Posts

, , ,

Misogyny in politics holds women back

While Leslie Miller’s misogynistic, infantilising reference to Senator Michela Barnett-Ellis is not at all surprising, given his many public episodes, it has drawn attention to the longstanding issue of discrimination against women in political and public life.

The idea that women are inferior and must be relegated to the private sphere and men are superior and entitled to the public sphere persists well beyond the time that one income was sufficient and (some) women’s only work was in the home and in service to the family (which was never the case for black women).

That patriarchal arrangement was in service to capitalism, even more than it was for men, as women made (and still make) it possible for men to work through the provision of various unpaid services including the maintenance of the home and the people living in it and the reproduction of labourers.

Patriarchy created a hierarchy and it has required us to live according to this division, even after the point that women entered the public sphere and, as a matter of necessity, started to work for wages. Patriarchy assigned values and expectations based on gender and while the economic realities have changed and society along with it, patriarchy has its devotees.

Just as patriarchy separated women and men into the private and public spheres, it instilled the belief that men are to be leaders and decision-makers while women are to follow and submit.

Misogyny extends beyond the hatred of women to the hatred of all that is feminine. As emotions are viewed in a binary way, considered feminine or masculine, certain emotions are reserved for women and restricted for men.

On the basis of these socially constructed rules, it was determined that women are too “soft” and “emotional” for leadership, even as men regularly perform anger to the detriment of the people expected to follow them.

Women have worked, for generations, to gain access to opportunities to work and to lead through consistent efforts including, but not limited to, higher education. Today, men regularly attempt to use the level of education many women have attained, and subsequent professional success, as evidence that gender inequality does not exist.

They refuse to see the persisting issues including sexual harassment in the workplace, the gender wage gap, and the impediments to participating in frontline politics and public life.

Miller’s misogynistic comment is evidence of the discrimination that still exists and is not only an annoyance, but a barrier to equal participation and, ultimately, the representation of women in leadership at the level that is proportionate to the population. It also highlights the issue of intersecting forms of discrimination that women face.

A women vying for candidacy or for a seat in Parliament are not only unfairly judged rather than appropriately assessed because of their gender, but because of their (perceived) age, class, and other identities. Women are expected to be deferential and young people are expected to be deferential. Young women are expected to be doubly deferential should they even dare to be in the same space as men.

It is an embarrassment that only 18 percent of parliamentarians are women. No government administration has ever addressed this issue by instituting a political quota. Perhaps even worse, no political party has chosen to take the lead in addressing this issue, demonstrating commitment to achieving gender equality by instituting a quota at the party level.

This is clear evidence of the priorities and the cowardice of political parties. Temporary special measures such as political quotas have been recommended to The Bahamas on numerous occasions through international human rights mechanisms in which The Bahamas voluntarily participates.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in Article 3, obligates States to “ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.”.

Importantly, Article 25 states, “Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity[…] to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives [and] to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors.”

Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women (Convention of Belem Do Para) states in Article 4 that “Every woman has the right to the recognition, enjoyment, exercise and protection of all human rights and freedoms embodied in regional and international human rights instruments. These rights include, among others[…] The right to have equal access to the public service of her country and to take part in the conduct of public affairs, including decision-making”.

It continues, in Article 5, “Every woman is entitled to the free and full exercise of her civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, and may rely on the full protection of those rights as embodied in regional and international instruments on human rights. The States Parties recognise that violence against women prevents and nullifies the exercise of these rights.”

The Sustainable Development Goals were adopted in 2015, and goal five on gender equality includes “ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life” as a target. The indicators are the proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments and local government and the proportion of women in managerial positions.

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), also known as the bill of women’s rights, was ratified by The Bahamas in 1993—acknowledgement discrimination against women as a violation of women’s human rights and a commitment to take the necessary steps to come into compliance with the Convention in order to end discrimination against women.

Article 7 of the Convention calls on States to “take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the political and public life of the country and, in particular, shall ensure to women, on equal terms with men, the right[…] to be eligible for election to all publicly elected bodies [and] to participate in the formulation of government policy and the implementation thereof and to hold public office and perform all public functions at all levels of government.”

As CEDAW was adopted in 1979 and entered into force in 1981, there issues that have emerged and knowledge that has since been created that are not explicitly stated in the Convention. To ensure that it can carry out its mandate and respond to the realities on the ground with its collective human rights expertise, the CEDAW Committee produces General Recommendations which expand upon Articles of the Convention, address areas of concern, and guide States in their reporting.

