Girl Power

Girls can change the world. A Sesame Street video.

Don't forget to visit our main page for "Occupy" news and more. 

Working women blamed for disenfranchising mothers

"A tiny elite of career women have highjacked government policy," Christine Odone told the Today Programme.

The Telegraph which also covers the story slants its article to say that so-called ordinary women have deserted Labour when in fact this morning, Christine Odone admitted on Today that women are "deserting" the Tories in similar numbers.

The Telegraph "reports" that "The analysis of opinion polls claims that working-class females, who want to stay at home and raise children, are ignored by the feminist “sisterhood” typified by Harriet Harman."

The London broadsheet quotes Geoff Dench, a sociologist with the Centre for Policy Studies: “Women who value home and family life above a career are becoming disenfranchised. The feminist ‘sisterhood’ has clearly failed them, and the result is that they are withdrawing their support from the mainstream parties."

Dench found that although more and more women don't think that their place is "in the home", fifty-seven percent of working-class women believe that a mother who is employed full-time is hurting her family.

Because these results are so inflammatory, one wonders what parameters were used to define "working-class women" and "career women". Pay equity is still a harsh reality of our times and many women with careers make decidedly "working class" incomes. 

Christine Odone was virulent in her characterisation of "career women", a term she interchanged freely with "middle-class women". Clearly, not all middle-class women work but that doesn't matter because it's clear hear that what Odone is trying to do is to use class to divide women. Her contention is that career women use their position to influence policy to the detriment of other women. One extraordinary claim Odone makes is that career women can afford childcare and steer political parties away from policy of affordable childcare. I have never, ever in my life read or heard a woman opposing affordable childcare no matter how impressive her bank account. Career women keep "preaching independence and total autonomy whereas most women cherish interdependency with their partners". In others words, career women don't buy our right-wing crap about conforming to a model in which men are in control of the finances and thus every family member's every life choices, so we must demonise them.

Odone goes so far as to raise the spectre of these "disenfranchised" women potentially turning to the BNP.

Most of the above is an old refrain, you'll say, but I must say I didn't expect such drivel to covered noted media outlets. It is telling they did not ignore that drivel.

[Today] [Telegraph]

Muslim women in D.C. who are refusing to follow Islamic rules, The Muslim woman’s North- American battleground, part two

“In an uprising reminiscent of the lunch-counter protests of the 1960s, women at one of Washington D.C.'s most popular mosques are copying the tactics of the civil-rights movement, and refusing to follow rules that ban them from praying with the men.” writes Asra Q. Nomani for the Daily Beast.”

“The 21st-century suffragettes are part of an emerging movement that challenges traditional interpretations of Islam -- and questions the disturbing fact that women’s rights take a back seat to civil rights in America when freedom of religion is invoked. So, today, a mosque can’t tell a woman of color she has to sit separately because of her race, but it can banish her to a corner, as most do, because of her gender. Some even ban women altogether.”

This IS Rosa Parks and the lunch counter again. As points Nomani out, why is it ok for a mosque to discriminate against a non-white woman based on her gender when it would be illegal for the mosque to discriminate against her based on her race?

The women were inspired by Black History Month and are calling their atttempt a “Stand In”. The mosque officials called the police who had to remove their shoes in order to remove the women.

Personally, I think it’s a good thing the police intervened once it was asked to do so. And maybe it was a good thing that they threatened the women with arrest. There are situations when being inside a jail cell is safer than being at home or on the streets. In this case, the women decided to avoid arrest and leave of their own free will.

“Ce n’est qu’un début continuons le combat,” as the May ’68 protesters used to say. Nomani says there has been a growing movement amongst American-Muslim women to shatter the “separate-and-unequal” status.

Nomani writes: “A survey by the Council on American Islamic Relations showed that two of three mosques in 2000 required women to pray in a separate area, up from one of two in 1994. In 2003, I challenged rules at my mosque in Morgantown, West Virginia, that women enter through a back door and pray in a secluded balcony. I argued that, in the 7th century, the prophet Muhammad didn’t put women behind partitions, and the barriers were just emblematic of sexist man-made rules. The men at my mosque put me on trial to be banished.”

She goes on to say that this return to a puritanical and dogmatic practice of Islam is on the same continuum that allows dosmetic violence and honour killings.

Nomani says women are fighting back but she cites examples which seem to represent lone voices in the American Muslim world. Salon has reported on Nomani’s story just as I am but, sadly, this story isn’t receiving anywhere near the kind of attention it should be. It seems to me that all progressive media outlets and their readers should report on this and support those lone voices so they might be incite others within the community to find the courage to speak up.

I don’t think that my logic is faulty but whenever I say what follows, nobody gets me. The problem with the separation of church and state is that by state we mean secular law and “church” is already a full set of laws. Religion may have grander goals but religion is law. Adding religious law over secular law cannot work. Not without great difficulty at least. With the rise of fundamentalism in several parts of the world, this is an issue that so-called secular states will have to address head on. 

I’m not sure the state can tell mosques to admit women. In fact, reading Nomani’s article, I’m surprised that the state can tell mosque not to discriminate based on race. Think about it, religion is in part based on the idea of discrimination. But I digress. 

I do think that the state should be allowed to articulate and exercise its secular values in its institutions. That is why I support the prohibition of religious symbols and religious wear in school. This isn’t a solution that I find rejoicing as I understand it ghettoises newcomers and fringe groups and it potentially radicalises them. If the state doesn’t nurture religious difference, then employers won’t. We know how unemployment and marginalising in England and France has created fertile ground for Al-Qaeda recruitment. In fact, England and France seem to have done more to nurture terrorism than Middle-Eastern countries. Apart from Israel of course, but for different reasons altogether.

Finally, I as said, this story is being wildly unreported. Please spread it around and retweet.

[The Daily Beast]