Posts

, ,

It may be time for marriage to end

I recently participated in an interactive session organised by a nongovernmental organisation for community members. The participants were a diverse group of people, including single, married, and divorced people, people in their early twenties to people in their sixties, and people of many different sexualities. They sat together, listening to a presentation on the domestic violence law in their country, then moved into small groups to talk about their experiences of domestic violence.

Every participant had experienced domestic violence or knew someone who had. The types of violence varied. We heard the story of someone who experienced economic violence, deprived of their basic needs. We heard the story of someone who experienced sexual violence perpetrated by their parents. We heard the story of domestic violence that moved into public space. People were asked to not only share their experiences, but whether or not they reported, why or why not, and the outcomes. One of the stories was of a man who tried to report domestic violence at the police station and was turned away. The police officer told him it was not domestic violence because he “you’re a man.” One of the stories was about a gay man who called the police when he was physically abused by his partner. A police officer went to the house, but upon realising it was a gay couple, told them it was not domestic violence because “you’re a man,” and laughed at them. The person who called was upset by this, but not deterred, so he told the officer, “It is domestic violence. He is my partner and we live together.” The police officer still did not offer any assistance and left the residence.

No one was surprised by the responses of the police in these stories involving men. It is well known that there is a limited understanding of domestic violence. People, including police, often find it hard to accept that men can be victims of violence. In addition to that, from the stories, we see that police officers also fail to understand that domestic violence does not only occur between one man and one woman, and that domestic relationships are not always between one man and one woman. They do not understand or accept that relationships and households take many different forms, and all people are entitled to security of person and equal protection of the law.

The stories of the man who experienced violence sparked discussion about gender. What is it, and how does it impact the way we treat one another? We talked about the way the inadequate response to gender-based violence against women has helped to create this environment in which we struggle to address domestic violence and intimate partner violence against men. This, of course, goes back to gender ideology and the gender norms developed and reinforced by society. We are taught that men and boys are to be tough, and women and girls are to be soft. We are taught that men and boys are to be in charge, and women and girls are to follow instructions. We are taught that men and boys are to have limited emotions and emotional reactions, and that anger — especially anger that is loud and on display — is more appropriate than sadness or grief, and women and girls can have more emotions and emotional reactions, but are not entitled to anger.

Almost everyone at the session shared a story. Everyone expressed, in some way, that they experienced both sadness and anger. Some of them described feelings of grief and betrayal. They talked about what they knew would be expected of them. To stay. To leave. To cover it up. To suffer, both for people who were supposed to stay or supposed to leave. To overcome. To forget. To make peace. To bury their feelings.

There was a strong reaction from a religious leader participating in the session. The person spoke passionately about the pain that women go through when they are physically and sexually abused — physical and emotional pain. It was said that many continue to search for ways to make things better and reduce the harm caused to them. Eventually, many of them resign themselves to the situations — violent households that can no longer be considered homes. They go through the motions of their daily lives, from work to childcare to community events to church functions, and deny themselves the human response to pain. They have no support from the people around them, and are hyper-focused on saving their marriages, not themselves, because they can see no way out and think they may as well have the dignity of appearing to be in a happy marriage and home. It is a double-life, it takes more than double the effort, and it is a kind of death that they experience, over and over again. They die so that the marriage, and the perception of it, can live.

It may be time for marriage to end. Time for marriage to cease to exist. It continues to be seen, in some circles and cultures, as a goal and a necessary step in life, rather than an option that has a specific set of benefits that are, in many ways, outweighed by the negative aspects. No one is selling marriage very well right now — not the government, and certainly not the (anti-rights) church. Marriage is, according to them, an automatic reduction or complete erasure of rights. Married woman? Can’t pass on your citizenship to your child unless your husband is a Bahamian or you give birth in The Bahamas, because your citizenship is weaker due to your marriage. Oh, don’t forget that these sick individuals think you give up the right to make decisions about your own body when you get married, and the person you marry has more control over it than you do. You become a sex object and you have no legal right to withhold consent, and according to the anti-rights misleaders’ interpretation of The Bible, you are required to submit without thought and regardless of feelings.

Lyall Bethel said he would “reject any law that would weaponize sex in a marriage.” Well, sex is already weaponised. That is, unless we acknowledge that there is no sex without consent, so what people are doing, legally, when they force their spouses to have “sex” is rape. Rapists and rape apologists are weaponizing widespread misinterpretation of biblical text to rob women of their bodily autonomy when they get married.

He asked, “The cries, the statements being made, what more do you want?”

We want men — especially rapists and rape apologists — to either shut up or support the rights of women to make decisions about their own bodies and to be full human beings with access to all of our human rights, whether or not we are married. That would be an acceptable start.

