Category Archives: Polygamy

Instead of talking about real issues such as education, rights or livelihood, we have allowed the narrative to be hijacked by the right wing, says the activist and co-founder of Bhartiya Muslim Mahila Andolan

Instead of talking about real issues such as education, rights or livelihood, we have allowed the narrative to be hijacked by the right wing, says the activist and co-founder of Bhartiya Muslim Mahila Andolan

Noorjehan Safia Niaz, co-founder of the Bhartiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA), is a prominent voice in the discourse on Muslim womens rights. Formed in 2007 and with over one lakh women as members, BMMA has actively campaigned for legal reforms and was one of the five petitioners in the triple talaq case, besides filing petitions against polygamy and nikah halala. BMMA has also been pushing for codification of Muslim personal law based on the Constitution and a feminist interpretation of the Koran. Its work has not been easy, particularly with the pushback from a section of civil society. As the hijab controversy rages, Noorjehan shares BMMAs position. Excerpts:

What is your take on the hijab controversy in Karnatakas colleges?

What is happening in Karnataka is a very right-wing Hindutva position against the [Muslim] community. They have been doing it for many years, whether it is Corona jihad or the episodes of lynching. The [Muslim] community has been pushed to the wall. How can you stop students from entering [college] premises? They have a right to educate themselves. While schools have the right to determine what their uniform should be, before enforcing a decision, why could discussions with all stakeholders not be held? Obviously, because the aim was to communalise, polarise, and push the community into a corner.

Does BMMA oppose the hijab as an assertion of identity or that hijab is essential to Islam?

Feminists have questioned the patriarchal, misogynist logic behind the veil, the ghoonghat.We cannot reduce the hijab to a matter of identity or community. Surely, there are other ways of asserting ones identity. That the hijab is essential to Islam is also a superficial, reductionist understanding of the religion. Islam is not about how much of my head is covered, the length of my sleeve, how long is my abaya. Islam is about equality, justice, wisdom, compassion, prayers, fasting; its those values that are the basis of Islam. What is missing in the current debates is the spiritual, cosmological understanding of Islam. The right wings vicious propaganda against the community is also not helping.

The problem lies in [mens] interpretation of religious texts. When we started to read the texts, we realised theres no such thing as triple talaq. On polygamy, too, theres a verse [in the Koran] that says that you can marry more than one woman. But in the same chapter, another verse says that even if its your ardent desire to treat them equally, you cant, so marry only one.

Can the hijab be seen then as a voluntary, cultural practice rather than an enforced one?

The community is diverse, and so are the practices. But in the past decade or so, I have noticed three-year-olds, five-year-olds being made to wear a hijab where is choice in that? Even with adult women, do families really give them a choice? But where is the space to discuss these myriad aspects in such a polarised atmosphere?

Since I am from the community, I can see the pitfalls of supporting practices such as hijab. I recall several instances where Ive had complete strangers young and old men, and once a younger woman walk up to me in public and question my choice of dressing. The impunity, the audacity with which your personal space can be violated!

My sister lives in Bhendi Bazaar the oldest Muslim ghetto in Mumbai and is perhaps the only one there who wears a sari. Women have come to her house and told her she shouldnt be wearing one.

Instead of talking about real issues, the narrative is getting diverted. This is not good for the [Muslim] community; its not good for the country.

Even when BMMA opposed triple talaq, you encountered pushback from various womens groups...

It is understandable that religious groups would oppose us. But secular, liberal feminist groups stood against us and openly condemned our work. Even during the triple talaq debate, they did not stand alongside Muslim womens demand for a just, humane family law. Instead, they chose to side with the conservative religious groups from the [Muslim] community. This time, too, these groups except Shabnam Hashmi have taken the position of reinforcing hijab as a matter of identity. They need to look within; to the damage they are causing the Muslim womans cause.

Pursued her Masters at Tata Institute of Social Sciences

Joined NGO YUVA to work with marginalised Muslim families in Mumbai

Began working for rehabilitation of victimsafter the 1992 Babri-related Mumbai riots

Co-founded BMMA in2007 as an alternative progressive voice for Muslim women

How can this anxiety of playing into the right wings agenda be countered

We must stand against all kinds of fundamentalism. Why cant the secular feminist groups say that though we stand with you [those fighting to be allowed to wear the hijab], we dont agree with you? Why not say I stand with Muslim girls for their right to educate themselves, but this is not what you should be fighting for?

We are clear that we dont stand with Hindu fundamentalists. But we are also keeping our distance from this narrative [that hijab is essential or part of our identity]. Feminist groups have the privilege of language and the ability to take positions. So why not now? Every situation is not black and white, there are shades of grey.

Tell us about BMMAs long-standing demand to codify Muslim personal law?

By 2037, it will be a century of depriving the Muslim community of a codified law. We have been getting bits and pieces Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939; Shah Bano [Muslim Women (Protection on Divorce Act), 1986]; and now, triple talaq. Hindus, Christians, Parsis, all religions have had their personal laws codified. But each time we raise issues, we are told that the time is not right or why are you bringing in religion, why do you need separate laws? So, the Muslim woman should not raise her issues?

We are not going to a political party, parties come and go; we are approaching institutions such as courts and the Parliament. Today, it is the BJP, but what did the Congress do [during Shah Bano]? Or, for that matter, what was the Shiv Sena doing 30 years ago? We cant forget what they did to us, and we cant let them forget either.

Have secular feminist groups severed engagement with the government? Are they not paying taxes? Were they not happy when homosexuality was decriminalised by this government? But when we talk of legal reforms for the community, we are told we are stooges of the government!

Now, the government wants to raise the age of marriage for girls from 18 to 21. If the Bill is passed, will the law apply to her [Muslim woman] or will religious laws that allow marriage at 15 years apply?

You say that issues such as hijab are diverting attention from the real concerns of Muslim women. What are those issues that we need to be talking about?

