The problem is that she can’t be married anymore. And it’s not like women can just live on their own, they would be a danger to all of the men in the area. So she would be stuck with her parents forever.
If you ever find this confusing, just step back and think about it in the most outrageously sexist way possible, then it will make sense.
If I read this table correctly, there are 16 countries where those marry-your-rapist laws still exist.
I don’t think a rapist particularly cares what his victim wants… Also, marital rape may be illegal but we all know how authorities all around the world tend to handle marital rape. (“She’s lying” “She had it coming” “He says it was consensual so who cares what she says” - and that’s when it’s reported at all.)
Yes, I agree. That is is what I was (poorly) trying to say.
It would appear that the 100 year attempt to get secularism and modernity to take root in this soil is still not successful.
1441, actually. (28 Jumada Al-Awwal).
Rape someone once and then commit to raping them in the future! Problem solved
Exactly. Anyone arguing otherwise is sick in the head.
Fuck off with your whataboutism
I would take a lot of the rationalizations a little seriously if
As it stands it’s just another way for terrible men to make raping children socially acceptable again after decades of progress and replace education and real protections for women with hyper-Sunni fanaticism
Are you under the impression that Turkey has ever been a free country? Secular or not? How about you ask the Kurdish people about that? It most certainly is not and rarely has been, for some groups. Yes, Erdogan has brought a new Islamization flare to the oppression that many Turks have experienced in the near century since it became a republic, which brings different kinds of oppression, but Turkey is no beacon of freedom and liberation for many of it’s citizens. People have died fighting that oppression WELL before Erdogan came to power. This laws is horrible, but let’s not pretend that Turkey was some sort of shining example of freedom simply because it was “secular”. There are other kinds of oppression, and we do well to keep that in mind.
It’s about relative, not absolute freedom. Turkey was once the most secular and Western country in what we call the Middle East.
I don’t think the Kurds (or other non-ethnic minorities in Turkey) would agree with you, however. I had a friend who worked for a journal that wrote on the Kurds in Turkey… the editor was assassinated - and that was not by religiously oriented bigots, but Turkish nationalist bigots. This was prior to the current wave of authoritarianism under Erdogan. This goes back at the beginning of the Republic, there were violent population swaps between Greece and Turkey (after a war), where orthodox Christians were forcibly “repatriated” to Greece (and vice-versa), with all that goes with it. While Ataturk’s government was secular, he was very much carrying on the violence of the late Ottoman empire, and amped up the Turkish nationalist element to complete the job already begun. I’d argue in this case, the victims of state oppression are becoming secular ethnic largely apolitical Turks who have thus far been spared the violence visited upon other groups, women especially. Given the history, I see this as just shifting the authoritarianism reserved for non-Turks back on the Turkish population, in part because it gives Erdogan more control. Many Turks, including many who are practicing Muslims, oppose these measures, because they recognize them for what they are - an attempt to divide the more rural, religious Turkish population from their more urban and secular counterparts.
I understand what you’re saying, I just don’t think we should ignore the very real oppression that is visited upon other ethnic groups in this discussion, becsuse that matters too.
Okay… I’m not imposing a particular, western definition of “freedom” on this situation, but sure, sure…
Are you under the impression that Turkey has been politically and culturally dead or that there has been no movement ever? Your Western Supremacy and Orientalism is showing.
Yeah!
We were. Also bombing them, and denying them basic human rights…
Yes, but it’s more of a critique of the whataboutism from @zhasu who seems to think that we can’teever critique barbaric behavior unless we ourselves are entirely blameless.
If you follow the link it’ll take you to the wiki page on whataboutism
You’re deflecting here and pretty clumsily, then covering with a Gish Gallop
“This is an attempt by Erdogan to force Turkey into something at odds with its last century of history and turn it into a more theocratic State at odds with its political culture.”
“Turkey isn’t free. It doesn’t have a political culture.”
“Honestly, it does.”
“What about the Kurds?” <- Right here.
“Seeing everything through the lens of the Western Savior who can only see the Other in black and white Western terms is Orientalism.”
“I’m not. But what about the Kurds and a whole bunch of Western-centered things that deny the political history of that particular country.” <- And again.
Look, Turkey (and Iran, and Iraq, and Syria) do bad things to the Kurds. That doesn’t mean those countries don’t have internal and very active political lives. And it has the thin end of nothing whittled down to a point to do with this law and the popular reaction to them.
Just to be clear, I think we SHOULD condemn this policy, and anyone who thinks I’m saying other wise clearly does not know me. I just think we should see this as a different aspect of Turkish authoritarianism that is inherent in the already existing system.
Yes, the regular murder of Kurds is part and parcel of that.
But please, keep putting words in my mouth.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
