Could you introduce yourself, how do you see yourself within feminism, and what were your beginnings in feminism? What was the main reason that motivated you to engage in it?

 I might best start with the wartime period, when I first became aware of what it actually means to be a feminist, as this understanding is different for everyone. At that time, I was very young, about 22 years old, and I knew that many things were not right, that they didn’t function as they should. I was bothered by injustice and inequality, but I didn’t know how to articulate it properly or what to call it. Then, during the war, in 1993, I started working with Medica Mondiale, which came to Zenica to establish the first clinic for victims and survivors of wartime sexual violence.

While working in the psychosocial team, I encountered feminists from Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, and other countries. That’s when I learned something about feminism, but above all, I would say my feminism emerged from grassroots activism. My engagement with victims and survivors of gender-based violence, particularly wartime sexual violence, through both Medica and the Center for War Crimes Research, shaped my awareness. Encountering these women, collecting their testimonies, working with women who came to the center pregnant, talking with them, providing comfort, and trying to find answers from a religious perspective—those were some of my earliest steps toward feminist consciousness. It was a very difficult situation, but it provided an opportunity for both spiritual growth and the discovery of feminism’s potential, which, even then, aligned well with everything I believed in as a Muslim woman.

Your perspective on feminism is very interesting. How do you see the divisions within feminism that exist today? Why do we even need to divide ourselves if, in the end, we are fighting for the same rights? How do you interpret this?

That’s a good question because we tend to divide over everything, don’t we? So, we divide within feminism as well. However, in all of this, we need to consider the contexts in which we live and act. We also need to consider educational backgrounds and the political-ideological contexts in which we operate. Liberal feminism, for example, has its roots in the West, stemming from thinkers like John Stuart Mill, Harriet Taylor Mill, and other advocates, and it has seamlessly integrated into what the capitalist, market-oriented economy later required.

In this sense, feminist demands fit into existing socio-political systems. As a liberal feminist, for instance, you can advocate for equal civil and political rights for women and men, focusing on education, voting rights, the right to work, and so on, but without questioning the underlying political system within which you operate, without challenging capitalism. Radical feminism, however, in the 1960s raised significant questions, arguing that fundamental changes cannot occur without transforming the societal structures that perpetuate inequality—particularly gender-based inequality.

Radical feminists in the 1960s were very vocal, stating that patriarchy is the key cause of women’s oppression and exploitation. They argued that to eliminate any form of gender-based domination, exploitation, or exclusion, it is necessary to work on dismantling the patriarchal system and the socio-political structures in which it operates. However, this essentially means challenging the levers of power, which is very risky.

From another perspective, when we talk about our contexts here in the Balkans, in Yugoslavia, where socialist feminism—and in some communist countries, Marxist feminism—developed, it was a combination of Marxism and feminism. However, the focus was more on economic and social rights rather than civic and political rights. Today, when you listen to women who lived during that period, they say they were well-off because they were economically and socially secure, had free education and healthcare, opportunities to work and engage, and were not overly concerned with civic and political rights, even though they could have been politically active.

In socialism, a significant focus was placed on gender inequality in relation to class. The emphasis was on equality among all workers, comrades, and colleagues. Class was key, while liberal feminism doesn’t problematize this at all. However, in the 1990s, when changes came, we saw the collapse of these social and economic aspects, and liberal feminism emerged. We began to focus on civic and political rights, forgetting the economic and social ones. Without these four rights—civic, political, economic, and social—equality cannot be achieved. This is particularly crucial for women, as they bear the greatest burden of family and childcare responsibilities in their private lives.

Why does the Balkans seem to hate women, and is this hatred unique to the Balkans?

Misogyny is not a unique characteristic of the Balkans; unfortunately, it exists in all societies. The forms of misogyny can be explicit or implicit, and in more developed societies, the consequences of misogyny are strictly sanctioned today. The Balkans is often portrayed as a dark place, a semi-periphery of Europe, culturally othered and second-rate, a borderland between East and West, Islam and Christianity, socialism and capitalism, autocratic regimes and democracies, oppression and freedom. This positioning of the Balkans as a place of violence, backwardness, and lack of freedom has influenced how gender equality and the status of women are perceived in this region.

The Balkans has its contradictions and problems, but gender equality, for example, after World War II, was resolved in many aspects better than in Western Europe and America, where women still earn, on average, 20% less than men for the same jobs. The picture is far more complex and requires deeper analysis, especially considering the devastating wars and destruction that the Balkans experienced at the end of the 20th century. These wars left significant consequences on the mental health of people, which is often overlooked. Misogyny is an old issue and should always be examined at the intersection of gender stereotypes, sexism, and power dynamics in society. Misogyny is based on gender stereotypes and is specifically directed against women simply because they are women.

The problem becomes even greater when misogyny is internalized, and women perpetuate learned sexist behaviors toward other women, enabling the patriarchal system to persist without male presence. Generally, in patriarchal cultures, when women are oppressed by power structures and norms that promote and sustain gender inequality, they often continue to oppress other women. If we look at the media, especially social media in the Balkans, we see that misogyny is deeply embedded in people’s thinking, especially in the revictimization of women who have already suffered gender-based violence.

A good example is the case of Serbian actress Milena Radulović, which inspired the platform “I Didn’t Ask For It” in Bosnia and Herzegovina, allowing women to share their testimonies and experiences of violence. When this actress accused actor Miroslav Aleksić of rape, instead of receiving understanding and support, a media campaign was launched against her. Comments on social media, such as “If she hadn’t undressed, she wouldn’t have been assaulted,” reveal the extent of misogyny and how difficult it is for women to exist in public spaces, especially if they dare to speak about violence. The assumption is that any woman with a career, particularly in show business, will do whatever it takes to succeed, including using her sexuality to manipulate men.

In the Balkans, the stereotype still persists that such women are promiscuous by default, of loose morals, and that they provoke sexual assault by dressing provocatively and pursuing jobs still considered “men’s work.” This twisted way of thinking suggests that a “real man” won’t miss an opportunity for sex, even if it means abusing a position of power to control and silence victims. This results in victims being terrified, having no trust in society to support them or believe them, and remaining silent. It is horrifying that women are still blamed for what happens to them, as though they could have defended themselves or spoken up sooner. Whenever a woman speaks out, she faces judgment and moralizing instead of understanding.

The difference between the Balkans and more developed Western countries lies in how the consequences of misogyny are sanctioned. The conviction of Harvey Weinstein in America demonstrates this. Here, rapists are often given conditional or minimal sentences, fines, or are not prosecuted at all. This emboldens perpetrators to murder women, and sadly, we witness numerous femicides across the Balkans. Even after killing women, men are often granted mitigating circumstances, such as being a “good father” or “loving his wife,” which somehow legitimizes their decision over her life and death. There is much work to be done on these issues because we live in a culture that has normalized all forms of violence to the extent that we have become desensitized and fail to adequately prevent and condemn it. Violence is still considered a private issue for women rather than a serious social, health, and economic problem.

Not only is domestic violence considered a private issue, but we are also generally quite passive and turn a blind eye to other issues. For example, when we look at the political situation and dysfunctional institutions, how is it possible that the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina continue to endure this, and why hasn’t there been a revolution yet?

Bosnia and Herzegovina is indeed a dysfunctional state with a constitutional and legal framework that would not function in any European country. However, its citizens are exhausted by decades of ethno-nationalist politics that profit from divisions and hold people hostage. This is why young people in particular are leaving the country, as they realize that they cannot change anything. When they do protest, they are stigmatized and persecuted, lose their jobs, or, if they have private businesses, they struggle to survive due to high taxes and political pressures.

Furthermore, for citizens to stage revolutions, there must be a developed political culture with civic responsibility, which is lacking in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Problems are discussed in backrooms and cafes, but there is no readiness for civic protests because many protests have failed or been exploited for specific political goals. Citizens have been deceived, they lack trust in institutions, and they themselves often consciously or unconsciously support corruption.

In a country where crime and corruption are not sanctioned and where ruling political elites maintain the status quo for their own profit, it is difficult to expect impoverished, disillusioned, and politically immature citizens to bring about change in this ethno-nationally constructed democracy.

Instead of revolts and revolutions, people endure and choose to stay in their comfort zones because it’s easier that way—they won’t be ostracized, judged, or face consequences. Intellectuals also self-censor and give measured statements in public. There are very few socially engaged intellectuals who should be the leaders of change because, ultimately, everything depends on good ideas that can inspire people, give them hope, and provide purpose. I fear that in Bosnia and Herzegovina, people live in despair, lacking real guidance and ideas that could lift them out of the stagnant mire of ethno-nationalism. As a result, they refuse to engage in politics, leaving governance in the hands of incompetent and corrupt individuals who only care about their immediate interests.

