The media coverage and the U.S. response to the brutal attack on CBS reporter Lara Logan in Egypt last week has raised several troubling issues, particularly that sexual assault is a very common crime in this country and even more so in Egypt, but the reality is that few of those cases get the kind of attention the Logan assault has. The Poynter Institute takes a good look at how the media covers less prominent cases of sexual assault and rape in this country here:
We miss many of these stories, in part, because the people involved don’t want them told. Sometimes we miss them because we start with breaking news, says Poynter’s Kelly McBride. If you begin with an individual crime, you focus on the specifics, the victim, the circumstances and lose the wider view. If we started at another point in the timeline of sexual violence, then we could tell different stories, she says.
Data compiled by the Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics indicate that half of all married women experience violence in Egypt, usually at the hands of their husbands. A different study, cited by the 2009 Arab Human Development Report, estimated that 35 percent of married Egyptian women have been physically attacked — but the report cautions that violence against women is severely underreported in the Arab world, because “the subject is taboo’’ and women who file complaints are considered shamed.
It isn’t just the media that prefers to focus on the Logan case though. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has told Egyptian authorities that she wants the Logan case thoroughly investigated, but she took a pass on using this as an opportunity to call for an improvement in women’s human rights in Egypt. I have examined this and the tools available to us for substantively addressing those abuses in a piece that I wrote for RH Reality Check. You can read the full piece here.
Finally,writer Ursula K. Le Guin offers this very well-said analysis of how to frame things in the aftermath of the Egyptian uprising:
Old Egypt is offering us a new and great opportunity: to break free from out-dated, noxious alignments and policies in the Middle East, to speak out for freedom from tyranny, to support a people reaching for democracy, to remember what being on the right side is like.
So Mubarak is gone and certainly it is good to finally be rid of someone who has consistently abused the human rights of the citizens of Egypt. But it is not at all clear yet whether those that take his place will be better, particularly for women. That is something that we still don’t know, so it feels premature to truly celebrate.
While reports from Amnesty put great stock in the presence of women in Tahrir Square as boding well for women’s human rights going forward in Egypt and Foreign Policy in Focus gleefully talks about Egyptian “Riot Grrls” (what riot, where?), there is no real evidence at this point that indicates that violations of women’s human rights will be substantively addressed or ended by a new government. In any case, we need to have a far more nuanced analysis than simply saying that it is great that women are visible in the uprising. Here are some good beginnings to that crucial conversation:
Amidst the violence, women are standing strong. Leading on the frontlines, reporting updates on social media sites, tending to the wounded, and fighting thugs.
But,
In yet another stab to women’s rights, women have been overlooked in the opposition coalition. Despite massive female participation at the protests, all 10 individuals taking over leadership of the movement are male.
Altmuslimah talks about sexual harassment in Egypt and how it has been a factor in women’s participation in past protests and why this time has been different,
These protests have become a tipping point of Egyptian women’s civic participation for a number of reasons. Even with a quota, a paltry 1.8 percent of the seats in Egypt’s People’s Assembly are held by women. Opposition groups, who normally organized such protests in the past, claimed that this number would rise if regime change took place, but their assurances seemed spurious. Women whose needs were not reflected in the policies of these opposition groups had little reason to take the risk of joining in potentially violent protests—police usually hastened to fence in the demonstrators, and confrontations between the two would quickly degenerate into violence.
The most recent protests, however, appear to be an organic, grassroots movement, independent of any political groups; suddenly, women feel that rallying against Mubarak is not only worth the risk, but capable of producing real change.
The essay goes on to look at how the economic disenfranchisement of Egyptian men has been an important part of why previous protests have been marked by sexual harassment and is well worth reading in its entirety here.
Lesley Abdela examines how women have fared in the aftermath of other political uprisings and how UN Security Council Resolution 1325 could be an extremely useful framework and tool for women in Egypt,
Unfortunately a balance between men and women deciding Egypt’s future in concert seems unlikely. More common is the situation of boots-on-the-ground that often plays itself out in the transitional period after deadly conflict: predominantly male leaders grab or gain access to formal political and economic power and impose their agenda from the top down. This predominantly male world, with its hierarchies and ranks is inhabited by existing or former political party and religious leaders, high-ranking military officers, government ministers, diplomats, Mafia types and businessmen who succeeded under the former discredited regime. From Colombo to Kathmandu and Israel to Northern Ireland, at the formal talks and negotiations on the future of their country, women leaders in civil society, community-based organisations, NGOs, advocacy groups and women’s wings of political parties, women leaders are like a Greek chorus heard faintly, calling out an alternative script from the wings. The downstream consequences of these separate universes are far-reaching, and the inability to fully include women in transitional justice is striking. 50% of all deadly conflicts recur within 10 years.
