Women forced to marry men who rape them

[Manoir]

The grips of the Catholic and Islamic faiths as well as cultural tradition on the choices and fates of women need a critical and informed look. In Peru and Morocco, among other places, women are forced to marry their rapists, with the incentive for the man being he's exonerated for his crime. Along with the obvious pattern for abusive marriages this practice establishes, it also places women, both before and after marriage, in the often hysterical protective custody of their male relatives and profoundly limits their autonomy and opportunities.

[Kirce]

My first reaction...

"WHAT THE FUCK?!!!?!!"

Ok, I guess it's another reason on why multiculturalism is a stupid chimera, some cultures are just incompatible with others because they're still at their "asshole" phase.

[Iniquitous]

First, let me say that in the Islamic faith a woman is the property of her father/brothers until marriage, and then once married she is the property of her husband. She is at their whim. So, it is not new news that women are in the protective custody of their male relatives or that their lives are very limited.

Should also be noted, as far as Islam is concerned, this little bit is inflammatory. A little research into the Islamic belief on rape would have cleared the air on this. Islam prohibits all expression of sexuality outside of marriage, including flirting, kissing and even hand holding. Therefore, rape of anyone of any age, nationality, or religion by anyone of any age, nationality, or religion is considered to be one of the most serious crimes, punishable, most often, by the death of the rapist. This is true no matter what the marital status of the victim and of the rapist. There is no rule in Islam requiring a rape victim to forgive the rapist, but in some jurisdictions, if the victim forgives the rapist, the rapist’s punishment might be reduced from execution to, say, flogging and incarceration.

It should also be noted that a woman who is being forced to commit an unlawful sexual activity is obliged to defend herself and should not give in, even if she kills the one who wants to do that to her. This self defense is obligatory and she is not at fault if she kills the one who wants to force her into sex.

With that said, I am sure there are those incidents where humans have ruled in such a manner as to blame the woman (this happens far too much to be remotely comfortable and is a sickening display of the mentality of the people on this planet) and force her to suffer more for the actions of the rapist. However, it is not a sanctioned belief of Islam to force a woman to marry her rapist. And while I am not familiar with the tenets of Catholicism, I dare say it is not something that is preached by the Church.

You cannot blame all the wrongs of this world on religion and you must keep in mind that religion becomes a twisted mess when imperfect humans get a hold of it.

[Shjade]

You cannot blame all the wrongs of this world on religion and you must keep in mind that religion becomes a twisted mess when imperfect humans get a hold of it.

Except humans don't get a hold of it, humans create it, which is the foundational problem with 100% of religious systems: people.

[Iniquitous]

Ahh, now see that is your belief. To those of the many different religions on this planet, it was created by the deity they follow and handed down to humans to document the tenets and pass on to others.

Going with that - the religion itself is perfect when it leaves the mouth of the deity and only becomes a tangled mess when humans begin trying to interpret and preach what the deity has said.

**Using deity in place of God/Allah/Odin/Zeus/Osiris/what have you for simplicities sake**

[Manoir]

Worth taking a look at Sharia on proving rape, too. Quite a burden...

[kylie]

     I've always found the language "her rapist" to be very unsettling.  Granted, it's not any old rapist.  But it sounds too much like "her husband" to me, to begin with.  We don't say "her thief" when someone breaks into the house.  We say the thief, etc. who stole whatever.  It's done, and what is to come of it is another matter and we don't imply that she will meet this guy again and we simply must have an ongoing and very social trial of some sort for her.  But when the body's violated, suddenly our language picks a way that implies an endless, intimate relationship between them -- and something that from the sound of it,  might naturally lead to more?  I don't like it.

... I am sure there are those incidents where humans have ruled in such a manner as to blame the woman (this happens far too much to be remotely comfortable and is a sickening display of the mentality of the people on this planet) and force her to suffer more for the actions of the rapist. However, it is not a sanctioned belief of Islam to force a woman to marry her rapist.

I don't see that this gets us around the problem of officials and adherents of various faiths, using religious affiliation as some sort of rationale or institution for (when the question does arise) going through with such arrangements.  It's not a question of which religion to have, but what to make of certain people and how they apparently often find this particular rationale/support structure around those particular religions. 