There are General Recommendations, for example, on violence against women, older women and protection of their human rights, rights of rural women, and gender-related dimensions of disaster risk reduction in the context of climate change. In 2024, the CEDAW Committee produced General Recommendation 40 on equal and inclusive representation of women in decision-making systems. It begins, “Women have the right to equal and inclusive representation in all decision-making systems on equal terms with men[…] This right is still not respected. This also seriously hampers implementation of all other rights under the CEDAW Convention.”

General Recommendation 40 was produced as a comprehensive guide for States “on achieving equal and inclusive representation of women in all decision-making systems across all sectors, aiming for a systemic change”.

It recognises seven pillars of equal and inclusive representation of women in decision-making systems, recognising “patriarchal structures impede women’s equal and inclusive representation in decision-making systems” and the need for a transformational approach that dismantles those structures. The pillars are:

1. 50:50 parity between women and men as a starting point and universal norm;

2. Effective youth leadership conditioned by parity;

3. Intersectionality and inclusion of women in all their diversity in decision-making systems;

4. A comprehensive approach to decision-making systems across spheres;

5. Women’s equal power and influence in decision-making systems;

6. Structural transformation for equal and inclusive decision-making;

7. Civil society representation in decision-making systems.

General Recommendation 40 is available online. It described all seven pillars and not only sets on the obligations of States, but provides guidance for meeting the obligations. Its recommendations include legal amendments to institutionalize 50:50 parity between women and men in all spheres of decision-making, adoption of a parity strategy, provision of education on temporary and permanent special measures, implementation of awareness-raising campaigns toward positive discourse on parity, cooperation with media to condemn, monitor and ensure accountability for sexism and misogyny, and prevention and prosecution of hate speech in decision-making and against women candidates.

All candidates, representatives, leaders, and members of political parties should read the document and contribute to moving The Bahamas toward compliance through all means available to them.

Published in The Tribune on September 10, 2025

/0 Comments/by
, , , ,

We agreed to protect women – why don’t we?

THE Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women, also known as the Belém do Pará Convention was adopted on June 9, 1994. Belém do Pará is now 30 years old and has been ratified by 32 of the 34 member states of the Organization of American States (OAS). The Bahamas ratified the Convention, obligating it to prevent, investigate, and punish violence against women.

In Article 1, Belém do Pará defines violence against women as “any act or conduct, based on gender, which causes death or physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, whether in the public or the private sphere”. In Article 2, it elaborates with the specific inclusion of violence that “occurs within the family or domestic unit or within any other interpersonal relationship, whether or not the perpetrator shares or has shared the same residence with the woman”, “occurs in the community and is perpetrated by any person” including harassment in the workplace and other institutions, and “is perpetrated or condoned by the state or its agents regardless of where it occurs”.

In addition to the specific mention of the public and private spheres in Article 1, Article 3 specifically states the right of every woman to be free from violence in both the public and private spheres. Article 3 also draws attention to State-condoned violence and, in the Bahamian context, makes it necessary to look at laws that discriminate against women and exclude particular acts of violence or perpetrators of violence.

Articles 1 to 3 are easily applied to the issue of marital rape in The Bahamas and the flimsy excuses put forward by successive governments and anti-rights groups who insist, implicitly, that women are not full human beings and there should be exceptions when violence is perpetrated at home and by spouses. Violence against women is clearly defined, and the Convention explicitly states, twice, that women have the right to be free from violence in the public and private spheres, and perpetrated by any person. This means states are obligated to prevent, investigate, and punish violence enacted against women in the home and violence enacted against women by their spouses.

Articles 7 to 9 are specific to the duties of State Parties. These include their obligation to:

1. apply due diligence to prevent, investigate and impose penalties for violence against women

2. include in their domestic legislation penal, civil, administrative and any other type of provisions that may be needed to prevent, punish and eradicate violence against women and to adopt appropriate administrative measures where necessary (This includes the gender-based violence bill, recommended by the CEDAW Committee in 2018 and by member states in the Universal Periodic Review process in 2023. The government committed to pass the bill, but stopped consultation, abandoned the bill, and passed the “Protection Against Violence” Act which does not, in any way, address the specific issue of gender-based violence.)