There could be a lesson for Egypt in one of the greatest of the UN Security Council Resolutions, 1325 ‘Ensure women’s equal participation and full involvement in all efforts for the maintenance and promotion of peace and security, and the need to increase their role in decision- making with regard to conflict prevention and resolution at all levels’. We have just passed the 10th anniversary of 1325. A similar Resolution was passed in 2000 by the European Parliament in support of 1325. A recommendation accompanying the EP resolution calls for at least 40% women’s representation in all levels of decision-making in peace–building. Elements of Resolution 1325 could be extremely opportune in bringing about a positive outcome to the street revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia.
Finally, Nina Burleigh talks about why the current situation is dangerous for women and examines the U.S. position on human rights:
What no one is talking about, though, is how deeply dangerous this time is for Egyptian women…
…Whatever happens in Egypt, there’s an elephant in the room, and it’s pink. Despite the years of discussion around our “War on Terror,” we have not focused on the fact that misogyny is a fundamental pillar on which radical Islam is based…
…The issue gets very little discussion in the foreign policy community…
…The U.S. has had three female Secretaries of State in the last 15 years, yet the human rights of women remain unaddressed…
Clearly this is an ongoing conversation that must be first and foremost informed by the women of Egypt. While the situation is still fluid, it is essential that we be supportive of women human rights defenders in Egypt and insist that the international response, particularly from the U.S., be supportive of women’s human rights not just in rhetoric, but in deed.
———-
See also earlier pieces on the FPN blog, here, here and here.
Never mind that for the most part I am a huge fan, at the moment I am just the teensiest bit annoyed with Michael Moore for having this to say about the Assange rape charges,
For those of you who think it’s wrong to support Julian Assange because of the sexual assault allegations he’s being held for, all I ask is that you not be naive about how the government works when it decides to go after its prey. Please — never, ever believe the “official story.” And regardless of Assange’s guilt or innocence (see the strange nature of the allegations here), this man has the right to have bail posted and to defend himself.
Yes, I agree, the charges do seem strange, and I do support Assange’s work (we’ll get to that in a few paragraphs) and of course he should have the right to defend himself. But treating the charges dismissively because Assange’s work is for the greater good isn’t okay because men, powerful dudes included, do have a wee bit of a history of using their penises in inappropriate ways while their accusers get trashed (1), even by so-called progressives who all too often are dismissive and trivializing of the charges (2).
just because the vigor with which Assange was pursued was clearly politically motivated doesn’t mean that the accusations against Assange are totally incredible, or that it’s unjust that he will have to face them.
And Feministing’s Jessica Valentipoints to the absurdity of the way the case is being deliberately described,
The truth? There’s nothing in Swedish law about “sex by surprise” or broken condoms. (Here’s the penal code, see for yourself.) And despite reports to the contrary, Assange’s accusers have always said that this was not consensual sex.
For more thoughts on this, see Footnote 2 below.
Troubling as the dismissiveness of rape charges for the greater good line of reasoning is, Grit TV’s Laura Flanders makes this additional and very salient point that regardless of the integrity of the rape charges, since when did rape charges become such an almighty Interpol priority, not that it wouldn’t be a good idea if they did, but the answer of course is when they are politically expedient, and certainly not out of sudden concern for the welfare of the alleged victims:
let’s be clear, he should face the charges. But since when is Interpol [the investigative arm of the International Criminal Court at The Hague] so vigilant about violence against women? If women’s security is suddenly Interpol’s priority — that’s big news!Tell it to hundreds of women in US jails and immigration detention centers — who charge that they can’t get justice against accused rapists — or women in the US military (two of out three of whom allege they’ve experienced assault.) In Haiti hundreds of unprosecuted cases of rape in refugee camps could use some of Interpol’s attention…
…It seems we only care about women’s bodies when there’s a political point to be proved.