Ok, I guess it's another reason on why multiculturalism is a stupid chimera, some cultures are just incompatible with others because they're still at their "asshole" phase.

Well, I agree there are some communities whose values on particular issues, I probably would prefer not to live with.  I'd avoid this language though, because it appears to brand the entire community as backward -- as if there were some tried and true path of "development" that guarantees progress on all issues, for everyone. 

     Just for example, the Western way of progress (as seen in the US, and to a considerable extent I believe in Western Europe also) has generally transferred many of the models for sex discrimination straight into excuses for discrimination on the basis of race, gender, and orientation.  While still underpaying, and generally mocking and scrutinizing women (and other feminine types).  It's also pushed parts of the world out of pastoral and agrarian modes, only to rush them many through mass labor abuse and forced migration (industry) on to unemployment with meager quality of life and massive debt (the "service" present). 

    So I don't deny that I'd like to see some change on the forced marriage issue -- but I wouldn't take it as an excuse to swagger too much about oh how thoroughly failed "they" must be and thus how broadly superior "we" are, either.  That may or may not be what you intended, but the dismissive language you used gives me much that impression.
   

[OldSchoolGamer]

First, let me say that in the Islamic faith a woman is the property of her father/brothers until marriage, and then once married she is the property of her husband. She is at their whim. So, it is not new news that women are in the protective custody of their male relatives or that their lives are very limited.

Should also be noted, as far as Islam is concerned, this little bit is inflammatory. A little research into the Islamic belief on rape would have cleared the air on this. Islam prohibits all expression of sexuality outside of marriage, including flirting, kissing and even hand holding. Therefore, rape of anyone of any age, nationality, or religion by anyone of any age, nationality, or religion is considered to be one of the most serious crimes, punishable, most often, by the death of the rapist. This is true no matter what the marital status of the victim and of the rapist. There is no rule in Islam requiring a rape victim to forgive the rapist, but in some jurisdictions, if the victim forgives the rapist, the rapist’s punishment might be reduced from execution to, say, flogging and incarceration.

It should also be noted that a woman who is being forced to commit an unlawful sexual activity is obliged to defend herself and should not give in, even if she kills the one who wants to do that to her. This self defense is obligatory and she is not at fault if she kills the one who wants to force her into sex.

With that said, I am sure there are those incidents where humans have ruled in such a manner as to blame the woman (this happens far too much to be remotely comfortable and is a sickening display of the mentality of the people on this planet) and force her to suffer more for the actions of the rapist. However, it is not a sanctioned belief of Islam to force a woman to marry her rapist. And while I am not familiar with the tenets of Catholicism, I dare say it is not something that is preached by the Church.

You cannot blame all the wrongs of this world on religion and you must keep in mind that religion becomes a twisted mess when imperfect humans get a hold of it.

I judge religions on their outcomes when applied in the real world, not on their holy books.

If I went solely by what religions and ideologies said and promised, I'd be a communist.  Equality of wealth, no one lording it over anyone else, the fruits of our labors going to support the common weal, the State withering away, no more war, no more poverty...

Except it never actually works that way now, does it? 

Ditto with organized religion, including Islam.  These days, especially Islam.  Whatever the Koran promises or preaches, the result is violence and misogyny on a scale most of the rest of the world left behind centuries ago.  And the history of Christianity is none too pretty either...the Inquisition, the conquistadors, the witch-burnings.

And no, I'm not trying to put Christians on the spot here.  I'm not asserting all Christians, or even most or many, are evil.  What I am saying is that we need to judge outcomes and results in the real world, not just theory and preaching, when we judge religions and other ideologies.  If a rocket ship looks shiny and beautiful, but the design explodes on the launch pad, it's a failure.

[Oniya]

     I've always found the language "her rapist" to be very unsettling.  Granted, it's not any old rapist.  But it sounds too much like "her husband" to me, to begin with.  We don't say "her thief" when someone breaks into the house.  We say the thief, etc. who stole whatever.  It's done, and what is to come of it is another matter and we don't imply that she will meet this guy again and we simply must have an ongoing and very social trial of some sort for her.  But when the body's violated, suddenly our language picks a way that implies an endless, intimate relationship between them -- and something that from the sound of it,  might naturally lead to more?  I don't like it.

