Boycotting countries were women do not have equality in law

[upsydaisysexstylist]

Why don't we?. Why was there no stigma attached to holidaying in Eygpt, am channelling my DP's father here who wouldn't visit Spain until Franco died. Please note I am not equating racism and sexism, but am old enough to remember aparthied in South Africa and the many boycotts of South African goods. It was unacceptable to support that regime then, why is there no similar outcry about dealing with countries where women are not equal before the law.

I know there is very little awareness of which countries require that women have legal guardians and I have no idea how you avoid buying oil and it's many products from specific countries. But again the but i am deeply deeply disturbed and angry that this is tolerated and tacitly condoned. I honestly don't know what the answer is and am hoping someone somewhere is already doing something that I just don't know about it.

I would never go on holiday to dubai for this reason.

I also try to buy things made in the eu so i know workers have good employme-t rights.

It's a moo point for me, as I won't be going anywhere far away for a long time. But speaking hypothetically, how would you decide where to go and where not to? There aren't any countries which have equality.

But I am speaking as someone who is very picky about where things come from and will boycott places if I'm not happy. So I do get it.

"Please note I am not equating racism and sexism"

Why not? What's the moral difference?

TBH I think that when it comes to holiays, people's ethical stance goes out the window. I'd never go to somewhere like Egypt, Bali, etc, because they are vicious dictatorships, but when you mention that, you are looked at like you are a big loon.

Buying fair trade can help women in some countries too.

Why not take a more positive view - seek out those countries where women do get a good deal. Check out Cuba while it's still socialist, go to Iceland where they've closed down the strip clubs, or Sweden where they are tackling demand for prostitution.

They are all great holiday destinations!

REally expensive though...

Vicious dictatorships are so much cheaper.

i find this a bit weird? i think you would have to first do research and see if the majority of women, not the most vocal or just the most educated, or those able to speak english, but the majority ow women across social backgrounds in that country dont want to have a legal male guardian, or if they prefer to actually have the security of a male guardian due to cultural and religious differences.

its a bit patronising to those women that you feel angry about it. it is a bit like people who feel angry that women wear niqaab or hijab and feel like its an opression on the women and making them inequal whereas the women who actually wear it, the majority opt to wear it and want to wear it....

I think Iceland, where the economy collapsed, isn't as expensive as it was. And in the aftermath of the collapse, they appointed a female Prime Minister, a lesbian even (Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir). Need one say, the Prime Minister doesn't approve of strip clubs. So multiple bonus points there?

Well you'd have to start with the U.S.
Just look at the recent thread about an 11 year old girl in Cleveland being raped by 18 men and the New York Times reported that she'd been asking for it and it was her mothers fault for letting her go to the park or something. the community has rallied round the rapists.

The reason the U.S is bezzie buddies with Saudi, despite Saudi having the most disgusting patriarchal regime in the world, is because women don't count. All that counts is money. In this patriarchal world the patriarchs who run it, including those from Britain, will sell out women for a quick quid, and that's what they do every single day.

I like David's idea of visiting female-friendly countries

Because their main export is, broadly speaking, oil.

Which is too difficult to boycott - it's not like choosing Creme Eggs over Kit Kats.

The thing about the US is that The South is pretty nasty but the north is, um, OK... well, better anyhow. It wasn't so much the TNYer saying it as the writer taking quotes from the locals, not that that makes it any better really because the writer is indirectly using gossip to spread victim hatred. The writer made a terrible comment about the young men having to live with the rest of their lives to, which, yes, they do, and hopefully the fuckers will have learned something. Its disturbs me that 18 men between 15 and 27 raped her, filmed it and not one thought to say that perhaps it wasn't such a good idea, all claiming they thought she was older... come on, 11 doesn't look 16, ever! The poor girl has been removed from her family because of death threats.

Sorry to digress so much away from the original post, but yes, why don't we boycott through consumerism and touristing more on these sorts of countries? Is it because really, we don't care, we just want to go somewhere historical/foreign/warm?

Not that being 16 or older makes it OK to gang rape either... Sorry, just saw how bad that looks what. The key to this story as well is class as it is a poor community because it is thought that if it was wealthy or middle class woman raped by 18 predominately poor black men, it would be handled completely different.

yes because rape is a property crime under patriarchy. 18 black men raping an 11 year old middle class white girl would have violated the property of the middle class white men and the retribution for this is property violation is strong. It never ever has anything to do with the rape victims trauma and experience of being violated.

I agree.

There are many countries I wouldn't currently go to - Israel, China, most of Africa and the Middle East - because I don't want my money to go to support these racist, sexist and/or undemocratic regimes.

So Europe or selected parts of South America it is!! Vamos!

Very interesting thread, OP, and it's certainly given me something to think about. I agree with you, btw. Also agree with HerBeX re the racism/sexism issue. Why is racism worse? Think it's perhaps accepted that it is by the patriachy because some of them will have been subjected to racism, but very rarely sexism? It's not that I am suggesting that either is right, but I don't think that one is worse that the other.

women are subject to both racism and sexism whereas men are only ever subject to racism

mric so basically you wont go to any country that doesnt follow your own ideaology, ie democracy etc, but what if the people in the country dont want democracy? why are you all convinced that everyone has to believe the same things you do despite religious and cultural differences?
obviously oppression of women is something to be condemmed but i dont see how not going to a country is going to help that? oppression of anyone is not right, but you have to differentiate between opression and cases where the people prefer to have a different political and social system.

show me a country/state nailak where the whole population has signed a social contract stating their preference for a different political and social system

exactly. you can't.

exactly so why would one try and force democracy on a country when you dont even know if they want it?

there are countries in this world where the general opinion is "We like ebing told what to do by someone we didn't choose to represent us. We like being shot at if we speak out against the status quo! Really, we prefer rape to literacy, honestly. It's what we want for our children - for us to have absolutely no say about the environment they grow up in. No age of consent? that's fine, I was married at nine, and although I know fistulae are disabling and frighteningly common, I haven't got one so i don't mind about all the little girls that do. I don't think about anyone else, ever ...."?

Really?

because I have difficulty believing that there are whole countries with no insight into abuses of human rights.

no i am not saying that there are countries that say they like being shot and raped, but there are plenty of people in those African and middle eastern countries that we are discussing that see that there are alternatives to the western democratic system and would like those alternatives implemented instead of democracy.
just because the state is not democratic in the westen sense doesnt mean the state wouldnt be responsible for the protection and education of the people, and for respecting and taking in to account their issues and opinions?
Any country which is condoning human rights abuses is wrong.

depending on your definition of human rights, some would say death penalty is against human rights, others would say the women needing a guardian is against hr, others working in a chain gang, others water torture, sleep deprivation, stress positions etc.

tbh there is enough human rights issues in our own countries where we reside why dont we start with focusing on those?

heh heh heh. Western feminists can't win, can they? Either we get castigated for focussing too much on this country when we supposedly have it so good, or get told to fight the good fight at home because there's still much to be done.

I'm not sure that the argument on this thread is about installing western-style democracy, is it? It's about improving conditions for women wherever they may be in the world.

" or if they prefer to actually have the security of a male guardian due to cultural and religious differences"

And black people were happy to be slaves, and had a rich and vibrant culture based on it, that we shouldn't interfere with. Plus they were sold into slavery by other black people, so slavery is part of their culture. Oh, and the Bible says black people should be slaves (something about one of the sons of Noah), so that has religion sewn up too.

Cultural and religious reasons don't sound so good, now, do they?

In fact they sound suspiciously like bigotry and prejudice.