Do you see any signs of radicalization in Bosnian society?

Radicalization exists in Bosnian society, as it does in others, but not in the way it has been portrayed, such as through claims of terrorist training camps. Security agencies have refuted such statements, which were deliberately aimed at portraying Bosnian Muslims as terrorists. The increasing number of women wearing hijabs or men growing beards is, for some in the West, an immediate sign of radicalization. It seems that, in the West, the only acceptable Muslim is one who does not practice their religion. I have often encountered comments, even from educated people, who approached me after lectures at universities saying they were glad to meet a “normal Muslim woman.” I would respond that I’m glad too, but I’d like them to describe what an “abnormal Muslim woman” looks like, after which they would apologize, realizing the stereotype they had confirmed with their comment. For them, a “normal Muslim woman” is obviously one who is white, does not wear a traditional hijab but perhaps a stylish turban, speaks English, and is a scientist. This deviates from the entrenched stereotype of the oppressed and uneducated Muslim woman.

What do you think about prayer groups in public squares in Croatia and counteractions in the context of freedom of religious, political, and other expressions?

All citizens should have the freedom to express their religious, political, and other beliefs. However, what these prayer groups are doing is an abuse of religion. No one prevents them from praying in churches or their homes, but occupying public spaces to advocate for spiritual authority in families in a democratic country is a misuse of religion and an infringement on the foundations of a secular society. Public spaces are shared, and no one has the right to impose their worldview, which in this case promotes gender hierarchies, the subordination of women to male authority, and traditional gender roles. If someone wants such a model, they should enforce it in their own home, not impose it on others by misusing public spaces.

Ultimately, prayer should be a matter of the heart and soul, establishing communication with God for personal peace and the peace of those around us, not a tool to intimidate others. I fear that this is not about faith and spirituality but politically motivated actions aimed at mobilizing and homogenizing people around a single worldview, with the intention of imposing it on the rest of society.

What is happening in Croatia reflects the anti-gender movement originating in America, whose waves have been spreading intensely through Europe over the past two decades, polarizing public opinion around gender issues. By naturalizing gender roles and emphasizing the distinct nature of men and women, this movement demands the preservation of a patriarchal system of values in which the man dominates as the “natural” leader and head of the family, while the woman is there to serve him and dedicate herself to the family, as this is her natural and God-given role.

Proponents of the anti-gender movement use pseudo-scientific research, especially outdated studies on the brain, to argue that men and women are not just physically different but that biology also affects their psychological, cognitive, and mental differences. Since most people don’t read or have a clear understanding of gender and sex, it is easy to manipulate with biased statements claiming that gender equality destroys families, communities, states, and the “natural” order of things.

Patriarchy is the most destructive force, justifying violence against women, children, and minorities by establishing power relations that remain unquestioned as “natural” or God-given male authority.

Neither the Bible nor the Quran describe male or female nature, nor designate men as authorities. Instead, humans—both women and men—accepted the responsibility to be stewards on Earth, to manage it responsibly rather than exploit others, animals, or nature greedily.

What we are witnessing today, and the way ethno-capitalism destroys people and nature through public pedagogies of cruelty and the disenfranchisement of individuals, is indicative of new forms of colonialism and enslavement. Through rampant commercialization, everything is rendered meaningless, and then women are blamed for all the world’s ills, as if the world would function properly if only they accepted traditional gender roles.

Unfortunately, people are lost and consumed by corporate capitalism, unable to see how structural forms of violence—especially against women and minorities—are obscured by the prioritization of preserving the traditional family. There is no critical reflection on the traditional family, in which violence was an integral part of life and where women had no choice but to endure abusive relationships. Today, at least to some extent, women have a choice and can refuse to endure it.

Why, in your view, do “normal” believers with reasonable views fail to oppose extremism?

The question of what defines “normal” believers is challenging, and I am afraid I don’t have a clear answer. Perhaps it is better to discuss moderate believers who practice their faith without imposing it on others. I believe most believers are not extremists but feel it is not their role to challenge others’ religious expressions. In the end, the question is also how to oppose extremism: Should people protest in the streets, as some do, or should they ignore it?

Public space is communal, and if it is allowed to be overtaken by those propagating a single ideology, it is likely that this ideology will become law in the future. It is crucial to oppose extremism through democratic means and ensure that a minority of extremists cannot speak on behalf of the majority. However, if the majority remains silent in public spaces, a vocal minority may dominate the discourse, potentially leading to the election of such individuals to positions of power, where they could enact laws that restrict or eliminate guaranteed rights and freedoms.

This seems to be what we are witnessing—for example, Poland has one of the strictest abortion laws in Europe, and in some U.S. states, abortion is almost entirely prohibited, except in certain exceptional cases.

Earlier, you mentioned working with survivors of sexual violence. We are only now seeing more discussion about rape as a war crime, even though it has been used as a method of war for centuries. Can you share more about your experience in this area?

Rape is a horrifying war crime and a tool used to defeat the enemy. Women’s bodies are treated as the property of families, men, communities, and nations, and as such, they serve ethno-nationalist goals. Women’s bodies can be symbols of national pride, representing the “mother of the nation,” savior, or moral paradigm, but they can also become symbols of national shame, rejected as reminders of the nation’s symbolic defeat.

The politics of the body are crucial to analyzing rape as a war crime, as men’s bodies are used as tools of war to impregnate women’s bodies, achieving societal defeat and the symbolic destruction of another ethnicity and nation. Crimes of desecration or humiliation, including rape, aim to instill shame and humiliation in the victims, whether women or men. Rape deeply affects not only the physical health of survivors but also their mental health and overall identity.

Through rape, power relations are demonstrated by forcibly impregnated women who are compelled to give birth and live with the trauma of the crime, compounded by rejection and stigma. Many survivors do not report rape because they cannot bear the stigma, labeling, and ostracization. This is particularly difficult for women who were forced to give birth to children and were told that their children would inherit the hatred of their fathers. These statements illustrate how power relations are passed down from father to son and how rape seeks to achieve domination over an entire people.

My work with women survivors of rape during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina was a profoundly painful experience from which I learned a great deal about trauma and how to support those who have endured the most heinous crimes. I began working at Medica Zenica, the first clinic for survivors of wartime rape, which was established with the help of feminists from Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. They were sensitive enough to include a religious perspective in the psychosocial team, which gave me, as a young person, the opportunity to both learn and help others. Of course, none of us were prepared to answer the deeply difficult questions posed by women survivors, such as: “Why me?” “Am I sinful?” “Is God punishing me for something I did?” “What will I do with the child I am about to give birth to?” and many others.

Naturally, there were no answers to these questions, and the only thing I could do was listen, be there for them, and assure them that it was not their fault and that God was not punishing them. In most cases, those who have experienced violence simply want to be heard, to know that someone is there for them, and to receive spiritual support if they need it. Faith was a significant mechanism for many women in coping with trauma, so it is essential that theologians are prepared to listen and offer help in such situations.

Do you think we are losing secular societies, along with the hard-won rights of women?

Sometimes it seems that way, that women’s hard-won rights are indeed being called into question. Everything that has happened since the 1990s supports this idea. After the first democratic elections, women were literally swept from the political scene in the newly formed states following the dissolution of Yugoslavia. I often emphasize the important fact that out of 24% of women in politics, only 2-4% remained, depending on the level of governance. I recall that in the Federation Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1996, there was only one woman, and it took us considerable time, quotas, and grassroots work to increase that percentage.

Moreover, if we look at how religion is being misused by the anti-gender movement in America, Western Europe, Croatia, and the rest of the Balkans, it becomes clear that the principles of the separation of church and state are being questioned. Hard-won civil and political rights, including reproductive rights, must not be challenged. Women are being denied access to contraception and abortion based on religious norms, which is unacceptable in a secular state. If someone considers abortion a sin within their religious worldview, they are free to adhere to that belief, but imposing their worldview on others in society is unacceptable. Ultimately, as citizens of a secular state, we all pay taxes, and it is crucial that state institutions serve everyone—those with religious views and those without.

As someone who has worked on the topic of feminism for a long time, do you think feminism today has the same foundations as it did in the past, or is it intentionally misrepresented in society today?