We do, however, say 'her assailant', 'her murderer', and for that matter, 'his assailant', and 'his murderer'.  Assault and murder are incredibly intimate in most cases - not in any sort of good way, but intimate, nonetheless.  I've heard manual strangulation described by legal analysts, medical examiners, and law enforcement as 'the most intimate of homicides'.  The 'more' that it might naturally lead to, however, isn't love - but death.

[Sabre]

The articles explain it well: the cultural stigma of being a rape victim is very high.  They aren't forced to marry their rapists, but often times feel themselves or are coerced into believing that hiding the crime through marriage is preferable for both the victim and her family whose social position is severely threatened should the truth come to light.  Many times it is the family itself that forces their daughters into these forced marriages (while negotiating with the criminal's family to force him as well) while the priests and imams present are merely the arbiters between the two families.

The grips of the Catholic and Islamic faiths as well as cultural tradition on the choices and fates of women need a critical and informed look.

When this sort of behavior is present on different continents with different religious and ethnic backgrounds, and certainly present among non-Abrahamic cultures in Africa and Asia, what needs a critical and informed look is the society itself making the assumptions and rules that promote this sort of behind-the-scenes dealing to avoid public scandal.  The religious parties are tangential to this in that, the moment they no longer agree to oversee, condone or at least ignore these injustices they are no longer considered religious authorities to their society and new, more permissive figures are sought out.  They are only being used by the real movers behind such tragedies - the tribal heads of families.

This is why Article 475 was part of a law that was not actually written by priests but secular politicians, and why in all of this controversy I still can't find the name of the actual rapist in Morocco, or his family.  It is the local prosecutors, lawyers and the family of the rapist - whom I suspect are locally influential - who coerced her into marrying and not the judge himself who can only agree to the proposal if both sides are agreed themselves (which happens outside the court).

First, let me say that in the Islamic faith a woman is the property of her father/brothers until marriage, and then once married she is the property of her husband.

Actually she is the responsibility of her father alone, even after marriage.  It's why in honor killing incidents it is her family that ends up killing her and not the husband or his family.

Worth taking a look at Sharia on proving rape, too. Quite a burden...

The article is manipulative, but so is the entire website.

The 4-witnesses-needed clause only applies to people who are accusing someone else of the crime of zina.  It does not apply to the testimonial weight of either the criminal or the victim.  The sad tragedy of rape victims being also charged with 'adultery' is not because of the above at all, but because they are usually placed in a position where they are outside the protection and oversight of her male guardians, and on that assumption alone prosecutors usually try and prove mutual guilt for the purpose of lessening their client's sentence (which would be death without it).

And again, the families get involved as always.

[Iniquitous]

I judge religions on their outcomes when applied in the real world, not on their holy books.

If I went solely by what religions and ideologies said and promised, I'd be a communist.  Equality of wealth, no one lording it over anyone else, the fruits of our labors going to support the common weal, the State withering away, no more war, no more poverty...

Except it never actually works that way now, does it? 

Ditto with organized religion, including Islam.  These days, especially Islam.  Whatever the Koran promises or preaches, the result is violence and misogyny on a scale most of the rest of the world left behind centuries ago.  And the history of Christianity is none too pretty either...the Inquisition, the conquistadors, the witch-burnings.

And no, I'm not trying to put Christians on the spot here.  I'm not asserting all Christians, or even most or many, are evil.  What I am saying is that we need to judge outcomes and results in the real world, not just theory and preaching, when we judge religions and other ideologies.  If a rocket ship looks shiny and beautiful, but the design explodes on the launch pad, it's a failure.

Again, I point out that it is not the fault of religion that it fails. It is the fault of humans. We cannot live up to the perfection that is laid out in religion. We are incapable of living up to the standards laid out in religion. What is laid out in religion is utopia - it is the perfect world, the perfect way of living our lives which we can never do.

Fact is, the ills of religion come from man. It is the fanatics that sour religion. It is those that try to force those around them to believe as they believe. It is those that read the religious words and use them as a weapon against those who are different. And every religion has it's fanatics - it's militant believers who are willing to shed blood.