We have been consistently talking about education and livelihood issues. We have just opened a daycare centre in a district outside Mumbai; parents had to pay a small fee to use it, but they are unable to afford even that. At our training programmes, women demand jobs. During the last lockdown, we arranged scholarships for so many children.

What about global stances on the hijab, as in France, for instance? Are there lessons to be learnt from there?

Theres a need for deeper introspection. In a multicultural society with people of diverse faiths, theres always a need for give and take, adaptations, and accommodation. But even as we condemn the right-wing and ultra-secular approach of the French government, what are we doing to ourselves, our religion? Why did we not take up certain issues in the community, allowing instead the right wing to hijack the agenda?

The writer is a Fulbright alumna and Director, Alliance for Knowledge Advancement and Dialog.

Continued here:

I can see the pitfalls of supporting practices such as hijab: Noorjehan Safia Niaz - The Hindu

Tyler Measom has long felt a calling to tell the lore of Utah. In March of 2021, he brought one of the states most famous stories to millions of televisions across the world with Murder Among the Mormons.

The three-part Netflix docuseries tells the story of Mark Hofmanna prolific forger of documents pertaining to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saintsand the series of bombings he committed in the 1980s.

Murder Among the Mormons brought the story to a mainstream audience and made a star out of the late Shannon Flynn, who was interviewed for the series that became one of Netflixs most-watched titles of the spring.

Both Measom and co-director Jared Hesswriter and director of Napoleon Dynamitegrew up in Utah. They began researching the story in 2017 and pitched it to anyone that would listen. They even sent it to Netflix a previous time before the streaming conglomerate accepted their second pitch.

Just researching and pitching the story was a big pushbut once Netflix accepted the project, the work only intensified. It was a labor of love trying to convince people that this is an amazing story, and Im insanely proud of it, Measom says. Not just because of the content, but because it was done. Because I made it. We made this project. We brought it into the world where it wasnt before.

Measom believes he made a documentary series that was very even-handed and fair, one that doesnt take unnecessary shots at the Church or its members and didnt turn the story into more than what it was. I think a lot of people were afraid that this massive Netflix project would throw punches at peoples beloved faithor conversely, I think people wanted the project to pull the rug out from the Churchs upstanding nature, if you willbut it didnt. I just wasnt part of the story, Measom says. We told the story in three hours, mainly focusing on Mark

Hofmann forged many documents in the 1980s, several of them pertaining to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In 2002, the Deseret News reported that the Church had discovered 446 Hofmann forgeries in its collections. Then, in October of 1985, three bombings set the situation in motion.

Two of the bombings killed Steve Christensen and Kathy Sheets, for which Hofmann pleaded guilty to two second-degree murder charges in 1987. The other bombing injured Hofmann himself.

While Measom believes the story told was a fair one, he felt that a series titled Murder Among the Mormonswhere the main storyline is the forgery of Church documentswas always going to be a controversial topic of conversation.

The Church, the setting in Utahthey were the ballpark that allowed Mark to thrive, Measom says. Peoples love of history, peoples love of artifacts, and Ill say itthe culpability and gullibility of individuals in the state of Utah allowed him to thrive. It was the short right porch of Yankee Stadium for a left-handed hitter if you will, and Mark took advantage of that.

Measom believes there will always be people trying to pull the wool over your eyes. There are snake-oil salesmen. There are used car salesmen with an agenda. There are preachers, there are business leaders, there are people trying to take advantage of you, he says. Its pretty easy to get the facts, and most people dontmany people dont. That may be a forger, that may be a spoon bender, it may be a cult leader. And I just think its up to us as individuals to just dig a little bit deeper, and much of my work reflects on that.

Measoms work has largely been influenced by his upbringing in Utah, with the states culture shaping his career in a meaningful way. He started in the film industry at age 17, starting as a gripone of the people who set up equipmentfor movies that would come to Utah for filming, such as the 1996 movie A Life Less Ordinary.

I remember being on that set and just being in awe, Measom says of the movie directed by Danny Boyle. As a kid, I fell in love with movies. I remember seeing Raiders of the Lost Ark and just being wowed by movies and falling in love with them. I thought, This is what I want to do.

Measom attended Utah Valley University, where he studied in the schools small media department. As his website states, He soon grew weary of carrying C-stands and instead desired to have others carry them for him. Measom began to write and direct, starting with a short film and moving on to commercials and industrials.

In 2010, Measom directed Sons of Perdition, a documentary about teenagers who left Warren Jeffs Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The film won a spot in Oprah Winfreys Documentary Club and has a 6.9/10 rating on IMDb. Among Measoms other titles are An Honest Liar (2014) and Biography: I Want My MTV (2019). He has also recently begun hosting a documentary-style podcast on iHeart with Liz lacuzzi titled Was I In a Cult?

For Biography: I Want My MTV, Measom interviewed stars like Billy Idol and Pat Benatar. Getting someone to open up about leaving a religious cult (such as Jeffs) or an ex-husbands forgery and murder plots (as with Hofmanns ex-wife, Dorie) is a completely different story.

I think its just being able to listen to somebody. People are not used to being listened to, Measom says. Its very rare for someone to tell their story without being interrupted by the other person telling their story. And so for me, to interview someone, I interviewed Shannon [Flynn] for Murder Among the Mormons over two successive days. I interviewed Brent Metcalfe for two days. And I think what showed in Murder Among the Mormons.

Nobody really talks about the vulnerability of these older men, Measom says, who were of a generation that didnt show feelings and didnt cry or open up. For them to really show their emotions on screen was beautiful and amazing, and to get them to that place was difficult for them, but also difficult for me, Measom says. Its really hard to sit and listen to someone tell their tale for eight-plus hours. Its exhausting and difficult, but worth it, because I respect their stories.

