Bringing it all Back Home<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

by Anne Shaw

It may be true that “the issue of women’s emancipation has become a buzzword the world over” (Humanism and Women’s Rights in Nigeria, Dr. C.O. Isiramen, IHN, July 2002), and we are reading many articles about the extremes of oppression and cruelty meted out to women in Muslim countries. Be it the rape and pillage of war, or the maiming and enslaving of women in the name of religion, it is women and children who are the victims, and it is men who carry it out. (This is not, of course, to say that all men rape and pillage.) It has always been so but at last the media, including the secular press, is excited enough about it to devote print space to describing horror stories – more or less luridly depending upon the country’s usefulness and compliance with the national interest. I am not complaining about this, since the credit for the current exposure of such treatment must go to the courageous women activists and resistors of oppression, as well as women reporters and journalists who have travelled to see for themselves and exposed the conditions in Muslim countries.

However, it should not be supposed that should Muslim women gain the freedom of British women, that would be the end of the story. For, at the present rate, they would find that many British men have found more subtle ways of suppressing the troublesome women who keep trying to get in on the act: ways that do not involve cruelty, or attract attention, but are none-the-less effective in keeping women’s views off the agenda.

We in the West pride ourselves on our liberated state. Many sisters regard feminism as no longer relevant, and for clever, educated young women with qualifications and careers that enable them to be economically independent, that may well be true. Yet for most women Dr Isiramen’s description of women’s status in Nigeria could, except for the extremes of Sharia Law in the north, equally apply to them. Women who want to participate in the decision- making process and be treated as equals by men will, in many fields of activity, find themselves not only under a glass ceiling, but in a glass box.

We should not forget how recent women’s emancipation is in Western countries such as Britain. It is still within living memory that women were “given” the vote, and the last witch was hanged. Even at the beginning of the last century women were hobbled in long skirts and corsets, refused entry to many institutions of higher education, and expected to give up their jobs on marriage. Still, today, women are barred from some golf clubs, social clubs and secret societies, but more importantly suffer continued discrimination in the workplace, in pay and pensions provision, the effects of exclusion from the “old boy” networks and effective representation in government and parliament. This may be nothing in comparison to the burka, but the position of Western men compared to men in Muslim countries is not so very far ahead in some respects!

From an atheist point of view, much of the development of sexism stems from the position of inferiority assigned to women by the “great” monotheistic male-dominated religions. Their conservatism and the relegation of women, non-white and disabled people by clerics of all kinds to a subservient position alongside children has had the effect of stifling human progress. In our modern and largely secular Western society, there is still discrimination in many fields, including institutional suppression through the continuing influence of religion in the supposedly secular organizations of government, education and commerce.

So what of the Humanist Movement: is it in the vanguard of equal rights for women? I think not. No doubt there is a verbal commitment, sincerely meant, but if you look at its structures, organization, journals, membership and culture, you will find a very uneven picture. While some come out of such an exercise quite well, you will find that others, while paying lip service, show disturbing similarities with churches and other traditional institutions. You will find “the statutory woman”, the “woman on a pedestal”, journals with almost all male writers, content and appeal. And if you question, you will hear the same excuses as are always made by people blind to discrimination: “women are not interested”, “their language is too bland” and even “they do not write about things that atheists are interested in”!

The spur to this article came from reading several interesting and informative articles in the 2002 Commemorative Issue of International Humanist News. Although female contributions were in a substantial minority, nevertheless it compared favourably with others. Some atheist and humanist journals are indeed using more women writers than in the past, but they are still grossly underrepresented. It is particularly notable how often female writers only get into print on women’s issues. These journals are of course not alone in this; if you compare them with the major broadsheet newspapers you will find the same phenomenon. Be that as it may, I think we should expect better from the Humanist Movement.

For any woman to attempt to challenge the status quo on sexism always attracts indignation. Even people who would argue most strongly against prejudice, and are themselves members of minorities that are discriminated against, can be blind to this form of discrimination, deep seated as it is. The religions will only change in response to demand, their doctrines and practice are rigid, but they will, as they always have done, accommodate changes in society when they are forced to. The freethought movement, too, will eventually have to change in this respect: there can be no excuse for people who would campaign vigorously for human rights, against sectarianism, racial discrimination and homophobia to discriminate against women.

[The (female) editor of this Humanist journal would like to stress that she welcomes contributions from women Humanists – and not only on “women’s issues”.]