From CBS, ABC, FOX, etc: The highest court in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) ruled that a man is allowed to beat his wife and children as long as he does not leave bruises or other marks, local newspaper The National reported Monday. "Although the [law] permits the husband to use his right [to discipline], he has to abide by the limits of this right," wrote Chief Justice Falah al Hajeri in a ruling issued this month and released in a court document Sunday. The limit, as the court defines it, is physical evidence of a beating that takes the accepted punishment to a more severe level. According to Islamic law, the man of the house is permitted to use physical discipline against his family if admonishing them and abstaining from sex with his wife do not work. Judges were forced to clarify the legal boundaries of beating after a UAE man slapped and kicked his daughter and wife, leaving bruises and facial injuries on them.
Well for arab muslims of this area this is an improvement. Also how abstaining from sex is a punishment for the wife I don't know, usually women can outlast men in abstinence, or so the general belief goes.
A messy juxtaposition Compared to the United States, we might simply restrict that rule to children and call it even. But the point of the wife is too large to simply set aside. Is the wife, then, by her presumed adulthood, exempt from such discipline in the U.S.? And who will discipline a man? In the States, men cannot beat their wives, and the basic legal expectation is that women cannot beat their husbands. Among adults, then, a reciprocal dynamic arises to consideration. But children? In the United States, they are exempt from that consideration. So the only difference, practically speaking, between the wife and the children is the fact of adulthood. Are we in the West, and the United States, really on such sound footing? To me, the fact of violence is important and inclusive, but I'm widely regarded as a left-wing extremist. So, as that idea is apparently too extreme for proper consideration in the main stream, why should Americans not beat their wives? And why should wives not retaliate? That would be a fine domestic violence system: the loser is the first one to leave evidence of their violence. Given the demographics, EF's suggestion of improvement is at least arguable. We can only look forward to the day when the UAE is plagued by sexy starlets and bad sitcoms to reiterate the ad hoc values that lead Americans to such civility. No, really. Casting call: 8 Deadly Rules for Dating My Daughter? According to Jamal? Married ... and Married Again ... and Married Again ... and Married Again ... With Children? Number one single: "Oops, I did it again. I showed you my leg ...." Hmm ... an analogue for Paris Hilton? It would be nice if the Islamic world was on sociomoral par with the West, but it would be even nicer if that asserted upper valence wasn't decaying. The difference between idiot and moron has to do with the right or wrong actions for the wrong or right reasons. That is, if Western pereptions of cultural warfare hold true, then at least, someday, we can all be stuck in the same hole together. It's like a reality show: Survivor: Idiots vs. Morons—who will get voted off the island? Yes, together we are stronger, so let us gather and all be lost in the desert as one.
Well the title of the thread is misleading since "beating" has been defined as Physical punishment that doesn't leave bruising or other marks would not generally be thought of as taking a beating. Spanking would be a more likely term. Arthur
Arthur, I must commend you for being a quality person and your thoughts immediately going to 'spanking', however for the more sadistic individuals out there abuse without leaving marks can be seen more of as a challenge. The abuse can continue with inventive ways of beatings designed to not leave marks as can be found in researching abuse cases. Another alternative to get around this law would be to threaten an even more severe beating to the victim if they were to show anyone any marks obtained from an original beating. I posted this article as an experiment. I was intrigued by the possible responses it might evoke. To my surprise the postings referring to the approved beating of women and children range from 'its not so bad' to explanations for this behavior and all the way to actual praise for these actions being seen as an improvement. Interesting...