I believe that due to a lack of understanding and very poor knowledge of feminism—what it actually is, namely, a struggle against all forms of discrimination, oppression, exploitation, and exclusion—people misunderstand feminism, and there is an orchestrated effort to portray it as a major threat to humanity, traditional relationships, and the family. Perhaps that is the reason. In today’s battles, as seen through the anti-gender movement, there is a clear attempt to undermine the achievements feminism has made over the past 200 years and to revert things to their previous state.

If we consider what feminist demands were, for example, in the mid-19th century, when suffragists like Elizabeth Cady Stanton issued her “Declaration of Sentiments,” or women in other parts of Western Europe or women in the East organized their feminist movements and began fighting for their rights to education, work, and political participation. Today, we formally have most of these rights guaranteed by laws, international norms, and standards. Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, hundreds of international conventions, declarations, resolutions, and other documents guaranteeing equal rights, gender equality, and gender mainstreaming have been adopted. Our countries have signed and accepted these as well.

However, the problem today is living feminism. It has lost its momentum in this overall consumerist race and struggle for survival, as well as in the ocean of information we are bombarded with daily. If this information is framed in a way that presents feminism or any other movement or idea in a pejorative manner, people no longer have the time to question or read serious texts to understand the background of these issues. Instead, they accept oversimplified explanations and thus develop negative attitudes toward feminism. This is why feminism today must fight battles we thought were already won. We are returning to issues we believed were resolved, such as reproductive rights.

How has religion helped or hindered the fight for women’s rights?

It depends on the context and the individuals involved, but for me, religion has been incredibly helpful, as it has been for many other women. However, we must also acknowledge the ambivalence of religion. It can be a driving force for progressive change, but it can also contribute to regressive tendencies in society, depending on who leads the churches and religious communities, what their policies are, and how they interpret religious heritage.

If they are conservative, politicized, and aligned with power structures, it will be challenging to gain their support for gender equality. However, there are also positive examples. For instance, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, we have seen churches and religious communities actively and vocally opposing gender-based violence, which is a positive step. Of course, there are still issues where churches and religious communities hold positions that conflict with feminist demands, especially regarding reproductive rights, and these require dialogue.

Not all individuals within churches and religious communities oppose equality, but it is a matter of understanding how this is perceived and how much influence these institutions should have on the legislation of secular states. In my view, they should have no influence because we are all citizens, regardless of our religious orientation or lack thereof, and we all pay taxes. We must have equal access to legal rights and services, even if they conflict with someone else’s worldview. Our personal beliefs should not be imposed through laws in secular states.

What would you say is the predominant type of feminism in the Balkans today? And why do we distance ourselves so much from radical feminism, when in so many cases it seems that the radical feminism of the late ’60s could help us change today’s power structures?

We distance ourselves from radical feminism mainly because it is often misunderstood and still perceived in a pejorative sense as a movement where women fight against men—ugly, mustachioed women who want to take power and destroy men. This stereotype suggests that radical feminists aim to destroy the family, the nation, the state, and so on. With such labels, it is no surprise that there is rejection and distancing from radical feminism. What I can recognize here in the Balkans is some form of a combination of feminisms.

What I advocate for is intersectional feminism. This means taking into account various aspects of life, the context, and recognizing women’s personal experiences, which depends on factors such as ethnic background, social and economic status, and, of course, disabilities, sexual orientation, and other factors. It is essential to include diverse voices, which is why intersectional feminism is so important—especially for women from minority groups to have their voices heard and their perspectives included.

We also have liberal feminism, which is most represented in the NGO sector because it is conditioned by donor funds, primarily from the West, and involves liberal feminists who continue to focus on civil and political rights, numbers, impacts, etc., while neglecting deeper layers of the issue.

To truly address the problem, it is necessary to take a multifaceted, intersectional approach, because being a woman in Norway, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Germany, or Bulgaria is not the same. Of course, we also have radical feminists, specific feminist groups that are very vocal and clearly articulate their feminism through sharp critiques of patriarchal structures and strong demands for combating violence against women, femicide, and so on. I would say that in the Balkans, we have an interweaving of various feminist perspectives and approaches, but I believe that an intersectional approach would be the best. It allows for the inclusion of as many diverse voices as possible.

Can you tell us more about the image of Islam in the Western world, which is often reduced to the stereotype of all Muslims wearing explosive vests?

The image of Muslims in the world is unfortunately steeped in stereotypes and prejudice, with a historical foundation in interactions between Christians and Muslims that painted Muslims as terrorists, aggressors, barbarians, illiterate, and culturally backward. This has intensified particularly after 9/11. Anti-Muslim sentiments and propaganda can be observed in two ways: strategically and populistically. The strategic aspect became particularly visible in the late 1970s, during the Iranian Revolution, as the West came into conflict with Middle Eastern countries over oil, nuclear weapons production, and terrorism. Following colonialism, the West has continued to exploit the resources of Africa and Asia, leading to political resistance to Westernization and neo-colonialism.

Populist propaganda has emerged as a reaction to the increasing number of Muslim migrants in the West, manifesting in racism and resistance to religious norms, particularly the wearing of headscarves by Muslim women. Populist arguments are evident in bans on headscarves in schools and government institutions, which right-wing populist parties have skillfully exploited in their election campaigns.

Islam is often portrayed as a threat to Western secular values, with radicalized Muslim groups used as an excuse to marginalize all Muslims as problematic and incapable of reconciling their religion with secular democratic societies. While there are radical Muslim groups that interpret and apply sharia law literally, the majority of Muslims are not radical and are quite capable of reconciling their religion with democracy. The Quran does not specify a particular form of governance, but Muslim scholars have debated political systems acceptable within the framework of Quranic messages.

They particularly emphasize the values of justice, social cooperation, and mutual aid, advocating for non-autocratic, consultative governance and the institutionalization of compassion and mercy in societal interactions. This means that Muslims can live in and support systems of governance that promote these values. So far, democratic systems have shown that they uphold these principles, while autocratic and authoritarian systems, which unfortunately dominate in many Islamic countries, neglect key Islamic principles: justice framed by mercy and compassion.

This means that Muslims themselves bear some responsibility for the image of Islam in the West. While there is systematic propaganda resulting in Islamophobia, Muslims must not allow Islam to be hijacked by radical groups pursuing political interests. When we consider the harm caused by radical groups like ISIS, it is clear that they have harmed Muslims the most, encouraging murder and destruction within Muslim communities—a fact that is rarely discussed publicly.

The best remedy for combating stereotypes is education and dialogue. Without these, ordinary people consume news filled with prejudice that often promotes a monolithic and homogeneous image of Muslims.

When it comes to Islam and women, what are some common misconceptions? For example, about wearing the hijab and niqab? Do you think society is hypocritical in criticizing the hijab but not, say, certain hats?

Of course, there are double standards, and when it comes to Muslim women, no one asks what they want. Many secular feminists argue that the dress code of body covering cannot be a free choice for women. I partially understand that argument when it comes to societies where such choices are imposed by law or societal pressure, as is the case in some Islamic countries. However, Muslim women in the West, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, freely choose to wear the hijab, and their choice is not recognized as an expression of freedom—it is assumed they must have been coerced.

I want to emphasize that there is societal pressure both in the East and the West, and there is no complete freedom for women to decide how they dress. Naturally, the hijab, like other visible elements of practicing Islam, can be politicized and used in political battles for or against Westernization and modernization. It is important for Muslim women to have the freedom to wear or not wear the hijab and to decide whether it is the sole way to express the principles of modesty, which men and women are equally obligated to cultivate.

Every kind of pressure, imposition, and exclusion is problematic. Unfortunately, we have such cases in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina recently ruled that the exclusion of Emela Mujanović from the Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina does not represent a violation of the Constitution. This means that a Muslim woman who chooses to wear the hijab of her own free will cannot work in certain state institutions, and this is not considered a violation of her constitutional and legal rights to freely practice her religion.

Much more dialogue and public awareness-raising will be needed on these and other issues, because religion is no longer merely a private matter—it is personal, which means that public spaces must find ways to accommodate various religious practices, including the wearing of  hijab by Muslim women.

To conclude, I’d like us to talk about the FER school. I’d love to hear your impression of the progress made with the generations that have attended FER school. How do you envision the future of FER school?

After four years, I can say that I’m truly happy and satisfied that we’ve managed to attract a large number of participants—not just students from the region, such as Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, and North Macedonia—but also teaching staff. And we took the best from the pandemic. When we didn’t know what to do during the pandemic, we launched this school, which has now grown into a university program at the University of Sarajevo. I hope it will remain such a program where discussions on certain issues and topics, which unfortunately have no place within churches and religious communities, can continue.