And there we get to another point of great dis-ease; it serves a lot of powerful agendas to prosecute Assange for rape, but for the overwhelming majority of rapes, that is not the case. As Meredith Taxpoints out, never mind Interpol, even the International Criminal Court which is supposed to prosecute rape cases is doing a piss poor job of it.
At the crux of it, women’s human rights are routinely and systemically ignored unless it serves the political agenda of patriarchy to shine a light on the pandemic abuse of women. We only trot out women’s rights when they are convenient. The examples are endless.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently made a surprise appearance at the TED Women conference. She told the audience that if you give women equal rights, the whole nation will be more stable and secure. Indeed. Maybe we could try that in the United States? Passing an Equal Rights Amendment, ratifying CEDAW, and insisting on equal pay would be a good place to start. Imagine if we took that approach to security instead of waging endless wars against other countries.
And what about the rights of women in Afghanistan that we are allegedly defending? As MADRE’s Diana Duartesays so succinctly,
It is not only valid but also necessary to reject the conflation of support for Afghan women’s rights with support for the war. This conflation has obstructed our view of what alternatives may exist. It has blocked us from recognizing that perpetual war clamps down on the space that women have to build solutions for their future.
And then there is the U.S. military which is being sued for access to rape records in an effort to determine the extent to which the military has addressed the appalling rates of sexual assault and lack of prosecution thereof in the ranks,
“Much of the information about the extent and cost of the (military sexual trauma) problem, along with the government’s reluctance to prosecute offenders and treat victims, is not in the public sphere,” the lawsuit states. “The public has a compelling interest in knowing this information, given the potential enormity of the problem, the emotional and financial cost that it imposes on military service members and the increasing number of women serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.”
until exposed through a series of recordings as well as an FBI report, New York City police officers had been covering up sex crimes with the full knowledge and even the direction of their superiors. In fact, it seems likely it’s still happening.
So those rapes should be covered up, but the charges against Assange are the stuff of Interpol charges? Just a bit of a double standard.
———-
I have been thinking a great deal about the juxtaposition of the issue of Assange’s exposure of government and corporate secrets while being accused of a crime that all too often is also shrouded in secrecy. In the end, the common thread is power, which so often depends on secrecy at the expense of truth, be it in the personal or political realm.
Many intelligent and thoughtful people, while acknowledging that much of what has been exposed thus far is quite troubling, are concerned that Wikileaks endangers the secrecy necessary to function in the corporate and political world. (3) That however makes the assumption that keeping those systems functioning as they are is a good idea, and that is what we need to re-examine because for the most part, if there wasn’t something offensive if not illegal about what is being kept secret, those in power would not be so concerned about keeping those secrets. And in the end, wouldn’t we be better served by those in power acting honorably in a way that would pass the test of transparency?
And so we need to ask ourselves, just what is it that the powers that be are afraid will be exposed and subsequently lost by these revelations. And the answer is one word, Patriarchy, and this is why: In the process of leaking documents, Wikileaks and Assange have gifted the power and commodity of secrecy.
In an essay by Israeli writer Erella Shadmi, Trapped By Patriarchy in the anthology Women and the Gift Economy we get an understanding of why gifting secrets that are needed to maintain power is so terrifying to patriarchal structure in both the public and private realm. While she refers to Muslim and Israeli societies, her analysis is universal to patriarchy.
Muslim tradition puts revenge and honour up on the private and public agenda of every believer. And Israeli modern culture is dominated by the Culture of the Freiher. Freiher is a vulgarism meaning “sucker.” The culture of freiher defies a person that is ready to give way, to be used, to forgive. Such a person is viewed as one that does not care for his honour or power. For example: you are a freiher if you yield to other drivers. And especially, you are a freiher if you talk with “terrorists,” if you let your wife dominate you. In a culture of the freiher you do not take responsibility for your mistakes, you do not share your ideas lest they be stolen, you are never weak lest you are exploited. So you learn to manipulate, to lie, to exploit people, to hide your feelings.
Wikileaks has dared to question the culture of freiher and the very structure of patriarchy in a way that we must defend and from which we cannot go back. Yet that very act also demands that we respect and fully address the personal charges against Assange, no matter how badly brought they have been, while at the same time not allowing them to be used as an excuse to undermine the defense and imperative of freeing ill-conceived secrets.
———-
In an effort to keep the body of this essay at a manageable size, I have pulled a lot of important material into the footnotes because it is crucial to the full understanding of the issues addressed above.