3. take all appropriate measures, including legislative measures, to amend or repeal existing laws and regulations or to modify legal or customary practices which sustain the persistence and tolerance of violence against women (This includes the amendments to the Sexual Offences Act, removing “who is not his spouse” from the definition of rape, repealing section 15 on “sexual assault by spouse”, adding a statutory definition of consent, and adding a clause of non-immunity on the basis of marriage.)

4. promote awareness and observance of the right of women to be free from violence, and the right of women to have their human rights respected and protected (The CEDAW Committee has recommended that the government ensure that women and girls are aware of their human rights, particularly under the Convention, and there has been no movement toward this in the five years since.)

5. modify social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, including the development of formal and informal educational programs appropriate to every level of the educational process, to counteract prejudices, customs and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or superiority of either of the sexes or on the stereotyped roles for men and women which legitimise or exacerbate violence against women (Related to the previous point, there is no plan and there has certainly been no action by the government to address the issue of gender stereotyping and harmful ideology. This, too, is an obligation through CEDAW, and one that is critical to preventing violence against women and girls.)

6. to ensure research and the gathering of statistics and other relevant information relating to the causes, consequences and frequency of violence against women, in order to assess the effectiveness of measures to prevent, punish and eradicate violence against women and to formulate and implement the necessary changes (The gender-based violence, which was never passed, should have included a system for recording and analysing incidents of violence against women and, in particular, femicide, in order to identify risk factors and trends which would aid in developing effective prevention and intervention.)

The Belém do Pará is not often discussed in The Bahamas. We have generally been more attentive to the United Nations human rights mechanisms. While they are useful, it is important that we make better use of regional mechanisms and find ways to learn from other countries in the region that have had success in reducing violence against women and in implementing the Convention in effective ways.

That 30 years have passed since The Bahamas ratified the Convention and few people recognise its name, much less know what it is about and what it contains is a failure of successive government administrations. It is, as we know, not enough to participate in multilateral processes, sign and ratify documents, make commitments, and occasionally report. The general public needs to be made aware of the obligations of the government to protect and expand our human rights. We need to know our rights and how to access them. We need to have a clear understanding of the existing national legislation and how it is contravention with international commitments. We, importantly, need to know that these commitments are to us, and not to an institution. The institutions are vessels and, yes, motivators, and we, the people, are rights holders. It is our right to know our rights, and it is the obligation of the government to ensure that we know them and access them fully.

Published in The Tribune on June 12, 2024.

/0 Comments/by
, , , ,

Bahamian politics a race to the bottom

It looks like we are in for another race to the bottom. We are now halfway through this term, and the Free National Movement will decide who its leader will be in the coming weeks. While the two candidates, from what we have seen thus far, are quite different, neither inspires confidence. The party itself has a significant amount of work ahead of it to define itself and prove itself to a new generation of voters and the voters who refused to show up for it in 2021. Two and a half years later, this work has not even begun. In fact, it seems to be working against itself. It is not even trying to play the role of Opposition, failing to draw attention to the governance failures, failing to offer solutions, and failing to model better practices.

Member of Parliament for St. Anne’s seemed to be upset by the announcement that The Bahamas now recognises Palestine as a state. The Bahamas took far too long to take this step, particularly as we witness, on a daily basis, the settler colonialism and genocide, by Israel, of Palestine and the Palestinian people. The Bahamas was the last CARICOM country to recognise Palestine as a state, and this is an embarrassment. White has now added to the embarrassment by his weak attempt to challenge it, and using “traditional allies” to do it. He said, “Our traditional allies, Madam Speaker, are countries that we haven’t aligned our position with, and I find that on such an important international issue, now it’s a national issue.”

The genocide of the Palestinian people has been an issue at the international, regional, and national levels for years, and without recognition of the same. As stated in the Caribbean Feminist Statement Against Israel’s Settle Colonial Project and Ongoing Genocide in Palestine, “We, Caribbean people, who have arisen from histories of genocide, enslavement, indentureship, and colonialism, remain firm and unwavering against all attempts at settler colonialism, apartheid, arbitrary arrests and detention, displacement and forced exile, confiscation of land and territories, sexual violence, and other human rights violations carried out by any State against any ethnic, racial, or geographic population. These images of violence are all too familiar.”

Over the past 228 days, we have seen the displacement of over 900,000 people from Gaza. We have seen the destruction of schools, mosques, and hospitals. We have watched as journalists report on the conditions with the eery sound of weapons flying overhead. We have read about the hunger, seen the images of injuries and death, and heard the cracks in the voices of thousands of people who continue to speak against the violence they are experiencing without end and call on us, the rest of the world, whoever our allies may be, to help them.