[Samnell]

Again, I point out that it is not the fault of religion that it fails. It is the fault of humans. We cannot live up to the perfection that is laid out in religion. We are incapable of living up to the standards laid out in religion. What is laid out in religion is utopia - it is the perfect world, the perfect way of living our lives which we can never do.

Perfection as imagined by ancient priests vastly more ignorant than a child entering high school, for the most part. I've yet to find a religion that offered a vision anything short of horrific, and I doubt I ever shall.

[Iniquitous]

Explain what you mean by vision. Because I can tell you this, most every religion I have ever read about offers the way for humans to live that, should humans ever reach the ability to follow perfectly, would make this planet a utopia. Love your neighbor as you love yourself, do not kill, do not steal, help those around you, do not hold grudges, etc, etc. Those are not horrific visions in my view.

Now, if by visions you mean what happens if you do not follow the beliefs of that religion (aka burning in hell for all eternity) then I do have to suggest that you study more religions.

[Manoir]

Trouble with religion is as we get further and further from the inceptional revelation we run up against more and more revisionisms that, borrowing from one historian's paradigm for social evolution, tend to be driven by laziness, cowardice and greed.  If Gnosticism, with its direct experience of godhead, was true Christianity then the corporate hierarchy -- also excluding women, though Magdalene was a disciple in every imaginable way -- that came out of the Pentecost was a cynical perversion that needed only the Roman military machine of Constantine and his successors to bring on a millennium of intellectual blackout. More modernly, the British Rescue Movement of the 19th century, meant to save prostitutes from a sex trade arguably even more brutal than today's, got picked up by the Irish Catholic clergy and developed into the Magdalene Asylums, where the church enjoyed a very profitable century (up to the 1990s, in fact) enslaving women for the crimes of pregnancy, getting raped, and even flirting, in a scandal that rivals child sex abuse in everything but notoriety.

Starting with the issues of translation and going through the entire catalogue of scared, greedy and lazy human rationalizations, what we see of the more ancient religions today tends to have little to do with what its prophets hallucinated or received from on high. Islam is arguably a special case here, emanating from a single, richly documented source as it does, but the question of interpretation still injects enough uncertainty to encourage heartfelt questioning why women-as-property survives in so many -- but far from all! -- versions as such a central and oppressive tenet, if not in part for the prejudices and insecurities it serves.

[Sabre]

Religion is the reflection of the culture most times, not the other way around.  A culture will point to its religion at times to find higher justification for some practice, but it is not the engine that runs it.

What I am saying is that we need to judge outcomes and results in the real world, not just theory and preaching, when we judge religions and other ideologies.

That is why this will keep happening.  By focusing on the religion itself regardless of whether this is theoretical or practical criticism, the driving social forces behind it all will continue even further entrenched than before.

[Samnell]

Explain what you mean by vision. Because I can tell you this, most every religion I have ever read about offers the way for humans to live that, should humans ever reach the ability to follow perfectly, would make this planet a utopia. Love your neighbor as you love yourself, do not kill, do not steal, help those around you, do not hold grudges, etc, etc. Those are not horrific visions in my view.

Now, if by visions you mean what happens if you do not follow the beliefs of that religion (aka burning in hell for all eternity) then I do have to suggest that you study more religions.

What do I mean by vision? Let's take Greek polytheism as an example:

The universe is ruled by a bunch of nigh-omnipotent, sadistic maniacs. These bloodthirsty brutes demand that they receive endless streams of flattery and sacrifices from mortals or they will mete out absurdly vindictive punishment for the non-crime of being insufficiently pious. But that's not the only way to get on their bad side! Be better than them at something and they'll punish you. Be around them and you stand a fair chance of being raped. They're fine with slavery and treating women as chattel. They've rarely met a war they didn't like. They have nothing to say about science except you ought to stop it. They're so disinterested in an open, tolerant society that they couldn't raise a finger or lift an Olympian voice in objection when their faithful started killing religious dissenters. Humanity is nothing more than a plaything to them.

And that's one of the better examples. Generally speaking monotheisms are far worse.

[Kirce]

    Well, I agree there are some communities whose values on particular issues, I probably would prefer not to live with.  I'd avoid this language though, because it appears to brand the entire community as backward -- as if there were some tried and true path of "development" that guarantees progress on all issues, for everyone. 