From movies to podcasts, Measom loves the stories hes been able to tell. His father grew up on a farm, and that same cant-sit-still work ethic rubbed off on Measom. He loves to watch baseball, exercise, and spend time with his family, and he loves his work. Hes constantly thinking about his next project. I love what I do. I love it. Im good at it. It makes me happy. It makes me fulfilled, Measom says.

He also loves Utah, though it sounds like a complicated relationship. Measom views Salt Lake City as if it were a teenager still growing up, fighting with its parents, and finding its legs and voice. Im a progressive individual, Measom says. I believe in progressive ideals. I believe in rights for all individuals. To see that being gerrymandered in this last census and this last redistricting really hurt because Salt Lake is a progressive city. It really is.

Not only is Salt Lake City progressive, but its also forward-thinking, artistic, creative, and interesting, Measom says. And the fact of the matter is, mom and dad cant keep that from happening, he continues. Salt Lake is going to get bigger, and its going to get more progressive, and its going to get more liberal. Its wonderful to see that, and I wish people would just accept that for what it is and wouldnt be so afraid of it.

Measom has left the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and moved away from Utah for the time being, but the states culture, beliefs, religion, and history have still stuck with him.

Most of my work deals with belief and religionit deals with why people believe things, Measom says. Theres a need for me to tell my fiction, my lore, my history, and the myths around my ancestorsa long line of Mormon families. Polygamy is even in my genes, for goodness sake! Like an Irish man who has to tell great tales of the legends of his past, I feel that same way about the legends of the lore of Utah and Mormonism and the great stories around it.

Read more here:

Netflix's Murder Among the Mormons was inspired by Utah's oddities - Utah Business - Utah Business

Women of Afghanistan, Credit: Eric Draper The White House (archived)

When nations fail to protect their women, not allowing them to take on a full role in the everyday life of society, the nations themselves fail, comparing examples from Afghanistan under the Taliban and then after the US invasion in 2001, when womens rights were restored.

Afghanistan faces a human rights crisis of enormous proportions as a generation of females grew up in relative safety and freedom, attending schools all the way through university and taking on roles in the Parliament and in the business world of Afghanistan.

Now, all that has been thrown into question as females are separated from males in universities and some militants openly call for females to remain at home at all times.

No one in Afghanistan under the age of 20 remembers the horrors of the first Taliban rule of the country, when women were hounded in public by the religious police, sometimes being beaten with switches for supposed infractions of the religious law that was the law of the country at that time.

But after the US and its allies invaded the country in 2001, destroying the al Qaeda bases where the Sept. 11th terrorist attacks were planned, the Taliban was out of power, retreating to the edges of society.

Women were once again free to attend school, walk down the street without male relatives accompanying them, and work where they wished.

As The Economist states, primary-school enrollment of Afghan girls rose from 0% to above 80%. Infant mortality fell by half. Forced marriage was made illegal no one seriously doubts that Afghan women and girls have made great gains in the past 20 years, or that those gains are now in jeopardy.

On the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in September, human rights activist Malala Yousafzai spoke to the press about the dangers facing women in Afghanistan and elsewhere when they are marginalized, and what happens when their insights and skills are removed from a society.

During a panel discussion, Yousafzai said she is concerned that the Taliban will indeed once again interfere with educational and employment opportunities for Afghan women.

We cannot make compromises on the protection of womens rights and the protection of human dignity, Yousafzai said.

According to a report from Reuters, the Pakistani woman, who was once shot in the head by Ehsanullah Ehsan, the former Pakistan Taliban spokesman, in 2012 for her campaign to educate girls,added that world leaders must stick by their commitments to ensure protection for Afghan womens rights as the dark days of old loom once again in the country.

A former assistant secretary-general for Legal Affairs at the UN, Larry D Johnson, told interviewers from the international affairs forum Just Security which organizational criteria could theoretically be used to block the Taliban from representing Afghanistan.

The groups leaders have repeatedly stated that they have changed their position regarding the role women play in society, although last week, the Taliban opened a high school for boys only.

The US State Department assured the world after the Talibans lightning-fast retaking of the country in August that the US is committed to advancing gender equality through implementation of its foreign policy.

But this may be so much lip service in a country that hangs the bodies of criminals from cranes as a way to terrorize its own people. As has been seen any number of times in the past, societies that oppress women and treat them as chattel are far more likely to be violent and unstable, leading many times to a failed state.

Where females are so devalued that they are selectively aborted or intentionally neglected, there are at the very least unnatural sex ratios, dooming millions of young men to a single life without progeny.

Frustrated young men are more likely to commit violent crimes or join groups that are rebelling against the system.

Polygamy always creates surplus of single young men since multiple wives for the wealthiest, most powerful men makes for a number of disgruntled bachelors for those at the bottom of the pecking order.

Kashmir, the state in northern India, may be a case in point. With one of the most unnaturally skewed sex ratios in the country, it may only stand to reason that it is perennially unsettled politically. Nor should it come as a surprise that of all of the 20 most turbulent countries on the Index of Fragile States compiled by the Fund for Peace, polygamy is the norm.

In the nation of Guinea, for example, where a coup recently took place, 42% of married women are in polygamous unions.

Of course, the ultimate example of this would be China, where its police state ensures that any possible disruption of the status quo is tamped down instantly.

Outside western-style democracies, the male kinship group is still the basic unit of many societies, leading to clan-based feuding and infighting. Such states frequently become corrupt, which enables widespread support for jihadists who promise to clean out the stables.

Such societies often still practice the concept of bride price with the grooms family paying exorbitant sums to the brides family. This not only objectifies women as chattel but also crucially gives an incentive for early marriage.

As still practiced in approximately 50% of the countries of the world, this leads to one fifth of the young women on the globe being married before adulthood. One twentieth of them are wed before the age of 15. Such teenage brides are much more likely to drop out of school, less likely to be able to be able to deal with abusive husbands and less likely to raise well-educated off spring.