This school is an alternative—a safe space where one can academically discuss any issue that intersects with religion, gender, peacebuilding, gender-based violence, politics, or philosophy. This is particularly important in our region because religion is a significant factor in identity. It overlaps with our ethnic identities and is often misused and politicized, which is why it’s important to work on deconstructing this and saving religion from politics. We must not allow divine messages to be hijacked by certain groups, even within churches, that do not permit pluralism of thought and interpretation.

As for the future, it will depend on many factors, including all of us involved—on you, the younger generation, coming after us—how much you’ll want to maintain this type of education, how much you’ll see it as necessary, and whether we’ll reach a point where we believe certain topics have been resolved and no longer need to be discussed. I’m afraid we won’t reach that point for quite some time, but these issues will definitely need to be discussed in the coming years, solutions sought, and arguments made to ensure we’re not swept away by the anti-gender winds and clouds that have loomed heavily over this region.

On that note, what would your personal message be to women today?

You’ve caught me off guard with this question. But I would say what I always tell myself: if you believe in something, if you believe something is right, if you believe you wouldn’t want to be in a situation where someone discriminates against you, abuses you, profits from your resources, excludes you, or silences your voice—then engage and speak out loudly and clearly against injustice, exclusion, and exploitation. Demand equal rights—nothing more, nothing less—but equal rights and opportunities for all women and men, because that’s the only way we can build a society where we work together as partners.

The publication of this text was supported by the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation – Southeast Europe with funding from the Federal Foreign Office of the Federal Republic of Germany.

Photo: private archive, pexels, klix.ba, zagreb.info, Faktiv, SIPA

Ana Tomić

The post There is an orchestrated effort to portray feminism as a major threat to the survival of humanity appeared first on FER ŠKOLA.

In this context, Prof. Dr. Sci. Zilka Spahić Šiljak, the academic director of UNIGeRC (University Gender Resource Center) and director of TPO Foundation, appeared on N1 Television.

She discussed the neglect of women’s contributions to peacebuilding, noting that while women are actively involved in peacebuilding at the local level, they are often absent from negotiation tables at higher decision-making levels.

She also introduced the UNIGEM project and its achievements in integrating a gender perspective into higher education.

The post Interview with Zilka Spahić Šiljak on the Occasion of International Peace Day 2023 appeared first on FER ŠKOLA.

Dr. sc. Rebeka Anić is a scientific advisor at the Ivo Pilar Institute of Social Sciences – Regional Center Split. As an external associate, she has taught at the universities of Zadar, Zagreb, Split, and Sarajevo. In 2017, she received an award from the Herbert Haag Stiftung for Freiheit in der Kirche of Switzerland for her research into the anti-gender movement within the Church. Her published works include More than Expected: Women in the Church in Croatia in the 20th Century (2003), How to Understand Gender: The History of the Debate and Different Understandings in the Church (2011), and Mary Magdalene: From Jesus’ Disciple to the Movie Harlot (co-authored with Irena Sever Globan, 2018). Dr. Anić was interviewed by Marko Medved at the Mediterranean Theological Meetings in Lovran for Polis.ba.

Marko Medved:

Dear Dr. Rebeka, you discussed sectarian deviations in new spiritual communities. You referred to how the Church globally has faced these issues, initially with denial and later seeking solutions. Are we truly aware of the extent of this problem?

Sr. Rebeka Anić:

My lecture was based on research and theological discussions about sectarian deviations and abuses in new spiritual communities in France and Germany. These communities are primarily charismatic and have been recognized by the Church. I emphasized the need to interpret structural violence and its connection to personal violence, a topic often overlooked within our own Church. Recent public discussions about abuses in the Catholic Church in Croatia show that our focus remains on violent acts, their frequency, and the number of perpetrators. We hesitate to acknowledge that these abuses are supported by structures that enable and perpetuate violence, fearing that reform might be equated with the dismantling of the Church.

For example, the first article in the German-speaking world, in which moral theologian Konrad Hilpert asks whether sexual abuse is a systemic problem, was published in 2010. Today, this is generally accepted, and efforts are being made to address this issue at both the church and theological levels. My lecture aimed to help students recognize sectarian deviations and spiritual abuse to prevent them from becoming victims. It also encouraged them to analyze our social and church environment, the needs of young people and believers, and how the Church addresses these needs, including the risks of sectarian alienation and violence.

In our country, I cannot refer to specific research on deviations. There is some doubt about the sectarian nature of certain communities here. Based on available information and the texts of those who founded and lead them, these communities resemble those in France and Germany that faced legal action. For example, a community leader claiming divine messages directs individuals on various personal matters, such as becoming priests/monks/nuns or confessing to specific priests, that is, undergo an exorcism. Such phenomena should be dealt with by the church hierarchy. Such individuals take on the role of God in someone’s life, speaking with the authority of God and saints, and dangerously assume control over someone’s life. They are dangerous for all people who turn to them, especially for those who are at a crossroads, in a difficult life situation, seeking guidance, or are vulnerable for any reason. Such persons present themselves as spiritual “fathers” or spiritual “mothers”, as spiritual leaders. They do not realize that one should not be a spiritual ‘leader’ but a follower, and that the role of a follower is not to decide for the person being followed. Rather, it is to assist the person in making their own decision, which they believe is right for themselves, without depriving them of the challenge of their own freedom. There are also some communities in Croatia that have been banned by bishops in other European countries. Whether our bishops are aware of this or not, whether they are following it or not, I am not sure. The bishops’ task is to conduct an investigation and examine whether the doubts are justified or what the status is of communities that are established outside Croatia. The experiences of bishops from other countries can be helpful, as they reveal where the hierarchy has erred when investigating the suspected communities. Here, it is worth noting briefly that it is not only important to check statutes and rules but also the way of life, and that an interdisciplinary approach is crucial in the investigation. It is necessary to provide a space where members of the community can speak freely. It is also important to involve experts in the conversation which can help them overcome their fear and reluctance to betray their “family.” It is especially important to include experts from religious orders, as they have experience in religious life and can more easily identify possible deviations.

Marko Medved:

According to your observations, can sectarian deviations also occur in spiritual communities recognized by the Church?

Sr. Rebeka Anić:

Church recognition has not proven to be a reliable criterion for assessing whether something can be considered sectarian deviations or not. Spiritual abuse points to sectarian deviations in church institutions, and unfortunately, it is not limited to new spiritual communities but also appears in established monastic communities. It is therefore important to recognize it.

There are also some communities in Croatia that have been banned by bishops in other European countries. Whether our bishops are aware of this or not, whether they are following it or not, I am not sure. The bishops’ task is to conduct an investigation and examine whether the doubts are justified or what the status is of communities that are established outside Croatia. The experiences of bishops from other countries can be helpful, as they reveal where the hierarchy has erred when investigating the suspected communities. Sister Rebeka talks with Marko Medved, photo: polis.ba

Marko Medved:

Could you explain what spiritual abuse is and how to identify it?

Just like with psychological abuse, spiritual abuse also typically arises from a closed system, an idea around which people gather, which unites them and for which they fight, dependence on authority, or a hierarchy where someone holds more power than others. The peculiarity of spiritual abuse is that it uses faith, religious teachings and values in the framework of asymmetrical relationships in order to manipulate, exploit or oppress trusted persons. The abuser, typically a person in a position of power within the religious community, establishes control over others’ consciousness subtly, often following a “boiled frog” principle.  This is evidenced by four mutually inextricably linked characteristics of spiritual abuse that are known from the research of sects and were also found in the analysis of new spiritual communities. It is about violating boundaries, limiting, idealizing and devaluing.

Boundary violation refers to the mixing of forum internum and forum externum within a community. Canon law stipulates that these two realms should be separate, meaning that the same person cannot serve as the community leader, spiritual director, and/or confessor. This separation aims to ensure that individuals can open up to their spiritual director without fear that it will affect decisions related to the forum externum, specifically leadership. Boundary violation also pertains to restricting psychological and spiritual support solely to members of one’s own community; to violations of privacy, intrusion into someone’s personal life, and influencing their decisions.

Restriction refers to a subtle process of indoctrination in which a community member is subtly guided toward certain behaviors if they wish to be accepted. This restriction includes: limiting contacts, both within the community and with people outside it (such as family and friends), restricting the books that can be read, controlling access to information from the outside world. Contacts with outsiders are restricted on the grounds that their attitudes and worldviews do not align with the community’s specific ethos and could negatively impact the individual and their vocation. The restriction often extends to promoting a particular direction of spirituality, which is presented as the “best path” to holiness. Additionally, there is a requirement for secrecy and silence regarding community life, justified by the claim that such a lifestyle could be “misunderstood.”The practice of eavesdropping and monitoring correspondence by the leadership or other members is also common. Over time, this creates a pervasive system of control in which everyone feels they are being watched by everyone else. As a result, members often adopt conformist behaviors in line with the rules to avoid attracting negative attention. This behavior is further influenced by the community’s jargon, which clearly defines what behaviors are considered positive or negative.

