GrahamY:

"And just as smacking within a family is acceptable, but assault isn't, when it comes to children, why should it be a priori wrong for a level of symbolic violence to occur between husband and wife in a religiously sanctioned way?"

Smacking has a purpose which is to hurt the child in order to control the behaviour of the child. It can be argued that it is reasonable. Boxing also has a purpose which is to prove you are better at fighting than your opponent by hurting him more. These actions intend to hurt for a reason.

I don't think that there is any such thing as 'symbolic violence'. Either the violence intends to hurt or it does not. If it does not then it is not violence. For these Muslim women it may be some kind of ritual that symbolises the man's control over his wife but it is not violence.

These people should be free to practice their rituals but we should not indulge them by calling it violence. It just clouds the issue of real violence toward women and can trivialise that issue.

.

Dear Graham,

.

You wrote :

« If a woman wants to voluntarily submit to such a regime [Islam], for me, that is her problem. Just as many non-muslim couples voluntarily submit to violent practices within their own marriage »

You are quite right, Graham, in thinking that “intimate partner” violence is not a question of religion, Both the Bible and the Quran stipulate that the wife must obey her husband and both prescribe varying degrees of punishment culminating in death in certain circumstances.

However, qualifying the attitude of the victims of such violence as “voluntary” submission is an all too frequent interpretation for which there is no empirical evidence.

As the latest Australian Institute of Criminology report notes (page 40) :

« Physical and sexual violence between intimate partners is neither a new nor a rarely encountered phenomenon. Until relatively recently it was even permitted by law (see High Court case R v L (1991) 174 CLR 379). While the law no longer offers protection to men who beat their wives, there is evidence to suggest that it may still be socially sanctioned. For instance, a national survey in 1995 revealed that about one in five Australians thought that it was acceptable for a man to use physical force against his wife in some circumstances (OSW 1995: 33). Surveys undertaken in various countries indicate that 10–50 per cent of women reported being physically abused by a male partner (Heise et al. 1999). Research has found that violence against women is primarily partner violence rather than violence committed by a stranger »

Here is the report :

http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/rpp/56/rpp056.pdf

.

Hi there GRAHAM Y...A very interesting topic you've introduced here.

Personally I can't ever see a legitimate need for a husband 'ever' to strike his wife. Save perhaps in rare instances where the wife has evolved into a complete state of hysteria, and has commenced hyperventilating or similar? From memory with my St.John training:- Basic first aid for hysteria, is attempt to 'shock' or 'jolt' the patient out of it in some way? A sharp open handed slap I guess was the preferred method? I'm not entirely sure, so I'll stand to be corrected? In day's when I wore blue, I've had a few ladies and girls, as well as a couple of young males, develop symptoms of hysteria, generally though, they snap out of it, of their own volition?

In any other circumstance it's clearly an assault. In fact one never needs to physically strike someone, to prove an offence of common assault. The offender only needs to have an immediate 'presence' and an 'ability'; and for the intended victim to honestly believe, there and then, they're about to be assaulted. In essence, they are the criminal proofs for common assault.

O sung wu,

Careful with that 'hysteria' word, mate. You remember what happened to Steve Price when he uttered the word to a woman (Muslim, incidentally) on Channel 10? Poor old Steve was traumatised for week after the verbal hiding he copped.

Rates of dv are extremely high in 'gay' communities and Indigeneous communities. Pretty hard even for the Christophobes to deny this.

While I find a comparison between Islam and BDSM amusing, I believe that the video goes far beyond consensual interaction.

Firstly the video is about the actions that the husband can take to discipline a wife that disobeys him. What actions can she take to discipline him if he disobeys?

Secondly, the reaction for disobedience pretty much negates the consensual argument,

Finally, while the two women tried to indicate that beatings were restricted to toothpicks and scarfs, the reality is very different.