Researchers from Texas A & M and Brigham Young universities recently created an index of countries in which such problematic situations existed for females. In addition to the previously mentioned practices, other situations in these nations included unequal property rights for men and women, the relocating of females to the cities of their new inlaws, and and legal indulgence of violence against women, for example, when rapists escape punishment by marrying their victims.

The index showed overwhelmingly that all these practices were correlative with violent instability in a country.

Those who would claim to be nation builders would do well to look at the ingrained practices and attitudes within societies historically, especially in places like Afghanistan. Looking at the data broadly, it also begs the question of what nations such as China, Saudi Arabia and India might be like if there was not a lid on societal instability.

The nation of Liberia learned to its benefit that females are more likely to try to find common ground; the ceasefire that reigns there has clearly worked.

They will only be able to function at this high level of society if they are allowed to stay in school and to move up through the ranks in business and academia.

This is no time to be naive, The Economist notes, with much of the gains made by foreign governments and NGOs about to be annulled by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Policymakers who do not address the needs and inherent rights of half the worlds population cannot hope to understand the world, or help its nations to overcome their many challenges.

Go here to see the original:

When Women's Rights Ignored Around the World, Nations Fail - Greek Reporter

IN AUGUST 2021, Ebrahim Raisi became the eighth president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and he has continued the main thrust of the regimes policies of the last few years, including negotiating with the US in order to lift Washingtons sanctions.

The economic system of the Islamic Republic is capitalism with an Islamic ideology.

It is dependent mainly on the export of oil and import of goods, creating fertile ground for rentiers, embezzlers and profiteers connected to the regime to thrive.

The political system is a deeply reactionary Islamist dictatorship, with the Supreme Leader at its helm, supported by the propaganda, intelligence and security machine of the state and all their offshoots, trampling on the rights and life of the citizens at will.

Over the years the neoliberal agenda of restructuring caused heavy damage to the domestic production and industry, leading to massive increase in imports.

This situation benefits the Mafia-like networks connected to the regime and their families. The privatisations and rentier economy of the Islamic regime has meant that economic and political power now resides with parasitic financial-commercial and bureaucratic-military strata that are connected to the regime.

The capitalist and exploitative characteristic of the regime is compounded with its misogynistic character and policies towards women.

Women have been assigned second-class citizens, subservient to men in employment, inheritance, right to custody of their children, polygamy, temporary marriages, enforced hijab, segregation of sexes in education and healthcare, among others, and among the most destructive of all, the legalisation of child marriage.

Violence against women is another catastrophic consequence of the regimes policies.

The workers and the ordinary people of Iran have seen little share of the $800 billion oil income, which is supposed to have entered the countrys coffers.

In fact, for the past decade, the peoples income has dropped, and their purchasing power has shrunk by around 30 per cent. Unemployment is rife, university graduates cannot find employment, and workers are moved increasingly to temporary contracts. Many workers are owed around three months or more unpaid wages.

As the severe US sanctions intensified the economic problems facing people, the level of poverty and misery that the people are experiencing is extreme. The regimes only concern is its own survival, and it deploys lethal force to ensure it.

The condition of women workers, nurses, journalists, lawyers, students, heads of household, and those in other walks of life are worsened further because their status as second-class citizens, has been effectively enshrined in law by the Islamic Republic.

Patriarchal and discriminatory laws explicitly permit discrimination and violence against women. These positions are often perpetuated by women appointed to the position of deputy minister for womens affairs, for example Tajvidis recent refusal to denounce child marriage, explaining that she herself was married at 16.

According to the latest report of the Statistics Centre of Iran published by ISNA news organisation, in the spring of 2021 alone, 9,753 child marriages were registered an increase of about 32 per cent on 1999.

The catastrophe of child marriage and violence against women are part and parcel of the current conditions. The murder of teenage girls who have been child brides, by the men they were married off to or men of their family, are covered in the media daily, and display ever increasing brutality and brazenness.

The Law on the Protection of the Family and the Youthfulness of the Population, was recently passed by the parliament, following the Supreme Leaders pronouncements, despite its impact on increasing the population and in the context of the dire economic situation.

Experts believe that the law which gives marriage incentives, including loans to families, will increase the catastrophic problem of child marriage and other forced marriages.

Women have organised and protested, and on many occasions have led the protests for democratic rights and freedoms, and for human rights, some examples are the effective Million Signatures Campaign demanding womens rights, the chain of impromptu protests by women against the hijab following Vida Movaheds protest removing her scarf and holding it aloft on a stick in the main Tehran thoroughfare, protests of prisoners mothers asking for information on the fate of their loved ones following the mass executions of 1988, and on those imprisoned or killed following numerous subsequent onslaughts, for example after the protests of 2009-10, 2017-18, 2019-20.

Women have been integral to each of these protests. Many women activists have been killed or are in prisons across Iran, among them human rights lawyer and womens rights activist, Nasrin Sotoodeh and Narges Mohammadi.

As the popular and working-class movement has recalibrated and refocused its actions, womens actions have changed form.

They are part of the protests of teachers, pensioners, environmental activists where womens activism is visible.

The co-ordinated struggle of the countrys teachers and retirees in recent months is a shining example of the nationwide protest movement in our country against injustice and oppression of the Islamic Republic.

It is the duty of all the progressive and freedom-loving forces of the country to support this struggle. In late January 2022, teachers and workers in the education sector staged a two-day sit-in across the country, in response to the call of the Co-ordinating Council of Iranian Teachers Trade Associations and refused to attend classes or online teaching sessions.

Education workers have been protesting against the states proposed pay structure and other demands that have not been met for years.

The campaign, which has had great success, has clearly defined objectives, including the release of imprisoned teachers and their return to work.

Mass protests by Isfahans farmers, in late 2021, against shortage of water were swelled by thousands of the citys residents, before spreading to Shahr-e-Kord, the capital of the neighbouring Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari province, as well as other suburban towns in the province.

