Women in Islamist Movements

[Jedburgh]

CEIP, Jul 07: Women in Islamist Movements: Toward an Islamist Model of Women's Activism

...We conducted interviews with women belonging to Hizbollah in Lebanon and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as well as less structured conversations with women Islamic activists in Morocco, Kuwait, and other countries. Their responses indicate that there is much ferment and discussion among Islamist women. The outcome of these ongoing debates is still unpredictable and it is doubtful that the participants themselves know how far their ideas will develop and evolve. But it is certain that women’s political activism in Islamist movements is a growing phenomenon that needs to be watched carefully.

The idea that Islamist women play important roles in the movements to which they belong and that through their participation they may be defining a new model of Islamist activism or even feminism is contrary to views commonly held in the West. There, it is generally assumed that the battle for women’s rights is being fought by secular, modern organizations, not by Islamist movements that are part of a tradition that has historically oppressed women. The idea that women in Islamist movements may have something to contribute to women’s rights is also rejected as preposterous by most secular Arab feminists. Many angry debates have broken out at international meetings of women’s organizations concerning this issue. But many Islamist movements today are breaking new ground in terms of their views of politics and society, and the rise of women activists is part of this renewal. Past history is not necessarily an indication of future positions....

[FascistLibertarian]

The idea that Islamist women play important roles in the movements to which they belong and that through their participation they may be defining a new model of Islamist activism or even feminism is contrary to views commonly held in the West. There, it is generally assumed that the battle for women’s rights is being fought by secular, modern organizations, not by Islamist movements that are part of a tradition that has historically oppressed women. The idea that women in Islamist movements may have something to contribute to women’s rights is also rejected as preposterous by most secular Arab feminists.

This is a very good point.
1) There have always been women of important status in every society, it does not suprise me at all that there are activist islamic women.
2) This is a kind of cultural imperialism. After all, we know what is best for their women, we know that the way they treat their women is wrong, and we know what to do to fix it. Part of the reason we went into A-Stan was linked to womens rights, but it is always tricky when you are telling others how to live.
If they came here and were all "dont drink or have sex" I am sure we would tell them where to go.......

[tequila]

Part of the reason we went into A-Stan was linked to womens rights, but it is always tricky when you are telling others how to live.

Let's not confuse propaganda points with actual goals. I am reasonably sure that ensuring women's rights are respected are not high on the agenda for U.S. commanders in the 'Stan.

[SteveMetz]

Let's not confuse propaganda points with actual goals. I am reasonably sure that ensuring women's rights are respected are not high on the agenda for U.S. commanders in the 'Stan.

I've recently been arguing that women's empowerment is a vital and greatly underestimated part of counterinsurgency. My reasoning is that a lot of the young males who compose the foot soldiers of an insurgency participate not because of any political grievances, but because doing so is psychologically empowering. In other words, they do it in part to get girls. Empowering women gives allows them to influence this decisionmaking process.

My response to "women's empowerment is not part of our culture" is to respond with "Well, it IS part of our culture so if you want our help, address the issue." In other words, you can't help those who won't help themselves. If a potential partner is not serious about altering the social, economic, and political structures which give rise to armed conflict, we shouldn't waste our time with them.

[Tacitus]

In other words, they do it in part to get girls.

That's an interesting idea that I hadn't read before.

The only girls they ever publicly cite, however, are the 35 virgins (or whatever the allocated number are) they're going to receive in paradise as a payoff to their suicidal attack.

But who's to say there aren't some groupies in the here and now attracted to the jihadists, despite their puritannical image?

[FascistLibertarian]

Dont be silly Tacitus and SteveMetz.
Premarital sex is a sin!
you wouldnt want that to stop you getting into paradise after you kill some innocent women and children.

[tequila]

I can't say I really agree with you, Steve.

Psychological empowerment does not necessarily equate to "getting girls." I agree that many young men become insurgents or jihadis for much the same reason that young men in the United States become Marines - the urge to be part of something larger than oneself, a sense of mission endowed with the glamor of violence and danger, community admiration. However, I find it doubtful that sexual conquests are really part of the bargain given typical marriage structure typologies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Women available outside these typologies are not generally those drawn to jihadis, either - they are, more likely, among the targets of such --- witness the recent trigger for the Lal Masjid siege.

[120mm]

That's an interesting idea that I hadn't read before.

The only girls they ever publicly cite, however, are the 35 virgins (or whatever the allocated number are) they're going to receive in paradise as a payoff to their suicidal attack.

But who's to say there aren't some groupies in the here and now attracted to the jihadists, despite their puritannical image?

Then you haven't read Van Der Dennen.

http://rint.rechten.rug.nl/rth/dennen/dennen.htm

He posits that the basis of war is at least partly based on the availability of mating opportunities.

[Abu Buckwheat]

I've recently been arguing that women's empowerment is a vital and greatly underestimated part of counterinsurgency. My reasoning is that a lot of the young males who compose the foot soldiers of an insurgency participate not because of any political grievances, but because doing so is psychologically empowering. In other words, they do it in part to get girls. Empowering women gives allows them to influence this decisionmaking process.

My response to "women's empowerment is not part of our culture" is to respond with "Well, it IS part of our culture so if you want our help, address the issue." In other words, you can't help those who won't help themselves. If a potential partner is not serious about altering the social, economic, and political structures which give rise to armed conflict, we shouldn't waste our time with them.