(1) In this case, this has been done in particularly frightening ways. The Washington Examiner reports,
Posting their addresses and phone numbers isn’t intended to encourage vigilantism, but to send a bigger message to women like Ardin and Wilen – if you lie about being raped, this is what will happen to you. Your anonymity will be compromised, your life will be laid bare for all to see, and your name will be destroyed. No rape shield law or journalistic ethic can protect you. You will suffer as the man whose name you vindictively dragged through the mud has suffered.
I want women to see that their choices have consequences. If enough false rape accusers have their identities and personal data exposed to the jeering Internet hordes, others will think twice before they accuse men of heinous crimes for petty and selfish reasons.
(2) A few non-negotiable facts that we should get straight from the get-go in this conversation: Rape and sexual assault are the most under-reported and prosecuted crimes in the world. Yes, a few rape charges are false, most aren’t. And yes some rapes are committed by women and some of the victims are men, but mostly it is men that commit these crimes and women who are the victims. And to be clear–the basis of these claims comes from the U.S. Department of Justice, the World Health Organization, etc.
Keith Olbermann used scare quotes around the word rape as though the charges themselves (which are that Assange held one woman down against her will, and in a separate incident raped another while she was sleeping) were silly, and everyone from Glenn Beck to Naomi Wolf rushed to belittle the accusers, along the way employing every victim-blaming, rape-denying, slut-shaming trope ever invented, from “they’re just lashing out because they got their feelings hurt” (that’s both Beck and purported feminist Wolf, paraphrased) to my personal non-favorite, popular blogger Robert Stacy McCain’s suggestion that women who consent to any kind of sex are sluts who deserve whatever happens: “You buy the ticket, you take the ride.”…
…As soon as a rape accusation makes it into the news cycle (most often because the accused is famous), it’s instantly held up against our collective subconscious idea about what Real Rape (or, as Whoopi Goldberg odiously called it, “rape-rape”) looks like. Here’s a quick primer on that ideal: The rapist is a scary stranger, with a weapon, even better if he’s a poor man of color. The victim is a young, white, conventionally pretty, sober, innocent virgin. Also, there are witnesses and/or incontrovertible physical evidence, and the victim goes running to the authorities as soon as the assault is over.But let’s face it, actual rapes almost never match up to this ideal. Most rape victims know their attacker (estimates range from 75 percent to 89 percent), most rapists use alcohol or drugs to facilitate the assault (More than 80 percent, according to researcher David Lisak), not weapons, and most of the famous men whose accusers receive media attention aren’t poor men of color. But once the accusation hits the news cycle, whatever pundit gets there first uses the non-ideal details of the alleged assault to argue that surely, we shouldn’t take this seriously, and other pundits nod their head in agreement.
It is curious that charges against Assange were brought, dropped almost immediately, and later reinstated. The fact that authorities were so quick to charge Assange based on uncorroborated testimony should raise questions about whether prosecutors are treating him differently from your run-of-the-mill alleged sex criminal. However, it’s pure rape culture apology to argue that so-called “he said/she said” cases should be automatically dismissed in favor of the alleged rapist.
We can agree that the legal response to what Assange allegedly did reeks of politically-motivated prosecution without passing judgment on the merits of the allegations against him.
(3) Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW)’s Anne L. Weismann also makes the peculiar argument that Wikileaks endangers freedom of information by not working within the system,
At first blush, WikiLeaks’ disclosure of hundreds of thousands of State Department cables seems like a win for transparency and accountability in government. After all, these documents offer a never before seen window into U.S. diplomacy. But upon closer inspection, WikiLeaks’ document dump illustrates the perils of going outside the system, and is likely to result in less transparency in the long run.
For those of us in the transparency business, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) offers a useful tool to pierce government secrecy. Designed to let the public know what its government is up to, the FOIA mandates disclosure upon request, subject to nine limited exemptions. Those exemptions represent a congressional balancing of governmental interests, such as national security and investigative needs, against the public’s need to know. For agencies that stray off course, the FOIA provides judicial review, allowing courts to view requested documents in camera to determine if they were properly withheld. While the FOIA is far from perfect, it provides the public with a useful tool for scrutinizing government actions and policies balanced by oversight and procedural safeguards.