Only months earlier, people across the south-western province of Khuzestan protested against the lack of water in a land of naturally flowing rivers.

At least 214 people, including 13 children, were arrested, and 19 were hospitalised after the protesters were beaten and shot at. Many prisoners were transferred to other locations such as Isfahan prison, Khomeini Shahr prison and Isfahan womens penitentiary.

The workers strikes, including in car-maker Iran Khodro, mines and manufacturing industries, along with popular protests across the country, reflect the deepening crisis of a deeply unpopular and reactionary regime that is a major barrier to progress and the establishing of freedom, democracy and social justice in Iran.

International Womens Day this year will be commemorated by women in Iran, in small gatherings, recounting the struggle of their courageous predecessors in Iran and worldwide, for equality, peace, social justice and a life free from exploitation.

Here is the original post:

The current state of the women's movement in Iran - Morning Star Online

On March 8, 1987, Thomas Sankara, the revolutionary leader of Burkina Faso, spoke to a rally of thousands of women in the capital of Ouagadougou to mark International Womens Day. Calling for the collective transformation of society, Sankara placed the fight for gender equality at the heart of his socialist project in the former French colony.

As we mark the 113th celebration of International Womens Day, Sankaras revolutionary words are a bold reminder of the days socialist foundations.

Sankara came to power in 1983 during a period of immense upheaval. A revolution had been unfolding across the African continent as country after country threw off the shackles of colonialism. But despite the liberatory aspirations of anticolonial movements, women too often remained cast aside.

Sankara saw womens emancipation as not only an ethical necessity but as intrinsic to the success of Burkina Fasos revolution. [Women] have been excluded from the joyful procession, he told the crowd at his March 8, 1987, address:

And yet the authenticity and the future of our revolution depends on women. Nothing definitive or lasting can be accomplished in our country as long as a crucial part of ourselves is kept in this condition of subjugation a condition imposed . . . by various systems of exploitation.

He called on male comrades to treat womens liberation with the same urgency as other matters, insisting that patriarchy kept both men and women trapped in a system of oppression, violence, and domination: The revolution and womens liberation go together. We do not talk of womens emancipation as an act of charity or out of a surge of human compassion. It is a basic necessity for the revolution to triumph.

Sankaras International Womens Day speech addressed not only the concerns of Burkinabe women but the systematic oppression of women globally. Inequality can be done away with only by establishing a new society, he declared, where men and women will enjoy equal rights, resulting from an upheaval in the means of production and in all social relations. Thus, the status of women will improve only with the elimination of the system that exploits them.

On an issue often marred by empty rhetoric and hollow gestures, Sankaras stance on gender equality was forceful and uncompromising. He denounced patriarchy as a male-imposed system of exploitation reinforced by socialization into sexist norms: This inequality was produced by our own minds and intelligence in order to develop a concrete form of domination and exploitation. He called for a radical transformation of the hearts and minds of men across the globe in solidarity with women.

One of the many social realms in need of transformation, Sankara argued, was the home. He critiqued the gendered distribution of domestic labor and the role of the traditional family in reproducing gender inequality.

The patriarchal family made its appearance, founded on the sole and personal property of the father, who had become head of the family. Within this family the woman was oppressed. He continued: She is not paid for her domestic duties. Referred to as housewife, [meaning she has] no job . . . [women are] putting in hundreds of thousands of hours for an appalling level of production.

Sankara bridged the gap between public and private spheres, revealing the ways gender inequality revealed itself in both and how Burkinabe society might root it out.

Sankara put his strident words into practice.

In 1984, he proclaimed September 22 the Day of Solidarity with Housewives, urging men to partake in housework, prepare meals, and look after their children. In an interview with Cameroonian historian Mongo Beti, Sankara explained: We are fighting for the equality of men and women, not of a mechanical, mathematical equality, but by making women equal to men before the law and especially before wage labor. He called for a collective recognition of womens work as work, echoing the demands of the feminist International Wages for Housework Campaign that had come to prominence in the Global North in the previous decade.

Even more impressive were Sankaras health, education, and family development policies, which brought huge strides toward gender equality in the West African country. In his first year in power, Sankara established the Ministry of Family Development and the Womens Union of Burkina to give the women of our country a framework and sound tools for waging a successful fight. He restricted polygamy and dowries and prohibited forced marriage and female genital mutilation. He granted new rights to women, including introducing inheritance for widows and orphans.

One of Sankaras earliest initiatives was ensuring that the Ministry of Education made womens access to education a reality. Girls have proven they are the equals of boys at school, if not simply better, he said:

But above all they have the right to education in order to learn and know to be free. In future literacy campaigns, the rate of participation by women must be raised to correspond with their numerical weight in the population.

By highlighting illiteracy as an impediment to womens freedom, Sankara spoke to the parents of girls across the country in a way that many male leaders had failed to do.

Sankaras government sought to unleash the immense potential of Burkinabe women in fostering national development. The women of Burkina are present everywhere the country is being built. They are part of the projects the Sourou [valley irrigation project], reforestation, the vaccination bridges, the clean town operations.

During his presidency, he appointed women to government positions and amended the constitution, making it mandatory for presidents to have at least five women ministers in cabinet at all times. For Sankara, Conceiving a development project without the participation of women is like using four fingers when you have ten. Political representation of women was not a tokenist strategy but rather a fundamental step toward the emancipation of Burkinabe women.

At its core, Sankaras socialist program was about liberation from exploitation, whether the debt bondage forced on the Global South or the domination of women by men.

Sankara was unparalleled among postcolonial African leaders in his commitment to womens emancipation. He recognized women in their full humanity and as agents of transformative change.

A week before his assassination in a France-backed coup in October 1987, Sankara declared, Whilst revolutionaries as individuals can be murdered, you cannot kill ideas. His words ring out today as we continue the struggle for a radical transformation of society, one that uplifts and empowers us all.

