinned human beings.
While the issue of race is evident in the first blog, the blog entitled “Super Engineers vs. Fashionable Cuties” reveals an image that affirms the stereotypical image of girls and boys. The author Lisa begins by explaining that her niece received the “Three Musketeers” Barbie and Ken dolls for Christmas. What Intrigued the author was that in each box was a different caption of what the Barbie and Ken were thinking. In the Barbie “thought bubble”, it says “This riding outfit is the cutest!” In the Ken bubble it reads “I want to be an inventor!” This kind of packaging, although appearing harmless at first, can actually harm a child’s development as it creates stereotypes which children should conform to at an early age. While it does help in establishing a gender construct, these thought bubbles aim at perpetuating women to being superficial and caring about looks, while at the same time holding men to a higher regard in being an inventor.
As I have covered racial stereotypes and gender roles in the first two blogs examined, the blog entitled “The Mad Men Barbies: Slenderizing Joan” examines dolls created after characters from a show called the consumerist. In this article, the doll and actual character that is portrayed by the doll look similar in clothes, appearance, etc. However, the body shape that is shown with the actual character having a much more real body compared to the doll (slender, overly skinny) is a noticeable contrast that is easily spotted. This doll may be aimed at collectors at a staggering $75 per piece price tag, but this Barbie appears as it has been purposely slenderized to fit into the general Barbie ideal. Although it has been a known fact that pop culture icons such as Barbie display a false image of what an ideal body should be for females, these toys are destructive in nature as they create a false image of what women should actually look like when the character being portrayed in this instance has an imperfect body in real life.
http://contexts.org/socimages/2010/03/11/the-walmart-barbie-scandal/
http://contexts.org/socimages/2010/02/12/the-three-musketeers-of-fashion/
http://contexts.org/socimages/2010/03/13/the-mad-men-barbies-slenderizing-joan/
In the Blog entry titled “The Wal-Mart Barbie Scandal,” Wal-Mart was involved in a scandal where the pricing of a darker-skinned version of the Ballerina Theresa doll was less than a similar doll of white skin. Wal-Mart claimed that the lower price was due to trying to sell more inventory of the darker skinned doll. Another proposed notion was that because people of all colors tend to associate a color hierarchy where whiter is nicer, the white doll was indeed outselling the dark-skinned doll. In a move to maximize profit, Wal-Mart had no choice but to price the overstocked dark-skinned dolls at a cheaper price. The blogs goes on to mention that even though companies should follow practices to maximize profits, companies should be aware of the context in which they price their products. Even though there may not be any conscious stereotyping at work in this instance, we live in a world where actions such as this can indirectly devalue dark-skinned human beings.
While the issue of race is evident in the first blog, the blog entitled “Super Engineers vs. Fashionable Cuties” reveals an image that affirms the stereotypical image of girls and boys. The author Lisa begins by explaining that her niece received the “Three Musketeers” Barbie and Ken dolls for Christmas. What Intrigued the author was that in each box was a different caption of what the Barbie and Ken were thinking. In the Barbie “thought bubble”, it says “This riding outfit is the cutest!” In the Ken bubble it reads “I want to be an inventor!” This kind of packaging, although appearing harmless at first, can actually harm a child’s development as it creates stereotypes which children should conform to at an early age. While it does help in establishing a gender construct, these thought bubbles aim at perpetuating women to being superficial and caring about looks, while at the same time holding men to a higher regard in being an inventor.
As I have covered racial stereotypes and gender roles in the first two blogs examined, the blog entitled “The Mad Men Barbies: Slenderizing Joan” examines dolls created after characters from a show called the consumerist. In this article, the doll and actual character that is portrayed by the doll look similar in clothes, appearance, etc. However, the body shape that is shown with the actual character having a much more real body compared to the doll (slender, overly skinny) is a noticeable contrast that is easily spotted. This doll may be aimed at collectors at a staggering $75 per piece price tag, but this Barbie appears as it has been purposely slenderized to fit into the general Barbie ideal. Although it has been a known fact that pop culture icons such as Barbie display a false image of what an ideal body should be for females, these toys are destructive in nature as they create a false image of what women should actually look like when the character being portrayed in this instance has an imperfect body in real life.
http://contexts.org/socimages/2010/03/11/the-walmart-barbie-scandal/
http://contexts.org/socimages/2010/02/12/the-three-musketeers-of-fashion/
http://contexts.org/socimages/2010/03/13/the-mad-men-barbies-slenderizing-joan/
Monday, March 1, 2010
Sex Discrimination or Overreaction?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/8496532.stm
Chief Petty Officer Jacqueline Cartner, of the HMS Collingwood of the British Royal Navy, won a tribunal regarding sex discrimination. The ordeal began when Cartner was passed over for a promotion to a warrant officer. Because of her winning of the case she is expected to be awarded the equivalence of 10 years’ pay is an agreement is not properly made with the Royal Navy.
