Frauenheldinnen » FrauenHeldinnenMagazin » News » Gen­der iden­ti­ty the­o­ry and fun­da­men­tal­ist Islam — dou­ble suf­fer­ing for women?

Analy­sis by Eva Engelken

Gen­der iden­ti­ty the­o­ry and fun­da­men­tal­ist Islam — dou­ble suf­fer­ing for women?

by | 14.05.24

Foto von <a href="https://unsplash.com/de/@liammcgarry?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash">Liam McGarry</a> auf <a href="https://unsplash.com/de/fotos/menschen-in-blauen-und-gelben-hemden-die-tagsuber-auf-der-strasse-stehen-MSUHNZAF8tQ?utm_content=creditCopyText&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=unsplash">Unsplash</a>

Foto von Liam McGarry auf Unsplash

An analy­sis by Eva Engelken

What do gen­der iden­ti­ty the­o­ry and fun­da­men­tal­ist Islam have in com­mon? Can they be seen as two facets of the rever­sal of women’s rights that can be observed world­wide, and is it per­haps no coin­ci­dence that their cur­rent mas­sive appear­ance and their top-down infil­tra­tion into West­ern soci­ety coin­cide? But why do some women hold back with their crit­i­cism? For fear of being seen as anti-Mus­lim?

First of all, the par­al­lels.

Both make women invis­i­ble. Gen­der iden­ti­ty the­o­ry, by tak­ing away their right to their own name and redefin­ing wom­an­hood as an iden­ti­ty that can be applied via make­up, while at the same time eras­ing the word woman in favor of sex­ist word cre­ations such as “peo­ple with uterus­es”. Fun­da­men­tal­ist Islam makes women invis­i­ble by wrap­ping at least their hair, if not their entire bod­ies, in black or gray cloth.

They both push women out of their rooms and restrict their free­dom of move­ment. Some take away women’s safe spaces by open­ing them up to men. The oth­ers deny women free and safe par­tic­i­pa­tion in pub­lic life from the out­set. Both restrict women’s par­tic­i­pa­tion in soci­ety. Some take the hard-won lead­er­ship posi­tions (or women’s quo­ta places) away from women by iden­ti­fy­ing them­selves as women. The oth­ers do not even allow women to run for rel­e­vant posi­tions.

Some are mak­ing women’s sport obso­lete by allow­ing men to play it. The oth­ers do not allow women to take part at all or only allow them to do so in a tex­tile cov­er­ing.

Some dri­ve a wedge between par­ents and chil­dren, oth­ers declare child mar­riages to be legal. Some cel­e­brate gen­i­tal-alter­ing and libido-restrict­ing inter­ven­tions as health care, while oth­ers declare gen­i­tal muti­la­tion of girls to be a nec­es­sary act of puri­ty. Both of them are lord­ing it over women’s fer­til­i­ty and sex­u­al­i­ty. Some declare them­selves moth­ers and use women’s bod­ies as con­trac­tu­al­ly rent­ed incu­ba­tors via sur­ro­ga­cy and egg dona­tion. The oth­ers for­bid their wives to use con­tra­cep­tion — here they are sim­i­lar to fun­da­men­tal­ist Chris­tians — and sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly turn their wives into incu­ba­tors for as many off­spring as pos­si­ble. Some cel­e­brate all sex­u­al deviance as a sex­u­al iden­ti­ty wor­thy of pro­tec­tion and pros­ti­tu­tion as sex work. The oth­ers enable pros­ti­tu­tion by declar­ing it an ultra-short-term mar­riage.

Both place ide­ol­o­gy and vic­tim nar­ra­tives above real­i­ty: some cre­ate the nar­ra­tive of the priv­i­leged cis woman, which allows them to rein­ter­pret the defence of urgent­ly need­ed women’s safe spaces as the “dis­crim­i­na­to­ry exclu­sion of mar­gin­al­ized trans women”, and the sex­u­al harass­ment made pos­si­ble by the intru­sion as the right to “equal­i­ty” and the “right to pee”. The oth­ers use the post­colo­nial nar­ra­tive of the injus­tice of the West­ern world to por­tray them­selves as the sole vic­tim in the event of a crime, which, based on this nar­ra­tive, can­not be a per­pe­tra­tor at all

Such a com­plete per­pe­tra­tor-vic­tim rever­sal is oth­er­wise only found among pedocrim­i­nals who try to jus­ti­fy the abuse of a lit­tle girl with the lie that they were seduced by the lit­tle girl.

Both demand uncon­di­tion­al, almost total­i­tar­i­an sub­mis­sion to the nar­ra­tive from their sup­port­ers and try to silence their crit­ics and even more so their female crit­ics: the one by call­ing them trans­pho­bic and fil­ing crim­i­nal charges, the oth­er by fram­ing any skep­ti­cism as an expres­sion of so-called anti-Mus­lim racism.

