A short time ago I posted an article on the stoning of a young Yazidi girl for “consorting with the enemy” and posted a link to the gruesome video footage. The article didn’t really garner much attention, which was a bit surprising to me, but so it goes. Since then, the story has spread like wildfire through the blogosphere and many have come forward with their opinions. Repulsion at the act seems unanimous but there are quite a few bloggers who seem to think that watching the video, or indeed linking to it, is somehow a bad thing. One such blogger is a friend over at the Chapati Kid so I thought I’d take her to task on what I see as a completely skewed point of view (her short intro HERE). Let’s begin.

The Chapati Kid links to THIS article by Joss Whedon, the creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel (which contrary to my beliefs are apparently well-liked shows). I should mention, since I was myself surprised to find out, that Joss Whedon is a man… somehow. In his writing on the stoning issue, Mr. Whedon somehow connects to an issue of women’s rights and their status in history. I’ll try and touch upon this too.

First and foremost, let us recognize that without the mobile phone footage, none of this would be an issue. This whole event reached prominence precisely because there was graphic footage of the stoning. So all those up in arms about honor killings and the spread oft graphic live footage (and its effect on our pysches) should shut it. You know that without the footage no one would have given a second thought to it. It seems perverse to say, but it was a very good thing the footage was available.

A lot of people claim that viewing graphic footage of disturbing events desensitizes the viewer. I can see where this is coming from. Movies these days are manifold times more violent than in the past and still the audience demands more gore, more blood. With this in mind, it would be easy to conclude that watching graphic real-life footage would desensitize the viewer to the point that seeing a girl get stoned to death wouldn’t illicit a properly repulsive response (and the ensuing need to take action). I disagree though. Real life footage and movie scenes are not the same and the viewer knows this. I truly believe that there is no way to get desensitized to the fact that a young girl was stoned to death. I could see a hundred cli[s like that and it would still draw the same response out of me, nay, an increasing one each time. The same happened when I saw the graphic footage of the beheadings from Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan some years ago, the WTC towers collapsing, etc. Indeed, in order to get people’s ass in gear I feel it is necessary to watch the videos. This way, the horror is permanently etched into your mind. Some people claim that reading about the incident alone is enough to paint a vivid picture in one’s mind. But come now, be serious. Reading about it engages the intellect and requires you to be creative in order to properly feel the emotions. By tapping one of the five senses, you are simply appealing directly to your primal self. It’s like telling a blind person what water feels like. It makes more sense to just let the person feel water for themselves (for those who read a lot, you know where this is coming from). If we were to subscribe to the “reading about it is good enough” then we wouldn’t have needed all the horrific pictures from the Vietnam War (in particular the My Lai massacre, see pics at left). It was pictures like these that stoked public perception to the point where action was taken. We live in a world that is largely fucked up these days and we should know exactly why it is so. Leave the cocoon behind, it wont be pleasant but it will open your eyes, so to speak.

As a sidenote, Whedon offers the Catherine Genovese episode as an example of our callousness. For what it’s worth, an investigation into the matter revealed that both Gansberg and Ellison (two authors who publicly berated the neighbors for ignoring the episode) were factually incorrect. None of the neighbors actually saw the rape and most only heard parts of a verbal argument … grounds to call the police? I think not. Tragic episode indeed, but hardly an example of how we are becoming callous in our humanity… to rape and sexual abuse of all things. Whedon comes across as a bit of a feminist extremist to me.

And so I believe Joss Whedon is way out of line when he suggests that this is somehow linked to the inferiority of women. Whedon is essentially saying that because men are physically dominant, we have made all the rules, and further, made them somewhat anti-women. He claims fully half of the world’s population has been victimized even unto the present day; That all the major religions are anti-women (untrue). It’s true, history will attest to the fact that women rarely have the same prominence as men (although there are notable exceptions, Cleopatra, Indira Gandhi, the Queens of England, etc.). But is that man’s fault? What of all the music that has been written in the name of women? The artwork inspired by women. Even science and engineering in which women were the driving inspiration. Was it all done solely by feminists? No. I’m sure there are numerous examples where women have been oppressed but it is not something endemic to humankind. It all comes down to the fact man and woman are inherently different and as a result we will never achieve parity. An apple will never be an orange (putting aside genetic manipulation which is a possibility in the future).

Honestly, even nature usually follows the same logic, explain that would you. This is a question of design, whether you consider it divine or scientific. The sexes are where they are because we were/are designed this way. This will likely never change. There are those today that believe they are instigating a radical change in the way women are seen by society. Bullshit, the status quo is and always will be maintained, such is the law of nature. Does this preclude women from becoming leaders, pioneers, scientists, engineers, artists, etc? No, not in the slightest. But will there be a huge paradigm shift where women run everything? No, forgive the crass statement, but they just don’t have the balls. If we were all Black Widow spiders, on the other hand, women would be the dominant sex. Eureka, it all makes sense now. Whedon was a Black Widow spider in his former life.

What happened to young Dua Khalil was abhorrent and extreme. But how did this practice start in the first place? Were women involved in deciding that people of different faiths shouldn’t mix and that the punishment be so extreme? The question that should be asked is this; “Is the general idea correct in that culture and is only the punishment extreme?” It’s like Sati. It seems beyond most western minds that a woman could willingly sacrifice herself on a funeral pyre following the death of her husband but if it was her will in her culture, who is to argue? Of course, the practice was abused (and still is sometimes) and consequently was outlawed in India some time ago. But the foundation of Sati (and similar practices in other cultures, eg. the Vikings) dictated that a man and a woman were bound inseparably but love and commitment. Love and commitment. So you see, the Dua Khalil issue is one of  punishment getting way out of hand because of mob mentality, extremism (or whatever other reason). However, the fundamental reason behind the punishment may be culturally sound.

Whedon says he’s snapped, that he’s broken something as result of all the injustice towards women in the world. To be frank, I think the man was broken to begin with. He should stick to Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

I’d be really interested to hear from women. Some of what I’ve written could be construed as extreme, backwards, sexist, ignorant or just whack. Either way, I’d like the chance to discuss.

Popularity: 29% [?]