Trust in the Tameness of a Wolf?

Okay, enough is enough! All these years I have been an advocate of cultural relativism. Ethical parity when societal mores and folkways are accounted for. I still am a staunch defender of freedom of belief and societally derived variations from what might be seen as a Western norm, but there are times when I must step back and shake my head. Some things beggar all tenets of humane behaviour. Beggar belief, for that matter… Beggar all conceptions of canon, doctrine, creed… They are ethically and philosophical bereft!

The example -the proximate cause of  this jeremiad- is one that was reported in a BBC News article entitled The WhatsApp Suicide: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37735370 ‘A 40-year-old woman from northern India killed herself in January after a video of her being raped was circulated on WhatsApp.’ And, as if this madness itself weren’t sufficient to turn the country inside out, the article goes on to say ‘At village level, many are more bothered about women using mobile phones at all than they are about men using them to intimidate rape victims or to share videos of sexual assaults. A number of local councils in Uttar Pradesh, concerned with what they see as technology’s corrupting effect on traditional moral values, have prohibited girls from owning mobile phones.’ This follows from what seems to exist in some villages -at least in the region of northern India: ‘[…]in the patriarchal and honour-bound culture of the village, she could be blamed for “inviting” the sexual advances of a man – even if those advances were unwelcome, intimidating, or violent.’

It’s a two-edged sword, really, isn’t it? The women are able to use the phone and its network both for business and, presumably, to call for help, but the same phone can be used to shame and intimidate her. Blackmail her.

‘In August 2016, the Times of India found that hundreds – perhaps thousands – of video clips of sexual assault were being sold in shops across Uttar Pradesh every day. One shopkeeper in Agra told the newspaper, “Porn is passé. These real life crimes are the rage.” Another, according to the same report, was overheard telling customers that they might even know the girl in the “latest, hottest” video.’

But lest we delude ourselves into thinking that India is somehow unique in this regard, consider the case of a young woman in Egypt named Ghadeer: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37735368 She shared the enthusiasm of youth throughout the world –they are, after all, young and although as privy to the social constraints as their elders, not necessarily as wedded to them. She was 18 and videoed herself dancing –fully clothed, mind you, but too clearly enjoying the freedom. It ended up being shared on YouTube by a former boyfriend in an attempt to shame her in ‘a society in which women were required to cover their bodies and behave with modesty.’ But, unlike many, Ghadeer decided to fight back.

‘[…] in the years since she had sent the video, Ghadeer had also taken part in the Egyptian revolution, taken off her hijab, and started to speak out about the rights of women. Outraged that a man had attempted to publicly shame her, she took legal action. Although she succeeded in having him convicted for defamation, the video remained on YouTube – and Ghadeer found herself attacked on social media by men who sought to discredit her by posting links to it. In 2014, sick of the abuse and tired of worrying about who might see the film, Ghadeer made a brave decision: she posted the video on her own Facebook page. In an accompanying comment, she argued that it was time to stop using women’s bodies to shame and silence them. Watch the video, she said. I’m a good dancer. I have no reason to feel ashamed.’

But as the article goes on to note, ‘Most cases of this form of abuse go unreported because the same forces that make women vulnerable also ensure they remain silent.’ Just being photographed in defiance of the prevailing dress code –a hijab, for example- could be used by the unscrupulous for blackmail or intimidation.

Or another example –one of too many, unfortunately: ‘the 16-year-old victim of a gang rape in Morocco, set herself on fire in July this year, after her rapists threatened to share images of the attack online. The eight accused were trying to intimidate the girl’s family into dropping the charges against them but instead drove her to suicide, as she suffered third-degree burns and died in hospital.’

Enough examples! That anyone would disparage the ebullience of youth is in itself despicable, but to turn that same scorn on the most vulnerable of that demographic –the culturally disadvantaged status of females in many countries- smacks of almost terminal insecurity on the part of the (largely male) perpetrators. It’s still unclear to me what it is that renders them so fearful. Surely our very identity as males derives from our difference from –not inferiority to- females.  Much as ‘up’ is only so, in relation to ‘down’, there is an ‘inside’ only if an ‘outside’ exists. These are not value-laden; not better or worse –they merely mark a difference. We are mutually needful of the contrast.

And yet, the two have come to be pitted in an almost eternal battle within both myth and reality alike -the Givers of Life against the beneficiaries… As if Oedipus had turned on his mother or sided with the Sphinx rather than killing his father -all equally pointless. Meaningless.

In a way, I’m reminded of the Fool in Shakespeare’s King Lear: ‘He’s mad that trusts in the tameness of a wolf…’ –or the excuses so readily proffered by those who, in any sane world, should have none.

A question might well be asked about the state of our domestication.

 

 

Advertisements

Are We There Yet?

