Turkey withdraws from the Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence

[ioannis76]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul_Convention
One would think that a country such as Turkey, with a high rate of gynocide would not withdraw from such a Treaty, if only to save face, but apparently there it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCOFZXceVBY
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/20/e...ntl/index.html
The move of Turkey was protested, yet it is questionable whether this will have any impact or just be dealt with arrests and violence.

Does this show that Turkey openly now rejects Western values?
Will it aid Erdogan in terms of votes? If so, what does that show for the average Turkish voter?
Will this attitude be maintained by any successor of Erdogan?

[antaeus]

What are Turkey's current laws on domestic violence?

[Sir Adrian]

Turkey has never fully accepted western values. It got as close as it could during the days of Ataturk but at the end of the day the truth is that the western system of values and Islamic system of values are incompatible. There is some overlap, but to accept one you have to abandon the other.

[PointOfViewGun]

What are Turkey's current laws on domestic violence?

On paper? As good as any other. In practice? Not so good. As a male-dominated society the system always favors men.

Turkey has never fully accepted western values. It got as close as it could during the days of Ataturk but at the end of the day the truth is that the western system of values and Islamic system of values are incompatible. There is some overlap, but to accept one you have to abandon the other.

Hungary and Poland are also struggling between Islamic and Western values?

[Kritias]

Hungary and Poland are also struggling between Islamic and Western values?

Or Greece?

[PointOfViewGun]

For reference:



It's interesting how it moves with geography. Unfortunately, while Turkey is considered in the project they don't assign a value. It's likely to be below Greece for sure.

[ioannis76]

The question is, does not respecting women's rights get you votes in Turkey? Because if so, then there is a rather big problem, since it demonstrates a conscious rejection of women's rights on the part of voters.
And we're not talking about wage gaps here, we're rather more talking about murdering women.

[Kritias]

It's interesting how it moves with geography. Unfortunately, while Turkey is considered in the project they don't assign a value. It's likely to be below Greece for sure.

Well, as I understand it, the position of women in a society seems to be predicted largely by the level of economic development in said country. Under-developed nations on the fringes of the hardcore of Europe seem to be lagging behind. I'd assume the pinkish colour of Germany and Italy describe the West-East and North-South divides in economic development. The evidence for this: Inside the EU common legislation have improved women's position in general but at a snail's pace - as the report puts it - precisely because economic development hasn't delivered the "on the ground" parameters for such change.

Nations outside the EU are not pressured to implement laws coming from Brussels and have followed their own way. I'd assume Turkey is fairing worse than the European borderlands. But let's fix our backyards first before we start pointing fingers at the infidels, shall we?

Ioannis, yes that's true - but we're not exactly talking about wage gaps. Greece at least has performing horridly on indexes about violence on women these last 10 years. And the trend seems to be on the rise with every passing year.

[Sir Adrian]

Hungary and Poland are also struggling between Islamic and Western values?

Nice whataboutism. What do Hungary and Poland got to do with Turkey's behavior over the past decades?

[PointOfViewGun]

Nice whataboutism. What do Hungary and Poland got to do with Turkey's behavior over the past decades?

Those are two other countries that voiced opposition to the convention despite signing it. Poland started the process to withdraw from the convention and the Hungarian parliament adopted a resolution against it. So, are those countries struggling between Islamic and Western values as well? Also, while at it, since Turkey sponsored the convention, hence the name, and become the first one to sign it, did you rejoice for how aligned Turkey was with Western values?

[Macaras]

Its very simple - nobody want domestic violence, some (Poland, Hungary, Turkey) don't want gender ideology. Istanbul convention smuggles gender. Besides we don't want any politicians to intervene in the family matters, they will only destroy already difficult situation of families. The politicians should stay away of any form of social engineering, right now the crazy leftist agenda promoting abortion and gender ideology is suicidal for societies. What should be really fought against is drugs, alcoholism, pornography - these are the main causes of violence and family destruction, not traditional family and the roles of father and mother. Imagine the country in any point of history where women go for the war with swords and armors and men are staying in their homes taking care of children.. whats wrong with this picture? Are they not the same (irony intended)? Man and women are different in many aspects (height, body mass, interests, social skills etc) and are equal in dignity. In Poland there are more women on the CEO positions than in many of the western Europe countries..

[Sir Adrian]

Those are two other countries that voiced opposition to the convention despite signing it. Poland started the process to withdraw from the convention and the Hungarian parliament adopted a resolution against it. So, are those countries struggling between Islamic and Western values as well? Also, while at it, since Turkey sponsored the convention, hence the name, and become the first one to sign it, did you rejoice for how aligned Turkey was with Western values?