Last but not least, those who are sup­pos­ed­ly pro­tect­ed are the first to suf­fer. For homo­sex­u­als or diag­nosed trans­sex­u­als, gen­der iden­ti­ty the­o­ry does not bring recog­ni­tion, but rather hos­til­i­ty. For mod­er­ate or entire­ly sec­u­lar Mus­lims, fun­da­men­tal­ist Islam brings back the restric­tions on free­dom from which they fled to Germany/Europe at some point.

The out­cry should actu­al­ly be huge. But instead, even rad­i­cal fem­i­nist women are hold­ing back on crit­i­ciz­ing the increas­ing­ly offen­sive calls for the Islamiza­tion of Ger­many. When I recent­ly raised the top­ic in a rad­i­cal fem­i­nist group, I was told: “As rad­i­cal fem­i­nists, we see all monothe­is­tic reli­gions as prob­lem­at­ic and an out­growth of patri­archy.” I replied that I did too, but that we in Ger­many now had a prob­lem with fun­da­men­tal­ist Islam. And the prob­lem would not get any small­er just because Chris­t­ian men also raped women and vis­it­ed broth­els. They said that they under­stood this, but were wor­ried about appear­ing anti-migrant or anti-Mus­lim with pub­lic state­ments.

Now, Chris­tian­i­ty and Judaism are also monothe­is­tic Abra­ham­ic reli­gions — and in their fun­da­men­tal­ist form they are an impo­si­tion and a depri­va­tion of free­dom for women. How­ev­er, in Europe, the USA, Cana­da and Aus­tralia, the two reli­gions are cur­rent­ly large­ly restrict­ed by the law. Sec­u­lar­ism and women’s rights, which are often even enshrined in the con­sti­tu­tion, pro­tect women from patri­ar­chal, reli­gious­ly moti­vat­ed desires. With excep­tions — such as the restric­tion of the repro­duc­tive right to abor­tion — this even applies to the evan­gel­i­cal US states: Even if the ele­men­tary right to decide on a preg­nan­cy is effec­tive­ly nul­li­fied here, there is still a sep­a­ra­tion of church and state, and (alleged) adul­tery is not pun­ished with lash­es or ston­ing. But wher­ev­er fun­da­men­tal­ist Islam is on the rise, this sep­a­ra­tion no longer works because the Sharia law with its misog­y­nis­tic con­tent forms the legal sys­tem. Of course there is progress, for exam­ple in Tunisia, but over­all Sharia law dom­i­nates in Mus­lim coun­tries to the detri­ment of women. The Islamists are now also demand­ing its intro­duc­tion in Ger­many. And they empha­size this demand with a high birth rate in order to bring the hat­ed “West” to its knees numer­i­cal­ly

Not say­ing any­thing about the dis­en­fran­chise­ment of women for fear of appear­ing anti-Mus­lim seems sim­i­lar­ly short-sight­ed as refrain­ing from crit­i­ciz­ing trans­gen­der ide­ol­o­gy for fear of appear­ing anti-trans.

What is inex­plic­a­ble among many woke peo­ple and those who sym­pa­thize with the left spec­trum is their blind­ness to the fact that their way of think­ing would no longer have any room if a caliphate real­ly were to be estab­lished. In fun­da­men­tal­ist Islam, it is life-threat­en­ing to form an oppo­si­tion. Women who tear the hijab off their heads in Iran, for exam­ple, are risk­ing their lives. “Left-wing” val­ues such as diver­si­ty and vari­ety or human rights are gen­er­al­ly not to be found in Islam­ic coun­tries. Nev­er­the­less, new­com­ers from these cul­tures are treat­ed with kid gloves, even if they open­ly dis­play and live out their misog­y­nis­tic val­ues. This can only be due to an uncon­scious? Unlike Islam­ic fun­da­men­tal­ists, right-wing extrem­ist Ger­mans of Ger­man ori­gin are — right­ly — con­demned and per­se­cut­ed in the strongest pos­si­ble terms by the same peo­ple. This remark­able dou­ble stan­dard can be found at all social and polit­i­cal lev­els.

On Sat­ur­day, May 11, a short video clip from the news por­tal NIUS gave a faint impres­sion of the con­tempt for women to be expect­ed in a caliphate.

In it, the young reporter Zara Rif­fler tried to ask the Ham­burg demon­stra­tors ques­tions and was met with icy silence and angry looks. The few men who answered her in mono­syl­la­bles were imme­di­ate­ly harassed by stew­ards. The fact that they were not sim­ply pushed away was prob­a­bly only due to the very present police, who did a good job, but not to the respect of the most­ly beard­ed men for women. Their women stood far away, ful­ly cov­ered under veils or dis­rupt­ing the counter-protests.

When their rights were threat­ened by gen­der iden­ti­ty ide­ol­o­gy, many women and les­bians first had to pluck up the courage to speak out. When it comes to the Islamist threat to their rights, there is an almost inex­plic­a­ble void for many peo­ple, which this arti­cle has hope­ful­ly filled a lit­tle

Wir sind viele!

Ein Pro­jekt von

Frauenheldinnen e.V. – Die gemeinnützige Förderplattform

Frauenheldinnen e.V. – Die gemeinnützige Förderplattform

Mehr zum Thema:

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

No Results Found

The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.

Share This