See original here:

The Revolutionary Feminism of Thomas Sankara - Jacobin magazine

[Chukhu Indu]

ITANAGAR, 7 Mar: As the entire nation will be celebrating International Womens Day (IWD) 2022 on 8 March with the theme Gender equality for a sustainable tomorrow, this reporter went to the vegetable market in Doimukh, where most of the sheds are run by women.

When this reporter asked the women there whether they knew something about the celebration, they said that they were not aware of it. Most of the women, who solely sell vegetables, without any other extra source of income, said that they have never celebrated IWD. They said that they got to know about the event a day or two ago, without knowing the date of the event.

One of the women, who also works as an anganwadi worker besides selling vegetables, said that she would be attending the event as she has been asked by her department.

A woman from Lower Subansiri district, who pitched her shop a couple of months ago, recalled attending an IWD celebration organised by a church.

Another woman, Tako Bui, who is in her early 50s and has been selling local vegetables for about six years, said that she would be joining the celebration, describing it as a meeting. She said that she has been invited by a gram sabha member after she joined an SHG.

The women run their vegetable trade from 7 am to 8 pm. While most of the women said that their husbands and kids support them, one woman, who pitched her shop a couple of months ago, said she can no longer work in the field due to her illness and had to take up this job as her husband has married another woman over her. Had it not been for polygamy, she would have been in her village and not migrated to the town. After her husband married another woman, she had no option but to stay separately.

She had studied up to Class 6 before being married off. She yearns for a different future for her kids.

Another woman, who has been selling vegetables in the market for about 15 years, said she is the bread winner of her family. With the little money she earns selling vegetables, she looks after her three children the eldest of them is in college now along with her husband.

She said that, during the absence of her husband, who does not have a regular job, is unskilled, and was in a private company earlier, her responsibility towards the children and the household becomes double. She has to look after the management of the entire house, but her husband supports her whenever he is in town by looking after the kids, she said.

The woman in her early 50s said: Being a tribal family, we have a lot of relatives who stay with us. Although my husband has a government job, it is not sufficient to meet the monthly expenses.

My husband had eight siblings. We looked after all of them, except two. We also had our own children to look after, she said.

Cleaning the vegetables and bundling them up for sale, she said that this business is one of the most difficult ones. No time to rest and eat food. Those who are lazy will never be able to do this, she said.

Thrice a week, groups of these women vendors go to the market in Harmutty, Assam, leaving home at 3 am, to buy vegetables wholesale.

All of these women young, middle-aged, and old have their own stories to tell, but sadly, as the world celebrates International Womens Day, these women will have to carry on with their chores and will have no time to spare to celebrate the day.

As a woman who has been abandoned by her husband said, If I attend the celebration, my shop will see no business, and income is hard to come by.

Go here to see the original:

It's business as usual for some women on IWD - The Arunachal Times

Sister Wives star, Christine Brown reveals that polygamy turned out to be something different from expected. After over 25 years with Kody, Christine decided to leave her plural marriage with Kody Brown.

In the preview for the upcoming Jan 16 episode of Sister Wives, Janelle Brown and Robyn Brown discuss how the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has affected the family.

Janelle admitted that she has been wondering if she still chooses the polygamist lifestyle. She said, Do I still choose plural marriage? Yeah, I still choose it. But Ive had to have that conscious decision with myself.

Janelle admitted to the cameras, My children are almost grown, and theres not a huge necessity anymore to stay. It was a wonderful way to raise children. She admitted, With Kody and I, our relationship is pretty strained. It would be really easy. Its easy to walk away.

Meri said, I havent really ever thought about, Well because Mariah is grown and out of the house, now should I leave the family.' Robyn says, I think Ive been shocked at how weve handled the pandemic. Its made me think, Why would we choose to do it how weve done this?'

However, Christine had something very different to say about what she thinks about plural marriage. She said, What I hoped polygamy to be when I was younger ended up being something very different from what I actually have lived.

Despite her marriage with Kody crumbling and her faith in plural marriage fading, she tried to be positive for the holiday season. Christine said, The thing is were heading into Christmas, and I need to be present and grateful for the family that I have. She says, I am who I am today because of polygamy because I lived it.

On Nov 2, 2021, Christine confirmed that split with Kody through a statement via Instagram. The Instagram post reads: After more than 25 years together, Kody and I have grown apart, and I have made the difficult decision to leave.

TheSister Wivesstar continues, We will continue to be a strong presence in each others lives as we parent our beautiful children and support our wonderful family.

Christines statement ends, At this time, we ask for your grace and kindness as we navigate through this state within our family. With love, Christine Brown.

In the next few episodes of Sister Wives, Christines marriage to Kody will be in the spotlight. Fans will be able to see the reasoning behind her choice to leave her plural marriage after nearly 28 years. Sister Wives airs Sundays on TLC and discovery+.

RELATED: Sister Wives: How Many Children Does Meri Brown Have?

Continue reading here:

Sister Wives: Christine Brown Says Polygamy Turned Out ...