That's not what I asked you, and you're resorting to whataboutism again while dodging the problem of Islam in Turkey. The convention withdrawal is just an episode in a long series for Turkey whereas neither Poland nor Hungary will go as far as to withdraw and for both, unlike Turkey, the "criticism" is purely populist and aimed at the anti-EU angle. Simply Poland and Hungary are just fanning the flames of an artificial conflict with "big brother" EU to squeeze votes out of the soles of society. Turkey withdrew because outside Tsarigrad and the western touristy parts, cultural mores are heavily biased against the stipulations of the accord. And quite frankly I am extremely surprised you are even trying to make an argument here given that we both know the position of Islam on man-woman relations and how absolute and immovable that position is.

If either Orban or Duda tried to withdraw for the same reason Recep did, they'd lose the next election with 10%, if not less.

[Pontifex Maximus]

[ ] Support feminism, Turkey is wrong.

[ ] Forcing our Western values on Turkey is Islamophobic.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[PointOfViewGun]

Its very simple - nobody want domestic violence, some (Poland, Hungary, Turkey) don't want gender ideology. Istanbul convention smuggles gender. Besides we don't want any politicians to intervene in the family matters, they will only destroy already difficult situation of families. The politicians should stay away of any form of social engineering, right now the crazy leftist agenda promoting abortion and gender ideology is suicidal for societies. What should be really fought against is drugs, alcoholism, pornography - these are the main causes of violence and family destruction, not traditional family and the roles of father and mother. Imagine the country in any point of history where women go for the war with swords and armors and men are staying in their homes taking care of children.. whats wrong with this picture? Are they not the same (irony intended)? Man and women are different in many aspects (height, body mass, interests, social skills etc) and are equal in dignity. In Poland there are more women on the CEO positions than in many of the western Europe countries..

Can you point out where exactly in the convention they smuggle gender ideology? Where does it intervene in the family matters as well?

That's not what I asked you, and you're resorting to whataboutism again while dodging the problem of Islam in Turkey. The convention withdrawal is just an episode in a long series for Turkey whereas neither Poland nor Hungary will go as far as to withdraw and for both, unlike Turkey, the "criticism" is purely populist and aimed at the anti-EU angle. Simply Poland and Hungary are just fanning the flames of an artificial conflict with "big brother" EU to squeeze votes out of the soles of society. Turkey withdrew because outside Tsarigrad and the western touristy parts, cultural mores are heavily biased against the stipulations of the accord. And quite frankly I am extremely surprised you are even trying to make an argument here given that we both know the position of Islam on man-woman relations and how absolute and immovable that position is.

If either Orban or Duda tried to withdraw for the same reason Recep did, they'd lose the next election with 10%, if not less.

It's not really a conversation if you completely ignore what I say...

[Kritias]

[ ] Support feminism, Turkey is wrong.

[ ] Forcing our Western values on Turkey is Islamophobic.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Does not compute. Forcing our western values on Turkey would be Islamophobic if women's rights stemmed from Christian principles. They do not. A simple example of this is the position of women living in Christian sects which, I'm sure you'd agree, has nothing to do with the position of women in secular societies. If I remember my religious studies class correctly, it's somewhere in Timothy where women should basically sit down and shut up, show submission to men in all things, and be ashamed when they think it proper to speak up in the presence of men.

Therefore considering a society which wants to appear secular, like Turkey, for not following the secular paradigm is neither a condemnation or Islamophobic; the former because talking about an issue doesn't need to devolve in "they are bad and should feel bad" arguments if you're older than five, and the latter because women's rights evolved in the West in spite of Christianity and not because of it - making a religious point about women's rights moot.

[Cope]

Does not compute.

This statement alone rather proves your interlocutor's point for him.

Forcing our western values on Turkey would be Islamophobic if women's rights stemmed from Christian principles. They do not. A simple example of this is the position of women living in Christian sects which, I'm sure you'd agree, has nothing to do with the position of women in secular societies. If I remember my religious studies class correctly, it's somewhere in Timothy where women should basically sit down and shut up, show submission to men in all things, and be ashamed when they think it proper to speak up in the presence of men.

Incoherent drivel. Whether or not "western values" stem from Christianity is irrelevant. Your interlocutor is highlighting the cognitive dissonance associated with the so-called successor ideology.

Therefore considering a society which wants to appear secular, like Turkey, for not following the secular paradigm is neither a condemnation or Islamophobic; the former because talking about an issue doesn't need to devolve in "they are bad and should feel bad" arguments if you're older than five, and the latter because women's rights evolved in the West in spite of Christianity and not because of it - making a religious point about women's rights moot.