Metaphorically rhetorically One thing you need to account for is that this is old news. Maybe not the specific case of the UAE court, but the standard in general has been floating around for some time. Additionally, the topic post doesn't much define the issue, so people are going to make of it what they will; hence, old news. Taken in that context, much of the emotional outrage people might afford is already spent. History shows that broad changes take time. Even in the U.S., we cannot force people to accept basic human equality. We can force them to abide by it according to law, but that only goes so far. So, yes, the transition from horrifying to merely repugnant is, in many cases, an improvement. Just as our modern sensibilities might have recoiled from the "improvement" of limiting child labor to eight or ten hours a day, and removing them from dangerous jobs at the mine. You or I might see the sickly legions in the matchstick factories and be outraged. But compared to the sixteen hour days with minimal sustenance and the constant risk of life and limb, yes, early child labor laws were definitely an improvement over what came before. Progress is not instant. No amount of outrage can make it so. But as we reach certain thresholds—some of which seem almost silly compared to their implications, like lingerie sales in Riyadh—we find the light richer and more permeating. Kind of like the proverbial snowball, only not quite as predictable. I cannot tell you when the fires of equality and justice will flash over, but it is warmer in those quarters today than it was yesterday. If justice could win overnight, it would. But it can't. Any time we spend crying over spilled milk leaves it to congeal in the floorboards. Well, you know, to mix metaphors. Just a bit ... irresponsibly.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I suspect for UAE woman, who live in a country where by law their husbands are allowed to physically discipline them, this legal clarification that permitted disipline is excessive if it causes bruises or marks, will indeed be seen by many as a welcome and needed clarification to the law. Or as is written on a wall in the men's room: From Management: The beatings will stop as soon as morale improves. Arthur
Thank you for explaining yourself Tiassa. I do have one question for all invovled: Would your opinions or reactions differ if the abuse victims were minorities (in faith, race, etc.) or homosexuals? The beating intensity would remain the same as would the motive of 'teaching the victim a lesson.'
Well if there was a country whose laws allowed beating homosexuals or jews or... to disipline them, then I think one would also welcome this clarification, that said beatings were limited in intensity to that which didn't leave a mark or bruise. That answer does NOT indicate that one supports the original law that allows the beatings, but that's not the question you asked is it? Arthur
No marks at all or just ones that heal quickly? Like a slap might leave a red mark, but it would be gone in an hour tops.
I don't think one adult can administer "lessons" onto another with physical discipline, no matter the reasons. Now I'm all for imprisonment, slave labor of convicts and even brain surgery on pathological criminals, but I see no use for wiping, hitting and punching of ANY ADULT as a means of punishment. Its a power issue and in a fair society no one should have power over their peers to beat them. Of course in countries like the UAE women are not the same thing as a man, and thus an adult women is not the same thing as an adult man, an adult women is like a child to them.
Finding a course amid the storm I don't think so. If we look at the people involved and the relationships defined therein, I can see how some might hinge more or less on the differences about how a local cleric relates to homosexuals compared to how a husband relates to his wife, or parent to child. Looking to the violence itself, the issue becomes more complicated. While some, even in the United States, would argue that violence toward children is acceptable within a calculated operant conditioning framework, the same sort of logic does not necessarily work in application to adults. The relationship between stimulus (violence) and response (behavioral adjustment) is much more complicated, and offers considerably less stability about the result. In the end, the violent tool requires specific justifications depending on the relationship in question; or, simply put, one is left grasping after unreliable straws to justify this or that beating. But in either case, violence is a time-honored, traditional remedy applied to a host of agitating maladies. After so many generations, though, it is still unclear whether violence does anything to solve the problem, or if it simply offers its wielder fleeting gratification. As a moral consideration, then, it seems to me that violence is an easy and tempting path. As a human condition, recognizing the path of least resistance, and/or greatest immediate satisfaction is nearly universal. The question, as such, is not so much one of how dare they behave so poorly! but, rather, how to encourage a more difficult and, hopefully, more rewarding path. At some point, matters of conduct transform into sensation or feeling. Two seeming polar opposites: Your wife might conduct herself appropriately because she is afraid of the next beating, in which case you must constantly expend vigilance against her transgressions; or your wife might conduct herself appropriately because she trusts you, and believes in her union with you, in which case you are afforded the luxury of enjoying that human warmth. Explain the color green to a blind man. Draw the basic harmony of a CEG triad for a deaf man. And once you've mastered the easy stuff, explain to a poor, undereducated man steeped in generations of tradition and superstition why the unknown, unpredictable, hazardous route of love and trust is actually the safer and more profitable path. And then, just to prove your immortality, explain to that same man both why it is easier to live and let live and how he's being just a little too stingy when he worries about the occasional condom underfoot in the park. You know, just as long as you're about the impossible. Some would pit liberty and equality against decency. Some would shelter them in the same quarter. Most, however, muddle about in a strange region of knowledge, belief, and thought that renders both paths, despite their pristine grooming, terrifying. Sisyphus, stay! 'til I get you a bigger goddamn rock! Or something like that.