The House of Dlamini is the royal house of the Kingdom of Eswatini. Mswati III, as king and Ngwenyama of Eswatini, is the current head of the house of Dlamini. Swazi kings up to the present day are referred to as Ingwenyama and they rule together with the Queen Mother who is called Indlovukati.[2] The Swazi kings, like other Nguni nations, practice polygamy and thus have many wives and children.[3]

The Dlamini dynasty traces itself back to a chief Dlamini I (also known as Matalatala), who is said to have migrated with the Swazi people from East Africa through Tanzania and Mozambique.[4] Ngwane III, however, is often considered to be the first King of modern Eswatini, who ruled from 1745 to 1780.[5] In the early years of the Dlamini dynasty, the people and the country in which they resided was called Ngwane, after Ngwane III.[6]

In the early 19th century, the Dlamini centre of power shifted to the central part of Eswatini, known as Ezulwini valley. This occurred during the rule of Sobhuza I. In the south of the country (present day Shiselweni), tensions between the Ngwane and the Ndwandwe led to armed conflict. To escape this conflict, Sobhuza moved his royal capital to Zombodze. In this process, he conquered many of the earlier inhabitants of the country, thereby incorporating them under his rule. Later on, Sobhuza was able to strategically avoid conflict with the powerful Zulu kingdom which was now ruling in the south of the Pongola River. The Dlamini dynasty grew in strength and ruled over a large country encompassing the whole of present Eswatini during this time.[citation needed]

The royal family includes the king, the queen mother, the king's wives (emakhosikati), the king's children, as well as the king's siblings, the king's half-siblings and their families.[citation needed] Due to the practice of polygamy, the number of people who can be counted as members of the royal family is relatively large. For example, King Mswati III is thought to have over 200 brothers and sisters.[7]

Members of the royal family, including the king himself, have courted both internal and international controversy. The king and his household have been criticized for their lavish spending in a country with high poverty rates. Reports have claimed that the king's large number of spouses and children "take up a huge chunk of the [national] budget"[8] and that "the royal family seems to live in its own world that is totally unaffected by the country's struggles".[9]

The king's siblings include Mantfombi Dlamini, the Queen of the Zulus of South Africa, while one of his in-laws is Princess Zenani Mandela-Dlamini, a member of the Mandela chieftaincy family of Mvezo, South Africa.

Several members of the royal family have been educated abroad: King Mswati III spent several years at Sherborne School, in Dorset, England, and his eldest daughter Inkhosatana Sikhanyiso Dlamini has studied at St Edmund's College, Ware, in Hertfordshire, and Biola University, in California, United States.[10]

The current official residence of the royal family is the Ludzindzini Palace in Lobamba; other royal palaces exist for the queen consorts. He has received criticism for his "lavish" spending habits.[11]

Follow this link:

House of Dlamini - Wikipedia

Sister Wives star Kody Brown may have multiple wives, but that definitely doesnt mean hes in love with all of them. But now, fans are actually curious whether or not hes genuinely in love with any of them.

These days, having plural wives seems to be more about the religion than love in the Brown household. On a Reddit thread, many Sister Wives fans started debating whether or not there could be romantic love in polygamist families.

The Reddit thread is titled, Do polygamists not marry for love? and brings up some very important points.

Kody said he never loved Meri, was not in love with Christine when they got married, and is not in love with Janelle & never really had a romantic relationship with her. Robyn is the only wife hes ever been in love with and he no longer advocates polygamy, the original poster says.

So do most polygamists just hire (marry) sister wives to perform specific duties within the family and thats all they are brought in for? Is a successful, functional polygamist family meant to be structured more like a business than an actual family where love isnt really in the equation?

Many of the comments seem to echo the OPs thoughts, but others brought up interesting points as well.

I think there is some history rewriting on Kodys part, especially about Meri, said someone else. Keep in mind that Meri was his first wife, so there likely was some level of romantic relationship there. Even if Kody says otherwise.

Agreed I am reading the book right now and he said that he was taken with Meri and couldnt get her off his mind, etc., someone else chimed in. It feels like once he met Robyn, he decided he never really had a good relationship with the other wives

Do you agree with their points? Let us know what you think in the comments.

We already know that Christine left the family. Will any of Kody Browns other wives follow suit?

We dont know much right now, but there are always circling rumors online. Meanwhile, Meri Brown is happily engaging in some much-needed self-care routines. She even sent herself flowers on Valentines Day.

At the end of the day, only Kody Brown knows if theres any real love in his polygamist family. Be sure to keep following us online for the latest Sister Wives news. Well keep you filled in as soon as we have more information on the family.

Nikole Behrens is a 2017 graduate of Ball State University where she finished with a degree in creative writing and a minor in Japanese. Today she is a professional writer for various companies and really enjoys contributing to TV Shows Ace.

More here:

Kody Brown's Family: Is There Any Love In Polygamy? - TV Shows Ace

The Shakers, who reached the peak of their popularity in America between 1820 and 1860, loathed the institutions of marriage and family for the sinful natural affections that accompanied them. Getty Images

Disconsolate after his beloveds marriage to another man in 1837, a young seminarian named John Humphrey Noyes declared in a bitter, anti-love poem to his ex:

I will not give you back your heart,

Ive wooed and fairly won it,

And sooner with my life Ill part,

You may depend upon it.

Not content with mere verse, Noyes would go on to turn his emotional anguish into a theological critique of the institution of monogamous marriage itself (or as he once called it, Egotism for Two). Condemning monogamy as simple and replacing it with a more heavenly, polyamorous version that he called complex marriage, in 1848 he founded a religious sect based on his teachings: the Oneida Community in upstate New York. There, people would be stripped as much as possible of their worldly I-spirit and have it replaced with the godlier we-spirit of genuine Christian fellowship. Only with this kind of radical reorientation, Noyes held, could believers experience community, family and marriage in the way that God had intended them.

For individuals feeling down about a lack of romantic fulfillment or a recent break-up this Valentines Day, Noyes story serves as a reminder that those unlucky in love are hardly alone eitheramong their contemporaries in 2022 or throughout human history. Three 19th-century American sectsthe Oneida Pantogamists, the Shaker celibates and the Mormon polygamistswaged wars against the so-called selfishness of monogamous marriage. All viewed romantic exclusivity as sinful, a hindrance to creating a more universal love for a community of fellow believers.

Monogamy, of course, won out. Experiments like Noyes commune now seem distant, strange and historically specific. Yet there is something familiar and universal in them.