We want religious misleaders to disabuse themselves of the notion that their deranged interpretation of a text they have chosen to follow and use to mislead others is an acceptable basis upon which to govern this secular State.

We want men and the misleaders they follow to stop raping people, and to stop encouraging others to rape.

We want them to be more disturbed by the death of a woman, the rape of a woman, the lost humanity of a woman than they are by the fact that women are human beings with bodily autonomy and men do not and cannot own them, married or not.

He said, “We already have something in place.”

What is in place is an exclusion. It is a law that says it is legal for a man to rape his wife. Section 15 applies only in cases where the two people are divorced or legally separated. That he considered this to be sufficient makes it clear that he denies married women their humanity.

He said, “It is feared that the social ills in our country will increase dramatically, namely less marriages, which in turn leads to destruction of the nuclear family, which was designed by God almighty for the flourishing of society.”

Rape is a social ill. Violence against women is a social ill. Misuse of scripture to support the abuse of women is particularly sick.

I look forward to less marriages. I look forward to people being able to freely leave relationships that are not happy or healthy, and that no longer work for them. I look forward to the complete rejection of the institution that the anti-rights Christians think they own when it is regulated by the State. I look forward to the complete destruction of the fantasy of the nuclear family which is unfamiliar to many generations of Bahamians because we have always had extended families and will continue to need them as the cost of living increases and our elders need our care. I look forward to society flourishing when we learn that we are interdependent, that parents do all of the childcare work, that money does not solve all of our problems, and that we are our greatest resource when we live in love and peace, free from violence, including the kinds of violence that some religious misleaders tell us is condoned by the men who wrote The Bible.

I look forward to us finding other ways to show the world our commitment to one another in love. I look forward to new ways of sharing property and ensuring that we can, in dire circumstances, have the legal authority to make decisions on each other’s behalf in accordance with our expressed desires. I look forward to alternatives to marriage, and to generations and generations of people overwhelmingly choosing that alternative instead. I look forward to relationships where love, freedom, and safety reside without the contradiction or imposition of anyone’s favorite scripture to weaponise. I look forward to the end of marriage — the institution that far too many people value over the people in it. May this weapon, wielded against women, be destroyed.

Published in The Tribune on September 6, 2023.

/0 Comments/by
, ,

Culture Clash: Marriage Isn’t a Good Idea for Women in The Bahamas

It is rare for a news items to bring concerned pause. Our positions are usually clear; we care or we don’t care, and then we choose a side. On issues of social or political concern, we generally have an opinion on what is and is not right. Something was different about the way we saw and responded to last week’s news story on the Bahamas Christian Council’s proposed Sanctity of Marriage bill. I saw scores of people share the article, but none of them added a caption. Some of them used emoticons, but no one made a clear statement about the Bahamas Christian Council’s drafting and submission of a Sanctity of Marriage bill.

The draft is meant to serve three purposes. It is to provide for the reinforcement of the sanctity of marriage, a marital duty of care, and strengthen the institution of marriage by ensuring “informed participation.” It also focuses on tax reduction for married people to enhance the value and serve as incentive for the maintenance of marriage.

It seems the Bahamas Christian Council and the loud voices we have come to know as “the church” are obsessed with marriage. They simultaneously promote it as a necessity for everyone and an exclusive good reserved for its community. We are clear on the church’s position on who should and should not have access to marriage. It was amplified by the 2016 referendum and its statements on the fourth proposed constitutional amendment bill which sought to add “sex” to the prohibited grounds of discrimination. Its opposition was rooted in homophobia which was framed as a “protection” of marriage, as though the legalization of same-sex marriage would be the destruction of marriage.

For the sake of brevity and simplicity, I will say only that the fourth bill was not about same-sex marriage, its passage would not have automatically led to the legalization of same-sex marriage, and this issue is far for the top of the list of concerns of the LGBT+ community.

It was made clear that the church believes — or wishes to make the public believe — it has a monopoly on marriage, and it is only a religious institution. This is not the case. It falls to citizens to remind the state of this fact, and respond strongly to the church’s attempts to control public goods and services and the private lives of citizens on the basis of its doctrine which we are free, constitutionally, to recognize or not.

The Sanctity of Marriage Bill as drafted by the Bahamas Christian Council raises many questions. There is very little we can point to and identify as right or wrong, but none of it is necessary, and most of it seems to be linked to a larger plan we cannot see. The group of religious leaders has submitted its own recommendations for amendments to the Sexual Offenses Act. Has the admission that rape is rape, regardless of the relationship between people, led the Bahamas Christian Council to worry about the state of marriage? Is the Sanctity of Marriage draft bill a strategy to influence engaged and married couples on issues including sexual assault? How does it intend to lead the proposed Marriage and Family Advisory Council in educating the public on marriage, and what do they know that we have yet to learn? If this is another strategy to control the legal contract of marriage, it is beyond time for us to pay attention.