There are some things you just have to get right -or else. But, or else what..?  Continuing exposure, even to the most egregious injustices risks dulling the senses; eliciting not indignant shouts but shrugs, excuses not action. Accommodation.

There are benefits that accrue to adaptation, of course –if one lives next to a pulp mill, the objectionable odours soon fade into the background; if one lives in a dangerous neighbourhood, one discovers ways of staying out of danger; these are mechanisms for survival. We can grow accustomed to the most outrageous things, we can attempt to normalize the abnormal. And yet…

And yet that which is abnormal to one culture may be the norm in another. But here be dragons –as ancient cartographers used to say about unexplored territories on maps. One has to differentiate between cultural relativism –accepting that there are many ways of being in the world- and injustice or cruelty meted out in the pursuit of a majority-held social belief system. One that has perhaps been practiced by a population for uncounted generations –so long, even, that it is no longer considered aberrant. No longer noticed.

And the territory is heavily mined –to criticize it, or attempt a change, however laudable, can be seen by those affected as ill-informed at best, and intrusive at worst. Let’s face it, for some issues the dissent is over ideology. Political systems. America, for example, has a thing about spreading its own version of participatory democracy and can’t seem to understand the objections to its imposition –by force if necessary. Others, less convinced of the superiority of the American interpretation, resent the interference, attributing other more venal reasons for its meddling. And who is right? It evidently depends on where you live. Truth defines itself.

But some things do seem to transcend culture and are difficult to defend no matter what the historical cultural practices –torture, physical abuse, murder, to name but a few examples. Whether by outside example, domestic protests, or perhaps even token acquiescence to seem compliant, there is some progress in that regard. For example, I was pleased to see that ‘China has drafted its first national law against domestic violence.’ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/26/china-domestic-violence_n_6225876.html The drafted legislation ‘creates a formal definition of domestic violence for the first time and streamlines the process of obtaining restraining orders.’ There are several parts of it that could be improved of course; still, it is a start. A recognition that there was a grievous injury in the body politic. A wound that was long overdue for surgery.

The recognition of defects such as domestic abuse, long tolerated in cultural folkways, is perhaps a natural progression as a society develops. But I worry that the legal protection that is put in place may occasionally overshoot its mark and end up as oppressive as the practice it replaces. It requires thoughtful consideration and sober second thought to prevent unintended injustice. Prejudicial enquiry. Discrimination. As my daughter used to keep asking any time she sat in the car: “Are we there yet, daddy?” “Pretty soon,” was the only answer that seemed to satisfy her -if only briefly. But in this case, soon is not at all satisfying.

In the case of domestic violence –sexual, or otherwise- investigation of the alleged abuse must balance the difficulty of the aggrieved partner in coming forward with the information –the danger to her both physically and emotionally, not to mention the social and legal stigma that might ensue- with the right of the accused to be fairly adjudicated and the evidence impartially considered. I recognize that in this type of situation, it is difficult to progress from a ‘He said, she said’ situation to a balanced appraisal of whatever information is available without seeming to impune the word of either party. And I also understand that, no matter the guilty party, reputations of both, and perhaps even standing and subsequent acceptance in the community, might be at stake. Merely acknowledging the need for a remedy does not necessarily create one.

Sexual harassment falls under a similar rubric, but it is a field even more heavily mined. There seems to be an encouraging awareness of the problem nowadays; women are speaking up about it but often only when it has become intolerable. Indeed even our Canadian parliamentarians are not without blemishes in this regard: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harassment-allegations-against-2-liberal-mps-rest-with-secretive-committee-1.2825385

The issues this type of situation illustrates, are in themselves problematic however: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harassment-on-parliament-hill-6-unanswered-questions-1.2826026 There seems to be no easy solution to the fact that it is important that both sides be heard –not condemned out of hand. Allegations are uncomfortable to submit, and often frought with disciplinary actions should they fall prey to power structures. All too often the victims are too frightened of losing their jobs, or of the publicity and possibility of public ridicule to come forward. Hence the appeal of anonymity, or mechanisms for keeping the accusations one step removed from them. Avoiding potentially damaging confrontations.

But while this offers protection for the victim that is unquestionably desirable if the harassment is to be stamped out, it unfairly (perhaps) predjudices the accused. Unless we accept the concept that a person is guilty until proven innocent, then it is incumbent upon whatever authorities are charged with processing the accusation to adopt an equitable appraisal of all the evidence. Hear both sides.

No matter the society, no matter the longstanding traditions, no matter the crime or the accusations, evidence should trump. It is all too easy to form opinions and act on insufficient information, whatever the ideology involved. It is all too easy to assign blame, especially in the field of personal relations.

But I don’t know… I guess in the end, I’m reminded of Claudio in Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing:

Let every eye negotiate for itself

And trust no agent; for beauty is a witch

Against whose charms faith melteth in blood.”