We all search for meaning in the universe, and we all long for human intimacyto know our place in the bigger picture and to share that story with someone. These dual human drives are as old as the human species. Take the Book of Genesis, for example. Before God created Eve, Adam knew his cosmic significance and walked with his creator in Edenyet was still lonely and bummed out.

Noyes could relate. The next thing that a man wants after he has found the salvation of his soul, he wrote, is to find his Eve and his Paradise. When his first love renounced their shared faith and then announced her engagement to another man, his universe came crashing down around him.

So he picked up the pieces and created a new one, without that sinful institution that had caused him so much pain: monogamy. Rather than becoming some kind of perpetual, quasi-religious orgy, the Oneida Community was highly controlled. Prospective sexual partners had to arrange their liaisonsor fellowships as they called themthrough the ministrations of a third party, sleep separately after the fellowshipping had concluded, and strive not to have the same partner too often in order to prevent the relationship from becoming exclusive. As Noyes knew from experience, the desire for exclusivity is one of the most powerful emotions that romanticized and sexualized human love can engender. Such passion could only bring spiritual ruin.

The Shakers, who were founded in mid-18th century England and reached the peak of their popularity in America between 1820 and 1860, similarly loathed the institutions of marriage and family for the sinful natural affections that accompanied them. Shaker villages were to be believers new families, complete with spiritual mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers all living together in harmony, worshipping the Lord, working hard for their bread and waging a communal war against the flesh by abstaining from sex.

Over the Shakers, too, loves pain hovered. Mother Ann Lee, the groups founder, had tragic and traumatic experiences in childbirth, losing all four of her newbornsa fact to which later commentators point as the psychological source of her hatred of all sex.

The story of Steven Sutton, a new convert living in the Shaker village at Canterbury, New Hampshire, in the 1780s, illustrates just how painful this struggle against exclusive love could be. His wife was an amiable woman, and I loved her, he wrote. But after joining the community, now I must hate her The leaders said, She was my god. Separating the family proved to be too much for her, and when she was buried, Sutton continued, I was ordered to cover the earth over her coffin, to show that I had no natural affections; this I did, when at the same time, I felt as though I should pitch into the grave with her.

For Mormon polygamists, the message was largely the same, even if the remedy was assuredly not, with religious leaders especially targeting women in their crusade against selfishness. I am sure that, through the practice of this principle of plural marriage, Elder George Q. Cannon wrote, we shall have a purer community, a community more experienced, less selfish and with a higher knowledge of human nature than any other on the face of the earth.

The words of Helen Mar Kimball Whitney, plural widow of Joseph Smith and later apologist for Mormon polygamy, indicate that she had internalized this logic. Plural marriage will exalt the human family, she wrote in an 1882 letter, and in the place of selfishness, patience and charity will find place in [plural wives] hearts, driving therefrom all feelings of strife and discord.

As with the Shakers and Oneidans, selfishness was the real enemy of the Mormon polygamistsan impediment to personal godliness and communal unity that could only be slain (for the plural wives) through the sacrifice of their exclusive claim to their husbands. These sacrifices were often truly painful for the adherents of all three sects, which is why leaders needed mechanisms of control to enforce the communities practices whenever individual discipline wavered. Although faithful, the believers struggled profoundly to extirpate the special love they had for othersa love they were told was selfish and sinful.

Why did Mormons, Shakers, and Oneidans all target even the exclusive romantic love found in the time tested, biblically sanctioned and socially accepted institution of monogamous marriage?

For starters, perhaps that institution was not so biblically bulletproof as its defenders might have imagined. All three groups used the same verses from the Bible to attack it. The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage, Jesus proclaims in Luke 20:34-35, but those worthy to obtain the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage. Both the Shakers and the Oneidans referred to this straightforward proof text often in defending their decision to abolish monogamy.

For polygamous Mormon Saints, who place the institution of marriage and the obligation of reproduction through sex at the center of their story of eternity, it was a little different. They believed that more wives would mean more children for the paterfamilias both on earth and in the afterlife. Mormons countered those selfish, complaining plural wives who wanted to be their husbands one and only with a heightened commitment to religious duty.

What also bound these three sects together was the time and place in which they rose, institutionalized and fell, relatively simultaneously. In the 1830s, the federal government was weak, the American frontier seemingly endless, and the opportunities for sectarian start-ups equally boundless. By the 1880s, however, the federal government was strong and getting stronger, the frontier was rapidly disappearing, and the majority of Americans were increasingly intolerant of sexual and marital arrangements they believed corroded the nations morality.

By 1881, the Oneida Community had dissolved, the Shakers were losing members at an alarming rate (and, obviously, failing to spawn new ones), and many Mormons were actively choosing monogamy over polygamy. The external environment that had once nurtured religious sexual experimentation had indeed turned from tolerable to toxic, and the internal desire of many sectarians to reject monogamy for something else had waned as well. Having originally condemned romantic exclusivity as sinful, over time more of them nevertheless wanted it.

We still grab at the romantic ring today, and it is understandable that we do, especially coming out of the shared solitary confinement we have all been through for the past two years. Adam wanted an Eve. John Humphrey Noyes wanted his lost beloved. My wife wants me to up my romantic game. If this Valentines Day you, too, are feeling particularly fired up by romantic disappointment, you can always take a page from Noyes, and write a poem about it. Noyes verse continues:

You say your heart is still your own,

But words will never prove it.

What God and you and I have done

Will stand; the world cant move it.

Or maybe try launching an entirely new religio-sexual community, complete with a cosmology, hierarchy, institutions and disciplinary apparatus. And buy my new book, Sex and Sects. It will show you how.

Stewart Davenport is an associate professor of American history at Pepperdine University, specializing in the period from 17501890. His second book, Sex and Sects: The Story of Mormon Polygamy, Shaker Celibacy, and Oneida Complex Marriage (UVA Press, 2022), is due out in March.

Recommended Videos

Read the rest here:

The Sects That Rejected Sex in 19th-Century America - Smithsonian