Also worth noting, Deanna Zandt has some excellent commentary on the issue of internet rights and access,
When we face issues of free speech on the Net, we’re confronted with a severe reality in the harshest moments: we consider this here to be public space, but in reality it’s owned and operated by private companies. There is currently no set of accepted standards that say we have a set of rights online.
This is a crucial issue and with Net Neutrality in grave peril as I write this, if nothing else, we should seriously be thinking about the issue of how we access the internet and as PayPal, Amazon, Mastercard, etc. have proven, how easily that can be cut off.
Finally, I want to point to this weird example of the oft ignored sexism of the left. CommonDreams, in its ongoing coverage of Wikileaks, ran this illustration without comment, the use of “Gentlemen” in the graphic apparently was not considered remarkable. It should have been.
The improved political representation of women in Iraq is in sharp contrast to their broader disempowerment, as highlighted by the persistence of domestic violence and early marriage, according to a new report by the UN Inter-Agency Information and Analysis Unit…
…Women may hold 25 percent of seats in the Iraqi parliament, but one in five in the 15-49 age group has suffered physical violence at the hands of her husband. Anecdotal evidence alleges that “many women are being kidnapped and sold into prostitution”, and female genital mutilation is still common in the north, the report notes…
…Women’s participation in the labour force has fallen sharply since 2003. Before the invasion, 40 percent of public sector workers were women…
…The collapse of public social services has also limited access to education, health and jobs, while a high level of insecurity has pushed women out of public life and into the seclusion of their homes, and an ineffective judicial system has created an atmosphere of impunity…
…The conservative attitudes of public sector officials has been reinforced by a government that supports keeping women at home…
…“In 2006, the Iraqi Interior Ministry issued a series of notices warning women not to leave their homes alone and echoing the directives of religious leaders who urge men to prevent women family members from holding jobs,” the report noted.
“Thus, the violence carried out by militias in the streets is backed up by more respectable political leaders, who support the call for a women-free public sphere.”
Escalating poverty has pushed Iraqi families into prioritizing schooling for boys, stifling future opportunities for women.
“For every 100 boys enrolled in primary schools in Iraq, there are just under 89 girls,” the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF), said in a report released in September 2010. School enrollment figures for girls have been progressively declining, while drop-out rates have gone up in every academic year…
…Factors pushing girls out of schooling included “security risks, attitudes to girls and education, the state of the nation’s schools, what is taught and how it is taught, the skills and attitudes of teachers, family poverty,” UNICEF said…
Of the 139,000 registered Iraqi persons of concern in Syria, 28 percent fall under female-headed households, the UNHCR Protection Officer in Syria, Aseer Al-Madaien, told IRIN in an email interview.
Many do not have work permits, which compounds the difficulties female-headed households face in neighbouring countries, where they struggle to make a living, “especially paying the rent”, while still “coping with family, social and community pressure”, Al-Madaien commented.
Their vulnerability can lead to exploitation. “There is trafficking happening among the Iraqi refugees, [but] the scope and modality is not known to us,” said Al-Madaien.
“She (the TSA agent) put her full hand on my breast and said, ‘What is this?’. And I said, ‘It’s my prosthesis because I’ve had breast cancer.’ And she said, ‘Well, you’ll need to show me that’.”
Cathy was asked to show her prosthetic breast, removing it from her bra.
A T.S.A. representative says agents aren’t supposed to remove any prosthetics, but are allowed to ask to see and touch any passenger’s prosthetic.
T.S.A. says it will review this matter.
They will review the matter? To say that this is unacceptable is not putting it strongly enough. How about an unequivocal statement saying that they will quit terrorizing women by demanding to see and grope their breasts, prosthetic or not. This needs to stop and it needs to stop now.
Addenda: See here for TSA’s ambiguity about whether or not they will grope young children’s genitals. Again, predatory behavior towards children does not make us safer, severely traumatizes them and TSA should be willing to state that they will not try to pretend that they are making us safer by committing these acts that in any other context would be considered a felony.
has raised several troubling issues, particularly that sexual assault is a very common crime in this country and even more so in Egypt, but the reality is that few of those cases get the kind of attention the Logan assault has. The Poynter Institute takes a good look at how the media covers less prominent cases of sexual assault and rape in this country here:
consistently abused the human rights of the citizens of Egypt. But it is not at all clear yet whether those that take his place will be better, particularly for women. That is something that we still don’t know, so it feels premature to truly celebrate.