Glad you admit that Islam is a barrier to women's rights (according to western standards), even if you can only bring yourself to make such an admission by using Christianity as a proxy (ergo proving, once again, your interlocutor's premise correct).

[Kritias]

This statement alone rather proves your interlocutor's point for him.

No, it doesn't. Because it connects to the next sentence and means nothing by itself. Which you knew and that's why you took it out of context.

Incoherent drivel. Whether or not "western values" stem from Christianity is irrelevant. Your interlocutor is highlighting the cognitive dissonance associated with the so-called successor ideology.

You fall into the cognitive dissonance trap only if you adhere to Christian nationalism tenets. This is a set of ideas that combine Judeo-Christian religion with the accomplishments of the 'West' while in fact, the separation of church and state propelled these advances to a far greater degree. Secular states evolved contrary to religion; women's rights evolved in spite of religious oppression; again, if you need any proof of that, check any indexes regarding violence of women in Christian sects. Or what is written about women in the Bible.

Glad you admit that Islam is a barrier to women's rights (according to western standards), even if you can only bring yourself to make such an admission by using Christianity as a proxy (ergo proving, once again, your interlocutor's premise correct).

Again, no. What I wrote is that specific interpretations of any religion is a barrier to women's rights.

Argue against what I write and not what you would like me to have written to suit your worldview; or better still, have an argument by yourself. Judging by your dishonesty in presenting my view in your post, It will be a waste of time for both of us if we continue replying to each other.

[Cope]

No, it doesn't. Because it connects to the next sentence and means nothing by itself. Which you knew and that's why you took it out of context.

"Does not compute" was amusingly poor choice of words. It illustrated your inability to resolve the ideological contradiction presented by your interlocutor's dichotomy.

You fall into the cognitive dissonance trap only if you adhere to Christian nationalism tenets. This is a set of ideas that combine Judeo-Christian religion with the accomplishments of the 'West' while in fact, the separation of church and state propelled these advances to a far greater degree. Secular states evolved contrary to religion; women's rights evolved in spite of religious oppression; again, if you need any proof of that, check any indexes regarding violence of women in Christian sects. Or what is written about women in the Bible.

This is a repetition of the same sophistry offered above. Meanwhile, the intersectional left's dissonance on the issue of Islam (the fetishization of the "other" above any claimed commitment to egalitarianism) is palpable. The French have a word for it: l'islamo-gauchisme (see esp. p. 25 onward).

Again, no. What I wrote is that specific interpretations of any religion is a barrier to women's rights.

Contorting yourself into a pretzel so as not to appear to be criticizing Islam is precisely the attitude of the which your interlocutor was mocking. Case in point: an increasingly Islamist government withdraws from a treaty allegedly concerning women's rights and you can only bring yourself to frame the issue via complaints about "Christian nationalism".

Argue against what I write and not what you would like me to have written to suit your worldview; or better still, have an argument by yourself. Judging by your dishonesty in presenting my view in your post, It will be a waste of time for both of us if we continue replying to each other.

The only dishonesty here is yours. Don't worry: your ideological proclamations won't go unanswered here.

[PointOfViewGun]

You know your objection is factitious when you approach someone's choice of words and arguments as if they raped someone. You are basically trying to make your position appear more sound by sheer projection. It's a bad way to argue a position. You're not presenting a rebuttal, but a mere rant with a few sophisticated sounding terms.

[Kritias]

This is a repetition of the same sophistry offered above. Meanwhile, the intersectional left's dissonance on the issue of Islam (the fetishization of the "other" above any claimed commitment to egalitarianism) is palpable. The French have a word for it: l'islamo-gauchisme (see esp. p. 25 onward).

Maybe you should remember another word: hypocrisy. Then you should recall all instances this word accompanies the word 'religious'. Plainly said: arguing that the actions of a government is a representation of a particular religion is just a dubious over-generalization.

Turkey has a long secular tradition and is Islamic. Erdogan is just a far-right nationalist who wants to "make Turkey great again"; perhaps his popularity is more based on the fact he presents a strong Turkey abroad, constructs monumental public buildings, trumps up the Ottoman past and allows religious expression in previously forbidden parts of public life rather than the suppression of women.

Contorting yourself into a pretzel so as not to appear to be criticizing Islam is precisely the attitude of the which your interlocutor was mocking. Case in point: an increasingly Islamist government withdraws from a treaty allegedly concerning women's rights and you can only bring yourself to frame the issue via complaints about "Christian nationalism".

It's becoming clear you can't cope with the nuances of political theory. See above.

The only dishonesty here is yours. Don't worry: your ideological proclamations won't go unanswered here.

*Sighs* Alright, let's tango.