Idealization refers primarily to the behavior of the founder, and indirectly to the self-understanding of the community. This term expresses the behavior in which the founders of the community present themselves as God’s spokespersons or as representatives of the saints. They bolster their authority with accounts of a dramatic conversion and divine calling, often citing a mystical experience in which they were told by a visionary that God wanted them to establish the community. They are surrounded by a kind of “divine aura,” and their words are regarded as divine inspiration and considered “law.” To members or prospective members of the community, they convey messages from God and the saints concerning their lives and decisions. Questioning the founder’s teachings or actions is prohibited and interpreted as resistance to the Holy Spirit.

Members of such communities believe they are part of a higher mission, focused on saving souls and evangelization. This mission is considered more important than their personal needs and interests. Leaving the community is seen as opposing God’s will, losing “true” faith, or as an act of betrayal. Additionally, the lofty ideals foster a sense of superiority among community members, which strengthens their unity. The community is also likened to a family, and this family metaphor is used to justify the power imbalances within. Certain information is reserved for the “parents” or responsible leaders, while the “children” or general members are not expected to know all details or be involved in every decision. Mistakes and guilt are often assigned to the “children,” whereas truth and justice are attributed to the “parents.” Members are also expected to keep “family secrets.”

Those who dare to resist the founder and leaders of the community often face devaluation and humiliation. This is frequently done in subtle ways, such as suggesting that a person must rid themselves of their inner flaws to achieve salvation, and that they should distrust their own thoughts, feelings, and needs. One’s own will is examined only to be deemed undesirable, rejected, and subjected to a system of obedience. Sometimes, a “hot-cold” technique is employed, where the person is either praised or reprimanded depending on the leader’s mood. This inconsistency causes confusion and insecurity, as the individual struggles to understand the reasons behind the leader’s varying behavior. Spiritual abusers may interpret this devaluation as a favor, believing they are helping their victims become humble. Denigration can also occur publicly, in the form of a “public confession” before the entire group.

The consequences of spiritual abuse are severe. It can lead to diminished self-confidence, increased dependence, reduced ability to trust, depression, anxiety, and a shaken faith in God. The testimonies of those affected are often shocking and reveal the profound negative impact such abuse can have on their entire lives.

The growth and development of new communities that emerged partly from the charismatic renewal were seen as the Spirit’s response to the crisis faced by the Church. However, this also led to various problems. In your opinion, what are the main criteria for evaluating new spiritual communities?

Cèline Hoyeau, in her book *La Trahison des Pères* (The Betrayal of the Fathers) (2021), examines the socio-ecclesiastical context in France and within the Catholic Church following the Second World War and the Second Vatican Council. These events facilitated the growth of new spiritual communities while also affecting the hierarchy’s relationship with them. Hoyeau identifies the issues faced by the Church hierarchy, the needs of the youth of that era, and the ways in which the founders of new spiritual communities addressed these needs. According to her analysis, the period was marked by secularization, a critical attitude towards institutions, a search for strong personalities (such as teachers) and Eastern spirituality (such as gurus), and a weakening of authority based on service. This was a reaction to the rationalism and faith in progress prevalent in the 1950s and 1960s, which also created a desire for shared emotional experiences. The Church experienced a crisis following the Second Vatican Council: priests, monks, and nuns were leaving their vocations; the number of seminarians and theologians was declining; and attendance at services was decreasing. The hierarchy sought new models of pastoral care outside traditional parish communities. Believers began to yearn for a clearer presentation of faith, a sense of God’s closeness, a more “sacred” liturgy, and felt that the Church’s involvement in social issues was not sufficient. They missed religious symbols in public spaces, such as prayer benches, statues of saints in churches, and processions. Contemporaries described this period as “the ruin of Christianity,” “post-Christian times,” “the Catholic crisis,” or “the end of a world.

” In this atmosphere, the founders emerge, giving the impression that they can reverse the current trajectory. They present themselves to believers as an alternative to both traditionalists and progressives within the Church. They position themselves as guarantors of orthodoxy against progressive Catholicism and as defenders of the Magisterium at a time when the Pope’s authority is being undermined. To young people seeking mentors, father figures, and leaders, they offer security and a sense of the “absolute” and the “secret.” Their piety encompasses the body, emotions, affectivity, tenderness, and acceptance of one’s own vulnerability. These communities appear as “oases” where the individuality of each person is recognized, thereby addressing the need for togetherness that has arisen from the decline of traditional communal structures such as family and parish.

As a rule, sexual abuse did not occur as a physical attack involving significant force, but rather as a result of spiritual abuse. Over an extended period, individuals were gradually subjected to emotional dependence, manipulation, and seduction, rendering them paralyzed at the moment of sexual abuse and unable to defend themselves or make their own decisions. S. Rebeka and Loredana Fabijanić, photo: polis.ba

The first accusations and convictions surfaced as early as 1956, but they remained confidential, known only to community leaders. Despite the growing public allegations of sectarian bias and sexual abuse, the hierarchy has shown leniency. The primary criterion for evaluating these communities is the number of new vocations, particularly priestly ones. Jesus’ words, “by their fruits you will know them” (Mt 7:20), are interpreted to mean that “fruits” are reduced to the number of new, especially priestly, vocations. Cèline Hoyeau relays the comments of Cardinal Franco Rodé, the Prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life, regarding the founder of the Legionaries of Christ, Marcial Maciel. Although the Cardinal disapproves of Maciel’s “moral weaknesses,” he argues that due to the 1,000 priests the community had at the time, the “fruit is good, the fruit is extraordinarily good.” The Cardinal concludes, “He is extraordinary, great […]. Can it then be said that the tree is bad? […] Purely logically, I would say: No, I release him too, release Father Maciel!”

And some communities in Croatia justify themselves by the number of new (priestly) vocations. However, it should be said that the fruit is not good. Real statistics from other countries reveal a troubling number of young people who have left these communities with significant trauma. These negative outcomes are not typically accounted for. Hoyeau, therefore, warns that what we are seeing is not “real” fruit but rather “apparent” fruit. This reductionist approach to evaluating these communities inspired the title of my presentation: it’s not about good fruit, but about fruit that leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

You talk about sectarian deviations and spiritual abuse. Unfortunately, it is known that sexual abuse also happened in these communities. How do you interpret that?

Spiritual abuse does not necessarily lead to sexual abuse, but it facilitates it—or, as some authors describe it, acts as the “hallway” to sexual abuse. Founders of new spiritual communities have often been sanctioned for sexual abuse, but they typically became abusers after first establishing spiritual dominance over their victims. Generally, sexual abuse did not occur as a direct physical attack involving substantial force, but rather as a result of prolonged spiritual abuse. Over time, victims were gradually manipulated and emotionally dependent, making them unable to defend themselves or make independent decisions when the abuse occurred. Abusers often elicited their victims’ most intimate secrets during confession, coaxing them to reveal details that should not have been disclosed. One victim recounted how the founder of her community seemed to possess an almost supernatural insight into human suffering, leading her to disclose all her desires and needs. This information allowed him to identify her vulnerabilities, which he then exploited for sexual abuse. Additionally, these abusers framed their actions theologically, interpreting their kisses as those of Jesus and their relationship as a divine connection akin to that of Jesus and Mary, which they claimed no one else could comprehend. This rationalization included a concept known as “friendly love,” where sexual relations were justified under the guise of spiritual or mystical insight. Because the founders were viewed as mystics, their justifications often escaped rational critique. Any resistance to their actions was seen as a disruption of the healing process and interpreted as a lack of faith and trust. In such cases, it is more accurate to describe the behavior as sexualized rather than purely sexual violence. The acts in question are not merely physical assaults but are primarily driven by non-sexual motives expressed through sexual acts. This constitutes a distinct form of power abuse within hierarchical gender relations.

You addressed the issue of gender, specifically anti-gender attitudes within the Catholic milieu. How does, or does sectarian mentality emerge in relation to these issues within the Church?

Based on the Church’s attitude towards women and LGBTQ individuals, some authors argue that the Church is increasingly adopting a sectarian mentality. This is evident in its efforts to define itself as a “small flock,” where the term “small” does not refer to the number of believers, but to the notion that the “flock” excludes those whose existence promotes “comfortable traditionalism” or whose theological research leads to “boring pseudo-orthodoxy,” as noted by the respected theologian Tomislav Janko Šagi-Bunić.