Kam Bains, Cartner’s solicitor, said that the British tribunal had found that the Royal Navy had discriminated against the sailor which violated the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975. Bains also noted that the Royal Nay’s promotion system was “a matter of concern” and that its procedures were “primitive” in a sense.
The case, held in Southampton, reviewed the decision of the Royal Navy’s promotion board back in 2008. During that promotion session, Cartner was the only female candidate considered for promotion against a number of male candidates. Cartner’s grounds for complaint stemmed from an analysis of the male candidate’s experience. She believed that she was a better candidate because she had carried out the role of warrant officer in an acting capacity since 2006, while none of the other male candidates did not.
Cartner has received numerous awards throughout her career as she was selected as the NATO Military Member of the Year in 2000 and an MBE (Member British Empire) in 2001. According to Bains, she had been promoted to each and every rank faster than every one of her competitors and regularly outperformed her male peers.
Cartner explains her feelings of this whole situation, “This has been a very long and painful road for both me and my family, and I am sad that it has had to come this far… However, I am glad that the tribunal ruling has served to vindicate my claims of sex discrimination.”
In this article I see a few things at work here: Status Positions of Functionalist Theory and Institutionalized Discrimination. In the case of status positions, when the issue at hand is the military, most people would agree that it would be males who succeed in the physical nature of war, preparation, strength, etc. When the issue of women in the military comes up, which is already a controversial issue, most people would agree that women would not be inclined to succeed as much as or more than the men who carry out the same functions. In the case of Cartner, her achievements violated the status position of women in the military because she was outperforming men who are “supposed” to do better than women and this may have created some sort of discriminatory effect with those of the promotional board.
Because of this predetermined discrimination, I see this relating to the concept of Institutional Discrimination. Basically I see this at work because although Cartner has more awards, credentials, experience than her male peers involved in the same promotional hearing, she was passed up. In the case of a military institution, I wholeheartedly believe that her concerns were genuine. The military institution is a male dominated one and I wouldn’t be suprised if that promotion board was filled with all males. Institutional Discrimination can stem from a conscious or subconscious discrimination which is bias to their own interests; in this case it was the male sex. According to the Parillo text, “[T]he dominant group will not hesitate to act discriminatorily of it thinks that this approach will effectively undercut the minority group (women in the military) as a social competitor.” I feel that some sense of bias/discrimination is rooted because of Cartner's rise to success as a female in the Royal Navy.
Chief Petty Officer Jacqueline Cartner, of the HMS Collingwood of the British Royal Navy, won a tribunal regarding sex discrimination. The ordeal began when Cartner was passed over for a promotion to a warrant officer. Because of her winning of the case she is expected to be awarded the equivalence of 10 years’ pay is an agreement is not properly made with the Royal Navy.
Kam Bains, Cartner’s solicitor, said that the British tribunal had found that the Royal Navy had discriminated against the sailor which violated the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975. Bains also noted that the Royal Nay’s promotion system was “a matter of concern” and that its procedures were “primitive” in a sense.
The case, held in Southampton, reviewed the decision of the Royal Navy’s promotion board back in 2008. During that promotion session, Cartner was the only female candidate considered for promotion against a number of male candidates. Cartner’s grounds for complaint stemmed from an analysis of the male candidate’s experience. She believed that she was a better candidate because she had carried out the role of warrant officer in an acting capacity since 2006, while none of the other male candidates did not.
Cartner has received numerous awards throughout her career as she was selected as the NATO Military Member of the Year in 2000 and an MBE (Member British Empire) in 2001. According to Bains, she had been promoted to each and every rank faster than every one of her competitors and regularly outperformed her male peers.
Cartner explains her feelings of this whole situation, “This has been a very long and painful road for both me and my family, and I am sad that it has had to come this far… However, I am glad that the tribunal ruling has served to vindicate my claims of sex discrimination.”
In this article I see a few things at work here: Status Positions of Functionalist Theory and Institutionalized Discrimination. In the case of status positions, when the issue at hand is the military, most people would agree that it would be males who succeed in the physical nature of war, preparation, strength, etc. When the issue of women in the military comes up, which is already a controversial issue, most people would agree that women would not be inclined to succeed as much as or more than the men who carry out the same functions. In the case of Cartner, her achievements violated the status position of women in the military because she was outperforming men who are “supposed” to do better than women and this may have created some sort of discriminatory effect with those of the promotional board.