I sort of disagree with you that women's issues and empowerment are a vital part of COIN. First what makes us think that the women in societies which are dissimilar to ors want out involvement in the first place. I worked as an NGO security director for a few years and in the ten 3rd world places I investigated or lived I found that women wanted to be empowered inmainly one way... micro-economics of the family. They did not want to wear bikinis, take off the Burqa or be shown western respect that would be disrepectful in the eyes of their own men. They wanted education for the children and mico-credit. Doesn't our view that helping them will help us only show a disdain for their connections to their own cultural identity? Levae it to Phase IV NGOs or the UN who have the cultural senstitivty to do this. In 2003 pre-war the head of USAID made some very similar statements about our ability to change NGOs way of thinking about helping foreign cultures that sounded very similar to the ones above. He made a statement that NGOs who want to help traditionally can leave the coalition and 'we will find NGOs who will do what we want them to do' with regard to 'adjusting' other cultures to our own humanitarian world view.

If we all agree that respect of cultures, traditions and peoples is job one in COIN, why would we suddenly make adjustments for such a core issue as not harassing their women and children? I believe the rumors in Somalia about African-American soldiers 'feeling and disrespecting our women' at checkoints, the rape and murder of the girl in Mahmudiyah by US Army soldiers (which resulted in the deaths and mutilation of two others) and the use of female Marines to search women in Fallujah were all exploited by the enemy as examples of the deep disrespect Americans show moslem women.

There are proper ways to do it, within UN standards but it should be left to the touchy-feely NGOs... they can be quite good at empowerment, particularly in improving the family welfare.

One other thing ... as for the part to impress girls ... I am sure it is a deep down possibility that depends on the locale of the conflict. Here in the ME its about the respect of your peers and community. Salafists are staunchly mosogynistic unless that woman has been given to him by a trusted-source imam and blessed by Allah otherwise ... death and the virgins ... my favorite bumper sticker here in the Gulf is the one on Landcruisers. Its the International female symbol with a red circle and line through it ... they refer to it as the "No Women (B**ches)" sticker ... they mean to say impure women (aka sluts) don't get in their cars, just the guys. Amazing.

[SteveMetz]

I sort of disagree with you that women's issues and empowerment are a vital part of COIN. First what makes us think that the women in societies which are dissimilar to ors want out involvement in the first place. I worked as an NGO security director for a few years and in the ten 3rd world places I investigated or lived I found that women wanted to be empowered inmainly one way... micro-economics of the family. They did not want to wear bikinis, take off the Burqa or be shown western respect that would be disrepectful in the eyes of their own men. They wanted education for the children and mico-credit. Doesn't our view that helping them will help us only show a disdain for their connections to their own cultural identity? Levae it to Phase IV NGOs or the UN who have the cultural senstitivty to do this. In 2003 pre-war the head of USAID made some very similar statements about our ability to change NGOs way of thinking about helping foreign cultures that sounded very similar to the ones above. He made a statement that NGOs who want to help traditionally can leave the coalition and 'we will find NGOs who will do what we want them to do' with regard to 'adjusting' other cultures to our own humanitarian world view.

If we all agree that respect of cultures, traditions and peoples is job one in COIN, why would we suddenly make adjustments for such a core issue as not harassing their women and children? I believe the rumors in Somalia about African-American soldiers 'feeling and disrespecting our women' at checkoints, the rape and murder of the girl in Mahmudiyah by US Army soldiers (which resulted in the deaths and mutilation of two others) and the use of female Marines to search women in Fallujah were all exploited by the enemy as examples of the deep disrespect Americans show moslem women.

There are proper ways to do it, within UN standards but it should be left to the touchy-feely NGOs... they can be quite good at empowerment, particularly in improving the family welfare.

One other thing ... as for the part to impress girls ... I am sure it is a deep down possibility that depends on the locale of the conflict. Here in the ME its about the respect of your peers and community. Salafists are staunchly mosogynistic unless that woman has been given to him by a trusted-source imam and blessed by Allah otherwise ... death and the virgins ... my favorite bumper sticker here in the Gulf is the one on Landcruisers. Its the International female symbol with a red circle and line through it ... they refer to it as the "No Women (B**ches)" sticker ... they mean to say impure women (aka sluts) don't get in their cars, just the guys. Amazing.

By "empowerment" I didn't mean Westernization. I simply meant giving women some degree of influence over events within their societies. As I mentioned, I've become convinced that two vital elements of breaking a conflict-producing system that our doctrine and strategy for counterinsurgency do not address are: 1) providing alternative, non-violent means of empowerment; and, 2) providing alternative, non-violent outlets for the aggression and risk-taking behavior of young males. I believe women's empowerment helps constrain this aggression and risk-taking behavior. It's not a silver bullet, but it's an important part of the problem.

To put this in a larger context, I think we tend to psychologically "mirror image" when we approach counterinsurgency and stabilization operations. Because our political/cultural/economic system is not badly flawed, we assume others are not. Hence we view insurgents or terrorists simply as psychological deviants. I tend to see them as products of badly flawed systems. Thus without systemic re-engineering, new bad people will simply replace the old ones. And--this is the important part--systemic re-engineering is more than simply holding elections, creating a democracy, and tossing in some reconstruction aid. It entails changing values, preferences, and culture.

Now, I'm still strugging with exactly how one does this. The women's empowerment idea is just one small element of a really big task.