One sign of a sect or an indicator of a sectarian mentality is when someone claims the right to determine the existence or non-existence of certain people. This doesn’t necessarily mean physical elimination but can involve reducing relationships to submission and exclusion. The underlying belief is that there is only one true way of living, one valid perspective on reality, and one absolute truth, while all other viewpoints are considered invalid, false, and harmful.

In the Catholic Church, the principle of equal dignity but different rights applies to women and LGBTQ+ individuals, resulting in their exclusion from full participation in the community. Equal rights are not denied based on specific (in)abilities, disabilities, or even the willingness to submit, but rather solely on the basis of physical gender and sexual orientation. Due to their physical characteristics and sexuality (even if non-practicing), these individuals are unable to be ordained and are thus excluded from significant roles within the Church. This creates a situation where there are two categories of members: those who possess full dignity and rights, and those who only have dignity but no rights. The latter category, which includes LGBTQ+ individuals, is perceived as less valuable and cannot advance to the first category regardless of their efforts. Even the submissive acceptance of imposed celibacy— which should never have been mandated in the first place—does not offer assistance to LGBTQ+ individuals. Celibacy must be a free choice, not an obligation.

In the marginalization of women and LGBTQI people, the church employs a hermeneutics of difference: it frames its positions in opposition to contemporary society and scientific research, while disregarding theological research that challenges these positions. When perspectives that do not align with one’s own preselected views are rejected outright, change becomes impossible. To prevent or at least slow down undesired changes, anything contrary to one’s own interests is labeled as ideology. Dialogue is limited to those who share the same views. This explains the persistent discourse around “gender ideology,” a term and concept primarily constructed by the Catholic Church.

Interviewed by: Marko Medved

Source: polis.ba

The post Jadranka Sr. Rebeka Anić for Polis.ba: Teeth-tingling abuses in the Church appeared first on FER ŠKOLA.

The topic of your doctoral dissertation, under the mentorship of the distinguished pastoral theologian Paul Zulehner, was the role of women in the Church in Croatia during the 20th century. The understanding, position, and role of women in the Catholic Church continue to be subjects of vibrant debate today. How do you view the state of this debate both within Croatia and beyond, and how do you assess the current position of women in the Catholic Church?

In the Church in Croatia, there is currently a lack of discussion regarding the position of women, as well as research on their working conditions, job satisfaction, and opportunities for advancement within church institutions. In contrast, such research has been conducted in other Western European countries since the 1980s. Similarly, bishops in Germany actively and systematically promote gender equality, supported by research on the professional integration of women, including their working conditions, advancement opportunities, and the obstacles they encounter. Special emphasis is placed on exploring the potential for women to assume leadership roles within church institutions. Many (arch)dioceses have published plans on their websites aimed at promoting gender equality in employment and workplace conditions within church institutions.

When it comes to gender equality, there is still a significant silence here in Croatia. More and more women are working in church institutions and holding important and responsible positions, but the challenges they face are not being investigated. The Church insists on differentiating between women and men in terms of their identities and roles but fails to consider how this difference impacts the concrete lives of both genders. It behaves, I would argue, as if only one (male) gender exists within the Church. There is a notable similarity between the communist principle that there is no women’s issue, only a class issue, and the principle followed by our hierarchy: there is no women’s issue, only a lay issue. According to this view, once the issue of class, or the laity, is resolved, the issue of women will also be addressed. However, this is impossible in a hierarchically structured institution where power is tied to ordination—a process from which women are systematically excluded based on their gender. The need to address these problems systematically is supported by research from other countries that I mentioned earlier.

The month of May is dedicated to the mother of Jesus, the Blessed Virgin Mary, who is regarded in Catholicism as the ideal woman and mother. However, the way this ideal is often interpreted in the Catholic Church can sometimes repel women rather than attract them. Can Mary, for all believers and especially for women, be an ideal that liberates rather than confines?

Certainly, it can be done, but it’s challenging to provide a brief answer. For some people, the figure of Mary, as depicted in popular piety, holds significant meaning. When pilgrims at Marian shrines are asked what Mary means to them, they most often reply that she is a mother who offers protection, comfort, warmth, and understanding. The issue arises when the image of Mary as an idealized virgin mother is equated with the role of a woman in a patriarchal family and society, and imposed as a universal ideal for all women.

Personally, I find myself much closer to the Mary we encounter in the Gospels. I believe that such a portrayal could resonate more profoundly with people in their everyday lives. In short, rather than promoting the image of Mary as passive, suffering, and solely focused on family care, it would be more meaningful to represent Mary as one who thinks, engages in dialogue with God, embraces the risks of the divine calling, observes her Son growing into his own person, and shares both moments of closeness and distance with him. For instance, the scene where Mary and Jesus’ brothers come to take Jesus away because they believe he is out of his mind, and Jesus’ refusal to comply, reflects the complexities of family relationships. It highlights the uniqueness of each individual and their freedom to pursue their own calling, even if it means stepping away from family myths or traditions. I can relate to Mary as someone who seeks and endures the uncertainty of a divine adventure. She inspires me, and I often ask her in my spiritual life, “How will it be?”

Instead of presenting Mary as merely silent, suffering, and caring for her family, it would be more effective to portray her as a woman who thinks deeply, engages in dialogue with God, embraces the risks of the divine adventure set before her, and observes her Son growing into a person she has yet to fully understand. This portrayal would highlight not only the intimate moments they share but also the distance that naturally exists between them.

Among other topics, you address the issue of gender. In 2011, the Ivo Pilar Institute of Social Sciences published your book, How to Understand Gender? A History of the Discussion and Different Interpretations in the Church. Why is there so much tension surrounding the understanding of this term within the Church? Could you elaborate on this in more detail?

First, let me briefly clarify the terminology. In discussions about gender, “sex” refers to biological characteristics, while “gender” pertains to the cultural and social meanings attributed to those biological characteristics. Often, there are misconceptions within the Church that gender studies deny biological facts and promote the fluidity and performativity of gender. However, gender studies do not deny the existence of biological differences; rather, they examine how much of what we ascribe to women and men is rooted in biology and how much is socially constructed. It has been observed that concepts of masculinity and femininity, as well as the roles associated with them, vary across socio-cultural contexts and even change over time within the same context. The complexity of these concepts is further evidenced by research showing that different understandings of masculinity and femininity can even be found within the Bible.

The Church faces challenges with the concept of gender, but it shouldn’t, as gender stereotypes—the division of traits and roles into male and female categories, which some in the Church fear deconstructing—originated in Aristotelian natural philosophy. Deconstructing these stereotypes essentially liberates Christian anthropology from its reliance on Aristotelian philosophy and its confinement to the frameworks of modern sociobiology. This shift opens the door for dialogue with contemporary natural science research, which questions traditional interpretations regarding differences in male and female hormones and brains.

I believe that sometimes the Church fears the gender perspective in theological research because such research reveals how crucial gender is to the Church’s maintenance of its hierarchical structure. I will provide a few examples. During my theological studies, I learned that humanity is made in the image of God, and I understood that this applied to both men and women. Only later did I discover that, until the twentieth century, women were entirely denied the status of being made in the image of God, with the term “man” being equated exclusively with males. In the Liturgy of the Hours, there is an invocation: “Lord, look at your sons.” This invocation is also repeated by nuns, who, at that moment, are addressed as “sons,” although they are actually “daughters.” The Church thus places them under the umbrella of the male gender.

Pope John Paul II, in Mulieris Dignitatem, distinguishes between the apostolic-Petrine (male, hierarchical Church) and Marian (female, lay) dimensions of the Church. This distinction effectively places lay men under the feminine gender, and the Church, as an institution without gender, is assigned a feminine role. The complementary gender model from the anthropological level is transferred to the institutional level, creating church positions and offices based on gender stereotypes: the Marian aspect of the Church receives, follows, and listens (stereotypically female roles), while the hierarchical aspect leads and manages (stereotypically male roles). Thus, the Church, which rejects gender as a reflexive and critical category, simultaneously naturalizes historically developed church structures. Consequently, the question of justice in ecclesiology becomes subordinate to the issue of naturally given heterosexuality. This indicates that the fear of the destruction of Christian anthropology is, in reality, the fear of deconstructing the existing hierarchical church structure built over time, in which women are nominally recognized as human beings but do not enjoy the same rights as men. Denying rights based solely on gender is defined as sexism.