When we, human rights advocates, call on the government to fulfill its obligation to protect, promote, and ensure access to human rights, there is talk of “sovereignty.” When we reference the United Nations human rights mechanisms that The Bahamas has voluntarily adopted and ratified, such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), “sovereignty” comes up. When the United States Embassy flies the PRIDE flag at its locations, “sovereignty” is thrown around. For some reason, though, when it comes to The Bahamas taking a principled position — the right position — on the statehood of Palestine, it is time for The Bahamas to worry about its allies and their wishes. Why might that be? There are far too many people in positions of leadership who are ill-equipped, unprepared, and generally opposed to human rights, regardless of sovereignty or allyship. It seems, in fact, that they are playing a game that has nothing to do with the wellbeing of the people they claim to serve.

White said, “[…] the people of this nation, Madam Speaker, should be informed I think on a more regular basis on why some of these international decisions are being made, why we are agreeing one way or the other.”

He said this about the decision by The Bahamas to recognize Palestine as a state. He did not say this about countless other decisions made by the Government of The Bahamas with no announcement at all. There are no questions about the financial bills that are pushed through quickly and without consultation. There are no questions about the way The Bahamas votes at the United Nations on a regular basis. There are no questions about participation in InterAmerican processes or the decisions made therein. The continued failure of government officials to disclose assets is not a conversation this week. Why might that be?

Several human rights advocates have been calling on the government to communicate with the general public about its commitments and activities in international spaces. In fact, we have used international spaces and processes to demand that the government inform the Bahamian people of its commitments and to make human rights mechanisms accessible to the public. When we talk about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it should not be a cloudy concept for the general public, but a clear set of rights that we all can easily apply to their own lives, even if we cannot perfectly recite them. When we reference CEDAW, it should not evoke fear. When we remind the country that migrants are human beings with human rights, it should not be surprising or confusing. Perhaps successive administrations have enjoyed the low access to information for the general public which enables them to distract, to lie, and to create enemies of human beings rather than the inequitable systems we live within. Migrant people have always been scapegoats of choice, haven’t they?

It is no surprise that Minnis is not only running for leadership of the Free National Movement again, but that he is so easily and confidently referencing his spectacular failure from 2017 to 2021 — which even he was in a rush to escape with a nonsensically early general election — saying “Let’s do it again,” is a sure sign of delusion or confidence that, in a race to the bottom, he is a good bet.

Rather than focusing on the state of the country, largely due to his egotistical, sloppy, tyrannical “leadership” and the current administration that is taking full advantage of the terrible precedent set in many areas, including undisguised abhorrence for the press, he has taken aim at some of the most vulnerable people in the country. Instead of acknowledging the harm already done by terrible decisions and devastating inaction, he is going the lazy route of scapegoating Haitian migrants. He said that he would “aggressively deport all undocumented people” and claimed he would regularize those who have been in The Bahamas for a long time. These two promises are not aligned. The first is, in fact, quite troubling when we should know what is happening right now in Haiti. (It is important that we do not pretend that he was talking about all migrants. He meant, as they always mean, Haitian migrants).

Pintard, on the other hand, said the Free National Movement should not “make every immigrant a tyrant”. He pointed to willingness to collaborate and a duty to solve problems. It is cause for concern that these conversations do not seem to be taking place within the party and, importantly, across the obvious factions. Is there no clear direction for the party? No shared values? No clarity on what leadership means and looks like in practice?

We have not seen strong leadership from Pintard who has been in the ideal position to demonstrate his ability over the past few years. The current Opposition has fallen into the same practices as every Opposition before it, opposing for the sake of it, criticizing at every turn, and offering no solutions. It is old, it is tired, it is ineffective, and it serves no one. This is unfortunate, not only for a party that is vying for leadership in the next general election, but for the people of The Bahamas who need a true, properly functioning Opposition.