Because of this predetermined discrimination, I see this relating to the concept of Institutional Discrimination. Basically I see this at work because although Cartner has more awards, credentials, experience than her male peers involved in the same promotional hearing, she was passed up. In the case of a military institution, I wholeheartedly believe that her concerns were genuine. The military institution is a male dominated one and I wouldn’t be suprised if that promotion board was filled with all males. Institutional Discrimination can stem from a conscious or subconscious discrimination which is bias to their own interests; in this case it was the male sex. According to the Parillo text, “[T]he dominant group will not hesitate to act discriminatorily of it thinks that this approach will effectively undercut the minority group (women in the military) as a social competitor.” I feel that some sense of bias/discrimination is rooted because of Cartner's rise to success as a female in the Royal Navy.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Screening for Muslims
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/01/04/tsa.measures.muslims/index.html?iref=allsearch A Muslim-American group criticized a TSA (Transportation Security Administration) plan for enhanced screening procedures for US bound passengers traveling through “state sponsors of terrorism or other countries of interest.” According to an undisclosed senior government official, these countries include Cuba, Sudan, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and Yemen. The guidelines target 13 nations which have a majority of Muslims in its population.
Ac cording to the group, The Council on American-Islamic Relations, the enhanced screening processes specifically target Muslims. The group feels that the policies “disproportionately target American Muslims who have family or spiritual ties to the Islamic world... These new guidelines, almost every American Muslim who travels to see family or friends or goes on pilgrimage to Mecca will automatically be singled out for special security checks -- that's profiling," said Nihad Awad, the council's executive director. "While singling out travelers based on religion and national origin may make some people feel safer, it only serves to alienate and stigmatize Muslims and does nothing to improve airline security." In a broader sense the group feels that the tougher measures are a result of religious and ethnic profiling.
The council is not alone. According to a statement from the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), "Singling out travelers from a few specified countries for enhanced screening is essentially a pretext for racial profiling, which is ineffective, unconstitutional and violates American values. Empirical studies of terrorists show there is no terrorist profile, and using a profile that doesn't reflect this reality will only divert resources by having government agents target innocent people.”
A spokesperson for the TSA, Kristen Lee responded to the claims, “TSA does not profile… TSA security measures are based on threat, not ethnic or religious background.”
This article presents the issue of ethnocentrism based on points of view. The TSA policy does not take into respect the view that may be seen on the other side of the issue, of the Muslim people. Although the policy is in the best interest of everyone, as it aims to be, the methodology is not sensitive to Muslims as a whole. In this situation the in-group of the general populous, who may view Muslims as the “enemy” because of occurrences in the past, may not be aware of such profiling. The out-group, the Muslims, are not being objectively evaluated, but are profiled as “terrorists” because of their ethnic backgrounds and religion.
These views are a direct effect of false consciousness and categoric knowing. Categoric knowing is based on assumptions from limited information, such as the assumption that Muslims are more prone to being terrorists than any other race, although there is not actual terrorist profile. False consciousness is also a factor in clouding the objectivity of those who have provided to the security plan. The inner prejudice toward Muslims because of previous attacks, do not form a logical basis for implementing an act that would target a specific group of people.
Ac cording to the group, The Council on American-Islamic Relations, the enhanced screening processes specifically target Muslims. The group feels that the policies “disproportionately target American Muslims who have family or spiritual ties to the Islamic world... These new guidelines, almost every American Muslim who travels to see family or friends or goes on pilgrimage to Mecca will automatically be singled out for special security checks -- that's profiling," said Nihad Awad, the council's executive director. "While singling out travelers based on religion and national origin may make some people feel safer, it only serves to alienate and stigmatize Muslims and does nothing to improve airline security." In a broader sense the group feels that the tougher measures are a result of religious and ethnic profiling.
The council is not alone. According to a statement from the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), "Singling out travelers from a few specified countries for enhanced screening is essentially a pretext for racial profiling, which is ineffective, unconstitutional and violates American values. Empirical studies of terrorists show there is no terrorist profile, and using a profile that doesn't reflect this reality will only divert resources by having government agents target innocent people.”
A spokesperson for the TSA, Kristen Lee responded to the claims, “TSA does not profile… TSA security measures are based on threat, not ethnic or religious background.”
This article presents the issue of ethnocentrism based on points of view. The TSA policy does not take into respect the view that may be seen on the other side of the issue, of the Muslim people. Although the policy is in the best interest of everyone, as it aims to be, the methodology is not sensitive to Muslims as a whole. In this situation the in-group of the general populous, who may view Muslims as the “enemy” because of occurrences in the past, may not be aware of such profiling. The out-group, the Muslims, are not being objectively evaluated, but are profiled as “terrorists” because of their ethnic backgrounds and religion.
These views are a direct effect of false consciousness and categoric knowing. Categoric knowing is based on assumptions from limited information, such as the assumption that Muslims are more prone to being terrorists than any other race, although there is not actual terrorist profile. False consciousness is also a factor in clouding the objectivity of those who have provided to the security plan. The inner prejudice toward Muslims because of previous attacks, do not form a logical basis for implementing an act that would target a specific group of people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)