The marital rape conversation has not been much different than the one about the referendum. Religious leaders came forward to quickly and loudly express their displeasure at the very existence of the conversation. Victim-blaming has been normalized in many ways and, sadly, it is what we have come to expect from many men of the cloth.

Why would a woman choose not to have sex with her husband? What’s a man to do?

These religious leaders reframe the conversation, taking our attention away from abuse and power. They distract us with the concept of submission as the primary duty and characteristic of a good, Christian wife. They erase married women who do not identify as Christian, some of whom did not even marry in the church. A broad brush is used, and the attitude seems to be if we choose to marry, we commit ourselves to the standards and obligations meted out by the church. Is this what the Sanctity of Marriage draft bill would enforce?

Marriage, in The Bahamas, does not seem to be a good idea for women. Sure, it can bring financial security, confidence in commitments made, and a reduction in judgment, especially for couples choosing to live together and have children. Unfortunately, it can result in a loss of physical security and legal protection. It is a challenge to get police to respond to domestic disturbances. I know because I have made the calls and driven to police stations to make reports. I’ve heard, “Them two again?” I’ve been told, “Miss, we don’t have time for that.” It is, as we have seen in recent weeks, difficult to convince people that married women are still human beings and have human rights. Why should women get married? Perhaps the Sanctity of Marriage draft is the Bahamas Christian Council’s way of preempting the inevitable — the refusal of Bahamian women to get married, giving in to the the societal and religious norms that continue to be reinforced by the law of the land. Maybe it sees the need to incentivize marriage while locking us in additional obligations through its guide.

I had the unfortunate experience of listening to men talk about marital rape in a barber shop a few days ago. I chose not to argue, but to listen to everything they said, and observe the responses of other people in the room. Someone in the room, well aware of my work, expressed surprise at my silence. I continued to hold it. They talked about how ridiculous it would be to make marital rape illegal. They shared strategies for “taking it” from their wives. These ranged from waiting for her to sleep to slipping something into her favorite drink. They argued about whether or not it would be fun without her participation. They laughed about how confused she would be when she woke up aching, or realized he hadn’t “asked for some” in a while.

These men commented on the views of the religious leaders who have been outspoken about the issue, and talked openly about raping their wives, completely without fear or the slightest reservation. It didn’t matter that there were people in the room whose positions they could not know. It didn’t matter that there was a woman in the room. It wasn’t until a religious leader entered that they ceased to share their marital rape strategies. Before, all that mattered was their hypermasculinity and the need to express it and assure one another that they would get what they wanted, whatever the cost. After all, raping their wives is not illegal, and some of the most revered and respect men in the country are fighting to keep it that way. Just not the one who last entered, and his position was respected.

This is the danger of the reckless influencer. They have the power and the platform to present, repeat, and sometimes enforce their points of view, frequently without challenge. I sometimes think about the churches full of women who practically empty their purses into collection plates, but led by men who do not regard women — especially married women — as human beings. How do women sit in those churches, listen to those sermons, fund those activities, and not think about the ways they and so many others are affected by the dangerous rhetoric spewed week after week in what they perceive to be a holy place? I have to remind myself that they have been conditioned for years to believe that they are less than men, and that religious leaders are a trustworthy authority. I saw for myself that religious power silences, scares, and controls people of all genders. It’s up to us to prevent it from disempowering us — not as citizens, nor as a nation.

Published by The Tribune on March 14, 2018. Picked up by AFROPUNK on Facebook.

/0 Comments/by
, ,

Culture Clash: Eight Years On The Same Debate With The Same Answer – Rape Is Rape

We need to talk about consent. Most of us understand it to mean permission. Parents and guardians signing forms to allow children to participate in extracurricular activities probably comes to mind. We don’t think about consent as a way of controlling and protecting our own bodies. Instead, we view the bodies of women and girls as public property.

When we force children to show affection to family members and friends without prejudice, we teach them they do not own their bodies. When we tell teenaged girls, “Dress the way you want to be addressed”, we are telling them other people’s perceptions of them are the most important thing. We have many ways of making each other less than human, stripping away rights and dignity. We find ways to blame one another for any violation experienced, conditioned by and continuing the perpetuation of rape culture.