Anyone who is serious about leading a political party, not to mention leading a country, must demonstrate their values. These are not centering hatred of people or particular groups of people. Values are indicative of positions on pressing issues. People who are serious about leadership are clear in their positions. If they cannot decide for themselves, they certainly cannot be trusted to listen to and make decisions in the best interest of others. When will the Progressive Liberal Party and the Free National Movement figure out who they are and where they stand on critical issues? How will they communicate their identities to us? What will it take for them to be truly people-centred? Who, within these parties, are leaders with the competence to listen, learn, collaborate, communicate, and act with the most vulnerable in mind? If it takes anywhere near two more years to see manifestos and charters, we need to be clear that there are no leaders in these parties, and there are no parties prepared to lead.

Published in The Tribune on May 22, 2024.

/0 Comments/by
, , , ,

Blueprint for Change says so

It should not be surprising at this point. Another week, another idiotic statement in response to the call for the criminalization of marital rape. This week, when asked about movement on the marital rape bill, the prime minister made a number of disturbing comments. 

First, he said, “Drafts are given for consideration. So we have a draft that has been given for our consideration. We have not gotten around to it yet.”

The bill to amend the Sexual Offenses Act to criminalize marital rape has been in draft form since, if not before, 2022. We have had the bill for at least two years. This comes after four years of sitting on an inadequate bill drafted by the previous administration. This is not a new issue, and there are no new items for consideration. There is nothing complicated to think about or discuss. Just last week, he stated that rape is rape, and that he has difficulty with categories and descriptions of rape. The marital rape bill removes a category and ensures that rape that is perpetrated by a spouse is legally treated as rape, as it should.

Next, he said, “As you would recall, I am guided by my ‘Blueprint for Change’. That sets out the basis for which I asked people to vote for me and marital rape was not contained in that. I’m not insensitive to it. I appreciate it and I know.” The Blueprint for Change mentions women only twice. On page 49, it states, “The PLP is committed to the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals that ensures quality education, life long learning opportunities, gender equality and empowerment for women and girls; quality water, sanitation, and access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy.”

The Sustainable Development Goals were adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in September 2015 with full support from all Member States, including The Bahamas. All of the 17 goals have targets, and those targets have indicators that facilitate monitoring and evaluation of progress toward the goals. 

Sustainable Development Goal 5, referenced in the Blueprint for Change, is to achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls. The first target is “End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere.” The indicator for this target is “Whether or not legal frameworks are in place to promote, enforce and monitor equality and non‑discrimination on the basis of sex.” The second target is “Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres, including trafficking and sexual and other types of exploitation. The indicators of this target are “Proportion of ever-partnered women and girls aged 15 years and older subjected to physical, sexual or psychological violence by a current or former intimate partner in the previous 12 months, by form of violence and by age” and “Proportion of women and girls aged 15 years and older subjected to sexual violence by persons other than an intimate partner in the previous 12 months, by age and place of occurrence.”

Gender equality requires an end to gender-based discrimination in law, policy, and practice. This, combined with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the recommendations made by the Committee, led to the government engaging UN Women to undertake a review of all laws to identify those that discriminate against women and girls. This is what led to the discriminatory law review forum where the draft was, in a less than ideal way, discussed. The final report has not yet been delivered and approved, but we know the laws that were identified. The Sexual Offenses Act was one of them and Section 3, which defines rape, was specifically identified as one that needs to be amended. Eliminating discrimination against women, which is required to achieve gender equality, necessitates the criminalization of marital rape. The Blueprint for Change, then, includes a commitment to criminalizing marital rape.

On page 52, the Blueprint for Change states, “The Progressive Liberal Party is committed to eliminating all forms of discrimination against men and women in The Bahamas.” 

The Bahamas ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) in 1993. In 2018, it underwent its sixth periodic review. Marital rape was raised, again, raised as a pressing issue. In its Concluding Observations, the CEDAW Committee recommended that the Government of The Bahamas “Adopt, without delay, the amendments to the Sexual Offences Act expressly criminalizing marital rape, remove any temporal limitations to the right to file a complaint for marital rape in the draft amendment to the Sexual Offences Act and establish a sex offender register and registry.”

In her report following her visit to The Bahamas, the (then) Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women called on the Government of The Bahamas to “Revise or adopt new criminal law provisions to prohibit marital rape, including by ensuring that the definition of sexual crimes, including marital and acquaintance/date rape is based on the lack of freely given consent, and takes account of coercive circumstances, in line with general recommendation No. 35 of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.”

These recommendations are connected to the aforementioned parts of the Blueprint for Change. Criminalizing marital rape is required to follow through on the commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals which include gender equality and to eliminate discrimination against men and women. We must not accept what the Prime Minister has said. This is the work that is required of his administration, and this is the work that is committed to carrying out in its own campaign document.