Another term that often generates tension is ‘feminist theology.’ Could you explain this concept to us, and discuss its legitimacy and necessity within Catholic theology?

Feminist theology emerged as a response by women to theological arguments that have historically positioned them as secondary and of lesser value. While it is often considered to have developed in the 1960s, works by women challenging theological misogyny have existed throughout Christian history. Feminist theology is not just necessary but crucial, as it deconstructs theological misogyny. Its contributions are significant, as it examines all areas of theology through the lens of justice for women. For example, I previously discussed the concept of women as the image of God, which is a key theme in feminist theology. The German theologian Elisabeth Gössmann identified a tradition of women who, for centuries, argued theologically that women are not merely a partial image of God but represent the full image of God. However, their works were largely forgotten and did not impact the theology taught in universities.

In 2017, in Lucerne, Switzerland, you received the Herbert-Haag Foundation Award for Freedom in the Church. In this context, the question of intra-church dialogue, both domestically and internationally, arises. Could you describe the main challenges you perceive, as well as the signs of progress?

I wouldn’t say that there is a true theological dialogue taking place here; rather, it seems to be a dialogue within closed circles of like-minded individuals. Pope Francis is encouraging us all to engage in conversation, which I consider very positive. The synod initiated by the Pope can be likened, figuratively speaking, to cleaning the blood vessels in the body of the Church. The Church is not only a hierarchy but includes every believer. At a seminar on leadership in the Church, the leader emphasized the importance of utilizing the brainpower (including gifts, life experiences, etc.) of each member of a community. For me, dialogue becomes challenging when it involves individuals who claim to be engaging in dialogue but come with pre-formed attitudes that they are unwilling to change, only seeking to impose these attitudes on others. It is particularly frustrating when these attitudes fail the test of the gospel but easily pass the test of maintaining a comfort zone and the privileges it affords to their proponents.

Why should Christians feel threatened by LGBTQI people? Why would the Church oppose them? Doesn’t the Church have a mission and an obligation to share the good news of salvation with everyone, including LGBTQI individuals? Shouldn’t the Church be working to save them from the social isolation and exclusion they often face from family and society?

The issue of homosexuality within the Church is a topic of considerable public, intra-Church, and social interest. In this context, stereotypes come into play, and in our country, there has been a perception of a cultural war that Christians are expected to engage in. Could you describe your experience with how Catholic theologians abroad engage in interdisciplinary dialogue with other sciences on this matter?

Your question requires a comprehensive answer that cannot be fully addressed here. For me, the central issue is this: Do we view LGBTQI individuals as created in the image of God? Do we apply to LGBTQI individuals the words of Jesus that we will encounter Him in every person? If not, how do we justify this stance? A literal (fundamentalist) interpretation of the Bible may support homophobic attitudes, but such readings are condemned by the Church. The Church cannot indefinitely hide behind the term “gender ideology” and will eventually need to address the issues of LGBTQI relationships and the recognition of their full humanity and human rights.Additionally, the term “culture war” is used in our country without questioning its meaning. Its purpose is to instill a sense of threat and panic by homogenizing people, making them easier to manipulate for various agendas. Why should Christians feel threatened by LGBTQI individuals? Why would the Church wage a battle against them? Does not the Church have a mission and obligation to share the good news of salvation with them as well? Shouldn’t it also strive to save them from the social exclusion and isolation imposed by family and society?

As a long-time member of the Croatian section of the European Society of Women in Theological Research (ESWTR), what has been your experience of collaborating with female theologians both within Croatia and internationally? In recent years, what topics has your section focused on, and what issues and tasks do you consider to be crucial at this moment?

I became a member of ESWTR in 2001 while pursuing my doctoral studies in Vienna. Upon returning to Croatia, I sought to establish the Croatian section of ESWTR. I approached almost all female theologians with master’s or doctoral degrees, but only a few showed interest. It was evident that some were concerned that membership in the Society might label them as feminists, potentially jeopardizing their careers or leading to career difficulties at theological faculties. Despite these fears, a few brave individuals did join.

Our society is ecumenical and interreligious. The Croatian section was officially registered as an association in 2009. Since then, we have organized one domestic conference and one international conference, translated and published two books (Eve as Different and Women Around Jesus), and several articles on feminist and gender topics. We also participate in international conferences and in the governing bodies of the Society at the European level, organize online theological discussions, and more. Given the limited resources available in the libraries at our theological faculties, particularly regarding feminist theology, we requested book donations from ESWTR members. We received approximately 500 books, a portion of which was donated to the Catholic Faculty of Theology in Zagreb, and another portion to the University Center for Protestant Theology Matthias Flacius Illyricus at the University of Zagreb.  At our meetings, we explore various theological topics from a gender perspective, including the contributions of women in theology, philosophy, peace work, pastoral care, gender-based violence, and violence against nuns.

In collaboration with Irena Sever Globan, you published the book “Mary Magdalene: From Jesus’ Disciple to a Movie Whore: A Theological-Cultural Analysis”. Could you briefly explain how her character has been misunderstood in Christian tradition and summarize the conclusions of your research?

The figure of Mary Magdalene, as we know her today and as she has been embraced by literature, fine arts, and film over the centuries, was gradually shaped through the merging of various female characters from the New Testament. These include Mary of Magdala herself, the unnamed sinner who washes Jesus’ feet with her tears and dries them with her hair, Martha, the sister of Lazarus, unnamed women who anoint Jesus’ head, sinners caught in adultery, and the Samaritan woman. This amalgamation may have arisen from the desire to create a “biography” of a woman about whom the Gospels provide little information, yet who is of great significance to Christians due to her role in witnessing Jesus’ crucifixion, burial, empty tomb, apparition, and mission to proclaim the joyful news of the resurrection.

The character created, marked by (sexual) transgression, conversion, profound love, and loyalty to Jesus, was well-suited for sermons. This figure played a significant role in church history, particularly during the Counter-Reformation, but was also exploited to undermine the role of women in the Jesus movement and the early church. Although Mary of Magdala is depicted in Western Christian legends as a preacher who converts pagans and performs baptisms, the prevailing memory of her as a penitent sinner has persisted. This has contributed to the notion that women who followed Jesus were not considered disciples or apostles, despite meeting all the criteria set by Jesus for discipleship. Additionally, the New Testament acknowledges the apostle Junia.

—Source: https://zvona-ri.org/tekst/papa-franjo-nas-sve-gura-da-medusobno-razgovaramo

The post Pope Francis is pushing us all to talk to each other appeared first on FER ŠKOLA.

Vulgar comments, psychological violence from immediate and/or extended family members, sexual violence, workplace harassment, threats, blackmail in relationships and marriage, and issues encountered during divorce are just some examples of gender-based violence reported by our respondents. These instances were shared as their personal experiences of gender-based violence in the questionnaire created by the Tacno.net portal.

STALKING AND RESTRICTING MOVEMENT AS JEALOUSY MOTIVATED BY LOVE

In an anonymous statement to the Tacno.net portal, one of our sources, who was herself a victim of gender-based violence in a relationship, reveals that she experienced discomfort from the beginning of her relationship. However, the situation unfolded according to the generally accepted patterns of male-female relationships prevalent today and especially dominant in the 1990s, when her relationship began. She did not report the violence as she ended the relationship before the situation escalated.

“Almost from the start of the relationship, I was unsettled by the fact that my partner tried to assert himself as the ‘main’ one, the one whose decisions should be prioritized while I was expected to be ‘a step behind.’ As an adult, economically independent, and well-educated woman, such an attitude never occurred to me,” she explains.

She also detailed that her partner objected to her business trips and was dissatisfied with her pursuit of additional education. He also disapproved of her maintaining her friendships and connections with her primary family. The environment attempted to present his behavior as ‘care,’ ‘patronage,’ or even ‘jealousy,’ under the guise of love and concern.”As I got stronger, progressed at work and in social engagement, there were more frequent arguments and disagreements, she says, followed by curses, threats and finally threats of physical violence. I tried to persuade him to go to marriage counseling, but the attempt stopped at the first step. “After a fierce argument, I just broke down and left with the child,” she says.

However, she believes that even today, stalking and restricting someone’s movement are often normalized as expressions of jealousy rooted in love. It is considered acceptable if a boy hits a girl, judges her based on her clothing, criticizes her for drinking too much, or disapproves of her social activities. Additionally, it is expected that a woman, upon returning home from work, should handle chores like washing, cooking, and ironing without complaint; if she expresses dissatisfaction, she is labeled as sharp-tongued.

WITHOUT EDUCATION, THERE CAN BE NO CHANGE IN CONSCIOUSNESS OR BEHAVIORAL PATTERNS.