Rape culture is prevalent in our environment and allows people to believe there is something women and girls can do to prevent sexual assault. We can dress differently, travel in groups, ensure we are always accompanied by men, refrain from consuming alcohol, get home before dark and ignore our own sexuality. Even further, we can purchase a number of products like special underwear that only we can remove and nail polish that detects date rape drugs in our drinks. The onus is continuously put on us, women and girls to protect ourselves by being less visible and investing in products specifically designed for us. As if this is not enough to bear, our law does not recognise us as full people after we marry.

According to the Sexual Offences Act, once married, women are no longer entitled to (not) give consent to their husbands and are expected to engage in sexual activity whether we would like to or not. The Act says we cannot be raped and, by marrying us, men have unlimited rights to access our bodies.

What if this were the case for murder? If a man owns his wife’s body to the extent he can penetrate her vagina without her consent, what is to keep him from thinking he can kill her without consequence? If we stick to the “two become one” argument, we set ourselves down a slippery slope. Married women can vote, but not say “no” to sex and have the right to press charges if her husband rapes her. Married women are human beings in some ways, but property in others.

There is no reason for women to be denied the right to choose what to do with their bodies, in marriage or otherwise. The narrative of false accusations is completely baseless at best and foolish at worst. If we create legislation and policies based on potential for misuse, we would likely be forced to go without. Anarchy, anyone?

People talk about the great fear of the lying woman. Won’t married women lie on their husbands, just because?

People sometimes lie — not women; people. Cases sometimes go to court and the defendants are innocent. Sometimes it is difficult to prove the crime. We see this happen every day. This is the reason for courts, judges and juries. It is the reason evidence is required. The justice system has its issues, but so do society, the church and the institution of marriage. Are we really satisfied to doom married women to live as the property of their husbands, able to be lawfully violated? Are we happy to have even ten women suffer in silence, with no legal recourse, because one might lie on her husband? Do we really believe men are entitled to sex on demand when they marry a woman?

To be clear, rape is not sex. Sex can only occur with clear, continuous consent from all parties involved. When anyone is forced to participate in sexual activity, it is assault — a violation. If a person is underage, they are not able to give consent. If a person is intoxicated, they are not able to give consent. If a person is unconscious or asleep, they are not able to give consent. Consent must exist for a sexual act to be lawful. It must be explicit and cannot be coerced. There is no such thing as sex without consent; that is rape. It does not matter whether or not the people involved are married. Consent is not granted in perpetuity, regardless of licences and vows. We have the right to say yes or no.

In July 2009, then MP for Long Island Loretta Butler-Turner tabled the marital rape bill which would have amended the Sexual Offences Act to omit “who is not his spouse” so that marital status does not enter the definition of rape or impede access to justice. Eight years later, we are having the same conversation on the same level, seemingly with no better understanding of or appreciation for women’s rights as human rights. We listen to political and religious leaders and allow them to guide our thoughts on opinions far too often. We forget Members of Parliament and Cabinet Ministers work for us and should be acting in the best interest of the Bahamian people. Laws and policies should be made to protect the most vulnerable among us; not putting them at higher risk or further marginalizing them from the rest of society. Religious leaders should not be interfering in governance of the country, or imposing themselves and their views on the citizenry. They should be rebuking the consistent, dangerous misuse of biblical text to support misogyny.

Those who support men who rape their wives often use biblical text, mostly in fragments, to compel others to do the same. A favourite is Ephesians 5:22 which implores women to submit themselves to their husbands. Those quoting this scripture conveniently neglect to mention verses 23 and 28 which call on men to love their wives as Christ loved the church and “as their own bodies”. A true, practising Christian would surely look at the full scripture and, upon seeing “love,” refer to I Corinthians 13 for its definition and characteristics. According to Paul, love is patient, kind and protective and is not self-seeking. If a man loves his wife, would he not be patient, kind and protective, and willing to put his own desires aside instead of being self-seeking? If a man loves his wife as Christ loved the church — for which He gave His life — what limit would there be to what he would give up for her? Why aren’t we holding men to the same standards we demand women meet?

A married woman is still a woman, and a human being. Married women, like unmarried women, have human rights. These include being equal in dignity and rights, the right to security of person, freedom from slavery or servitude and recognition everywhere as a person before the law. In addition to being protected from sexual assault and understood to be human beings, women deserve to have access to justice. We need to look at the Sexual Offences Act and its definition of rape. We need to look at the way we view marriage and, in particular, the privileges of men within the institution. We need to understand that rape is rape, no matter who is involved. Perhaps more than that, we need to look at the positions we take and the arguments we use and ask ourselves who we are trying to protect – and why?

Published in Culture Clash — a weekly column in The Tribune — on December 20, 2017

/0 Comments/by