Finally, the prime minister said, “My thing is that any time a couple … in blissful marriage reaches a stage where they are going to report their husband for rape, it seems to me that that marriage is irretrievably broken, meaning they are no longer married even though it may not have been so pronounced by a court.”

The marriage is broken? Violence is destructive. Sexual violence destructive. Rape is destructive. The conversation about marital rape, contrary to popular belief, is not about marriage. It is about people. Specifically, it is about a person who is violated in a devastating, irreparable way by a perpetrator who is not only known to them, but in a legal arrangement that is supposedly rooted in love, but often turns out to be obsession and/or possession. At present, the law suggests that legal arrangement erases the humanity of the person who has been violated, and that they should endure that violence and have no legal recourse.

Here comes the prime minister. He says the rape means the marriage is broken, such that they are no longer married, regardless of what the law or courts say. This shifted the line of questioning to divorce. It must be made clear that divorce is not a remedy for rape. Whether the marriage is broken or a person in the marriage fails to see the other person as a human being with human rights, including the right to give and withhold consent, divorce should be readily available. It should be more than possible. It should be easy because those people should not be together and should not be forced, by the law, to operate, in any way, as a married people. The violent act of rape, however, requires different action. Any person who is raped must be able to report the rape and have access to justice. Divorce and rape charges are not the same, they are not interchangeable, and one does not replace the other. We need access to both. Everyone should be able to report acts of violence against them, have their reports taken, and see the justice system work for them. 

In December 2017, the prime minister said, “I think we all accept…I know no right thinking Bahamian will accept that a person should be violated or in any form or fashion be abused.”

In February 2022, he said, “I’ve given the attorney general the mandate to follow the recommendations that will flow from that conference[…] and we’ll see what the recommendations are from there, and we’ll move to enact what laws [are] recommended by them to the attorney general that is deemed appropriate by the Cabinet.”

In October 2022, he said, “Any assault on a woman, be it whether you call it rape, grievous harm or otherwise, the law should take its course. Report those incidents to the police.”

Help women who raped by their husbands to report those incident to the police. Make rape a crime, regardless of the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim or survivor. Commitments have already been made. The bill has already been drafted. Stand in the shoes you so desperately wanted to wear.  Do what you claimed, in your Blueprint for Change, you would do. Move toward the achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 5 for gender equality and eliminate discrimination against women. Criminalize marital rape.

Recommendations

Yesterday was World Book Day, and Equality Bahamas shared a list of recommended books. One set of books were selected from the Feminist Book Club reads, and one set were written by Palestinian authors. Here are four books to consider buying or borrowing to read this month. 

How to Say Babylon by Safiya Sinclair

National Book Critics Circle Award Winner, a New York Times Notable Book, and winner of the 2024 OCM Bocas Prize for Fiction winner, this book is hard to put down. From the first page, Sinclair captures readers with the vivid depiction of her childhood and family life and her determination to get out and create a different life for herself. 

Evil Eye by Etaf Rum

Yara got married to break free from her conservative family. She went to university, got a job, and wants to teach full time. Her ability to participate in the work culture, which seems inextricably linked with upward mobility, is constrained by her domestic and care responsibilities. It does not help that colleagues obviously buy into stereotypes about Palestinian people, and this flattens her view of her own life into obligation and regret. She wants to prove that she isn’t the stereotypical Palestinian woman, and she wants to challenge, carefully, the norms that have been created in her own family so that she does not become her mother. 

What My Bones Know by Stephanie Foo

This is one of those books that, once you have read it, you are bound to think everyone should read. It is memoir infused with research, bringing scientific context to the deeply personal story Foo shared. Foo survived a childhood rife with abuse and abandonment. Though it took a long time, she got the diagnosis of complex post traumatic stress disorder (C-PTSD) and soon realized that she could not just “rally” and move on. She put in significant work to understand the diagnosis and access the care she needed. The story is difficult in parts, yet full of hope. 

You Exist Too Much by Zaina Arafat

A queer Palestinian-American girl is trying to be and love herself. This book takes us back and forth between the U.S. to the Middle East, showing different parts of her life. She struggles to live in a space between cultures and beliefs, trying to keep her identity and sense of self stable and strong. What happens when a mother tells her girl child, “You exist too much?” She has to reject it. She has to accept herself.

/0 Comments/by