     Just for example, the Western way of progress (as seen in the US, and to a considerable extent I believe in Western Europe also) has generally transferred many of the models for sex discrimination straight into excuses for discrimination on the basis of race, gender, and orientation.  While still underpaying, and generally mocking and scrutinizing women (and other feminine types).  It's also pushed parts of the world out of pastoral and agrarian modes, only to rush them many through mass labor abuse and forced migration (industry) on to unemployment with meager quality of life and massive debt (the "service" present). 

    So I don't deny that I'd like to see some change on the forced marriage issue -- but I wouldn't take it as an excuse to swagger too much about oh how thoroughly failed "they" must be and thus how broadly superior "we" are, either.  That may or may not be what you intended, but the dismissive language you used gives me much that impression.

Hey Kylie, I cut the quote short but I hope you don't mind ;)

I was trying to point out that right now, in the present some cultures should not be forced to mix with others because it will rise stupid tensions or repugnant scenes like the last incident in France where a "person" of Islamic background and black skin declared on camera "all your white women belong to us" before slapping and hitting a young french woman. Then again this could also be blamed to Sarzoky's own ignorance as far as immigration policies go.

I'm not saying that Islam cultures can't evolve into something better in terms of equality and freedom, but it could actually get worse, although I hope not! An example of utter stupidity in multiculturalism is the United Nations program "Alliance of civilizations" promoted by the last ex-prime minister of Spain.

[Iniquitous]

What do I mean by vision? Let's take Greek polytheism as an example:

The universe is ruled by a bunch of nigh-omnipotent, sadistic maniacs. These bloodthirsty brutes demand that they receive endless streams of flattery and sacrifices from mortals or they will mete out absurdly vindictive punishment for the non-crime of being insufficiently pious. But that's not the only way to get on their bad side! Be better than them at something and they'll punish you. Be around them and you stand a fair chance of being raped. They're fine with slavery and treating women as chattel. They've rarely met a war they didn't like. They have nothing to say about science except you ought to stop it. They're so disinterested in an open, tolerant society that they couldn't raise a finger or lift an Olympian voice in objection when their faithful started killing religious dissenters. Humanity is nothing more than a plaything to them.

And that's one of the better examples. Generally speaking monotheisms are far worse.

Ok, I am not going to argue with you on this, and you are right that monotheism is just as bad as the Greek polytheism. However, I can tell you for a fact that not every religion is like this. One simple reply here: Do not judge a whole bushel by one or two bad apples.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Perfection as imagined by ancient priests vastly more ignorant than a child entering high school, for the most part. I've yet to find a religion that offered a vision anything short of horrific, and I doubt I ever shall.

"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.”

-- Robert A. Heinlein

[kylie]

We do, however, say 'her assailant', 'her murderer', and for that matter, 'his assailant', and 'his murderer'.  Assault and murder are incredibly intimate in most cases - not in any sort of good way, but intimate, nonetheless.  I've heard manual strangulation described by legal analysts, medical examiners, and law enforcement as 'the most intimate of homicides'.  The 'more' that it might naturally lead to, however, isn't love - but death.

     Yes, I'm not denying it's intimate.  I just really don't like the way the language seems to neatly conflate with how a society also considers it primarily her problem, alone, to face/solve/explain/perhaps be unable to ever overcome.  I suppose in some ways it's useful because it could be interpreted to give the victim's testimony and opinions a "special" weight.  I'm mixed on that honestly, because victims don't necessarily always make the most effective choices.  Plus:  Elevation of a particular type of crime to a special language, can come with such myopia that multiple factors often involved in rape generally, can be rendered taboo for the community to discuss -- all "for her sake!" 

    Then in other ways...  The special possessive language is easily turned around, so that the victim is held up to more scrutiny than anyone else and has to do more work too.  Yes, it's work to share and to prosecute or to keep on living.  But using much the same possessive, the gender-trap questions fly back: "What did she do to provoke this?  What did she wear?  What is her reputation in the community and will she actually be heard as a witness? [Blah, blah.]"  So...  There's just something about the sound of the words "her rapist" that comes out wrong to me...  Just like it would be wrong to say that 'well, her rapist, her body = candidate for her husband.'  It makes the issue too local, too private, too cozy.  I feel like the possessive detaches the case from the rest of society.  Or reflects the fact that the society is in the business of doing just that.
 

[NatalieB]

Kylie,

This is an excellent point.  I think its a fluke of arabic though.  "The" in arabic is "al-" and is used in a slightly different way than in English.  One of the primary differences is that "al-" is used to indicate a class noun or a group.  So al-muktasib doesn't just mean "the rapist" as it does in English.  It also means "all rapists" and "rapists as a type of human".  Obviously in a legal code that sort of distinction is important so you need "her rapist" to identify the specific person you're talking about.

[Manoir]

Kylie, your point is well-taken, and hadn't occurred to me, though I am usually a big bug on grammar and nowhere more than where it touches on gender issues, but that one totally got away from me, so thanks!

Therefore, I've changed the header of this thread in response to your astute observation. I think it looks better, though unfortunately it doesn't change on posts made before the edit...

Along those gender lines, it's always struck me that there are certain telling vacancies in the language, like a particularly telling one based on Greek roots, of which there's a set meaning "men," "women" and "people:" andros, gynos and anthropos, respectively.

However, in words readily formed from these roots which denote dislike or aversion, there's one for hating women, "misogyny," and another for hating people in general "misanthropy" but the third element in the frame, which just as readily forms as "misandropy" or "misandry" is just not there. It's as if the male perspective's entitled to all the hating....

[NatalieB]

Misandry

[Manoir]

Right NatalieB! I do find it in the Webster's Third though not much elsewhere. Therefore I'd modify the point to how rarely it's used or seen, compared to its lexical siblings.

Thanks!

[kylie]

I was trying to point out that right now, in the present some cultures should not be forced to mix with others because it will rise stupid tensions or repugnant scenes like the last incident in France where a "person" of Islamic background and black skin declared on camera "all your white women belong to us" before slapping and hitting a young french woman. Then again this could also be blamed to Sarzoky's own ignorance as far as immigration policies go.

Wait a minute.  It helps if you say more precisely what you mean by "forced to mix."  Are you saying this is why -- what exactly, all Muslims?  Muslims from a certain country or sect? -- should be kept out of France?  Or, out of certain schools or neighborhoods in France, perhaps? 

     As for the US...  We have plenty of cases where Black men go on about how White women are "naturally" destined for them on whichever physical or moral grounds -- and we also have our share of moral panics about Black men as a generalized "threat."  We have a good few radical religious figures demanding women stay in certain boxes, or making wild claims about what they should do lifestyle-wise.  Some of these people have a considerable, vocal, occasionally violent following. 

    However, again in the US:  Apart from some de facto private, police, and bureaucratic discrimination against Blacks...  If the issue comes up to a legal test, we cannot segregate for "no excuse," or on the basis of some generalized "cultural difference."  (Although some of the excuses we do have are pretty silly.)  Considering how many of the misogynist radicals are apparently White and Christian of some stripe, I'm skeptical that we do very much to forcibly segregate them either.   As to immigration:  We can go on about terrorism or economic benefits, but we cannot block immigration on the basis of religion per se. 

    I don't know about France and Sarkozy and what rules they operate under -- which persons exactly are entitled to "Liberty" and "Equality" under the law there (can we put "Fraternity" aside for now?)...  I'm also not sure if your view amounts to a critical look at how the situation of interest to the OP happened.  (Maybe this thread needs a particular case to unify what's going on?)  But it sounds to me, more like a scattergun prescription for what to do in response.  I'm also dubious about whether it's a practical prescription: I would expect those Muslims are in France for some pressing economic or political reason. 

I'm not saying that Islam cultures can't evolve into something better in terms of equality and freedom, but it could actually get worse...

Well, thank you.  That's a bit clearer than firing curses in the general direction of any and all. 

     The US could get better or worse, too.  For instance, we have Tennessee attempting to explicitly deny orientation, gender and even any other group not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution through legislation.  Which would make discriminating against women just fine if it passes as "gender" and not "sex" discrimination, and the founding fathers never mentioned protection for disabled persons...  Let alone the question of gay or trans rights.