In an interview with the Tacno.net portal, Prof. dr.sci. Zilka Spahić-Šiljak, director of the TPO Foundation (Transcultural Psychosocial Educational Foundation), emphasized the importance of incorporating education about gender-based violence into schools. However, due to the existing workload, she does not believe it is feasible to introduce it as a separate subject. Instead, she suggests it can be integrated into other subjects and included in classroom lessons.

“Given the rise in peer violence, which is often gender-based, it is crucial to address this issue openly and work within the education system to shift awareness, organizational culture, and, more broadly, the culture of accepting and justifying violence,” said Prof. Spahić-Šiljak.

She further asserts that education on gender-based violence should be incorporated into the curriculum because, without it, there will be no change in awareness and behavioral patterns. Prof. Spahić-Šiljak explains that the ongoing curricular reform in several cantons presents an opportunity to make these topics a significant part of the National Primary Program (NPP).

THE EDUCATION SYSTEM AND GENDER EQUALITY AS KEY CONCEPTS IN SOCIETAL DEVELOPMENT

Armina Čerkić, a psychotherapist specializing in systemic family psychotherapy, highlighted to Tacno.net the significant connection between the educational system and gender equality. These are key concepts for societal development and personal values that guide our behavior toward others.

“Nevertheless, depending on the context, some aspects of the education system can either hinder or actively promote gender equality. Schools have substantial potential to influence changes in gender relations, understandings of gender roles, and behavior. Moreover, schools can either foster or obstruct the development of gender-aware generations in our society,” she states.

Čerkić further explains that, beyond the curriculum, which should be designed with an understanding of gender roles and deviations from traditional gender norms, schools as systems must also facilitate discussions about gender roles.

“Statements like ‘You cry like a girl’ or ‘Be a man’ propagate ideas about gender roles that do not promote equality but rather polarize gender roles by prescribing specific behaviors for males and females. A positive example of promoting gender equality is the decision to provide free menstrual products in Sarajevo Canton. This initiative creates space in classrooms for discussions on menstruation and related topics, encouraging the exchange of gender experiences between boys and girls,” Čerkić explains.

Azra Ekinović, a classroom teacher, also supports the need for education about gender-based violence in schools. She emphasizes the importance of educating children from an early age, starting in the first grade.

“In first grade, children may experience ridicule from their peers, adults, relatives, or neighbors, and they often do not understand that the sadness they feel is a result of violence,” she stresses.

„WELL, WHAT DO YOU WANT THEN?“

Another interviewee of the Tacno.net portal shared in her statement that she was a victim of gender-based violence, which included psychological and emotional abuse and created a pervasive atmosphere of fear, ultimately leading to health problems.

She reported the violence to the Center for Social Work in her city, accompanied by medical documentation from an internist and a psychiatrist. However, she noted that the response from the Center was dismissive: “Their reaction was, ‘Well, what do you want?’ The Center’s employees also exhibited severe gender discrimination on several occasions. The police claimed it was not within their jurisdiction,” she explained.

She further asserted that institutions dealing with such issues require stricter oversight of employee actions. “In my case, it was evident throughout the entire process that we were following a set template, minimizing the work and responsibility for the employees. Eventually, after numerous contradictions, the Center for Social Work employees declared in writing that they were insufficiently competent to handle the matter, referring it to the competent court. Additional education, as well as oversight and sanctions for those working with victims, is necessary,” she emphasized.

She also believes that there are cases where the violence was more severe and the competent institutions failed to act appropriately. “However, I believe that every story is a crucial piece in raising awareness that anyone can be a victim of violence. In my case, I am a highly educated individual with a decade-long career in education,” she added.

The experiences of our other interviewees also illustrate that gender-based violence is not limited to intimate or family relationships but extends to institutions where employees should exhibit significant empathy towards victims. One interviewee reported experiencing gender-based violence both in elementary and high school.

“In elementary school, I was subjected to inappropriate behavior such as being slapped on the buttocks, vulgar comments, and having sanitary napkins taken from my purse at the junior prom and displayed on the radiators so everyone would know I was menstruating. In high school, crowds at clubs were used as a cover for someone to grab me, and I couldn’t identify the perpetrator, so I couldn’t react,” she recounted.

She mentioned that she did not report the incidents in elementary school because teachers dismissed them as normal behavior and she knew reporting would be ineffective. As an adult, she has also received extremely vulgar content on social media, including explicit photos, but did not report this either, as the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina lacks laws against cyber sexual harassment.

—GENDER-DISCRIMINATORY LANGUAGE IN PUBLIC DISCOURSE

Although certain behaviors of children, especially younger ones, are often characterized as “jokes” among their peers, Čerkić highlights that children may not realize how easily these can escalate into gender-based violence. “Such speech becomes part of the reality and expectations of gender roles for both boys and girls. It is particularly harmful because this kind of talk translates into beliefs about gender roles that shape children’s identities. We see that this gender-discriminatory language is also prevalent in popular music, the press, and everyday public discourse,” emphasizes Čerkić.

As examples of such speech, she cites statements made by certain public figures who have suggested that women belong in the kitchen or that ‘everyone deserves a slap in the face.’ Čerkić points out that such statements, coming from individuals with influence in the public sphere, reinforce harmful gender role expectations.

Class teacher Azra Ekinović also notes that children are often unaware of the consequences of “offensive jokes” and that those who make such jokes at the expense of others have likely heard them within their families. “It is crucial to urge parents never to speak negatively about their children’s friends from school,” Ekinović emphasizes.

FEAR OF JUDGMENT

According to data from a questionnaire created by the Tacno.net portal, which included 102 respondents, 36 percent reported being victims of gender-based violence. Of those who experienced violence, only 27 percent reported it, while the remaining 73 percent chose not to report it for various reasons. The most frequently cited reason for not reporting was fear of condemnation.

Gender-based violence reflects a patriarchal culture and social norms that normalize violence and view it as an acceptable form of communication, according to Prof. Spahić-Šiljak.

Regarding the fear of societal judgment, psychotherapist Čerkić explains that survivors of violence often blame themselves or feel responsible for the violence they experienced. “Very often, the person who committed the violence will blame the survivor or the victim for the abuse, and the victim may start to question whether this blame is justified,” she said.

Čerkić also notes that individuals in abusive partner relationships may wish to remain in their community or relationship, hoping the violence will stop but not the relationship itself. This desire can lead to condemnation from family and friends.

A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH IS REQUIRED

According to a baseline study(http://www.tpo.ba/b/dokument/2017-10-13-Vrsnjacko-i-rodno-zasnovano-nasilje-u-OS-u-BiH-web.pdf) conducted by the TPO Foundation in 2017 on peer and gender-based violence in elementary schools in Bosnia and Herzegovina, interviews with teachers revealed that many were unfamiliar with the concept of gender-based violence and lacked sufficient information on how to respond and support affected children. However, the final baseline study (http://www.tpo.ba/b/dokument/Vrsnjacko-i-rodno-zasnovano-nasilje-u-OS-u-BiH-zavrsna%20baseline-studija-web.pdf) from 2019 shows an improvement in teachers’ understanding of gender concepts and gender-based violence.

These results reflect the efforts of the non-governmental sector. Professor Spahić-Šiljak notes that while some teachers have actively applied the knowledge gained from various trainings, a systemic approach is necessary. Schools should integrate this type of education as a mandatory subject.

Our first interviewee mentioned that involvement in the non-governmental sector and training in areas such as recognizing types of family and partner violence helped her identify covert violence and navigate such relationships.

Classroom teacher Ekinović also believes that the teaching staff is inadequately educated to identify children who have experienced violence. She explains, “Sometimes these children are either too quiet and withdrawn—behavior teachers may interpret as positive because it does not disrupt lessons—or they are hyperactive and draw attention to themselves, leading teachers to view them as undisciplined. It is crucial to recognize and understand the underlying issues affecting these children.”

Ekinović advocates for the inclusion of empathy education in the school curriculum, stating, “Children who are empathetic are more open and communicative, making them more likely to disclose experiences of violence.”

EDUCATION ON GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE CANTON

The Tacno.net portal also reached out to the Federal Ministry of Education and Science (FMON) with inquiries about whether they had considered introducing education on gender-based violence and what the challenges might be in implementing such education in schools. The FMON responded by highlighting that the primary authority for decision-making in education, including topics like gender-based violence, rests at the cantonal level. However, the Federal Ministry of Education and Science, in its coordinating role, advocates for the integration of these topics into educational programs across the entire Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Accordingly, with support from the United Nations Population Fund for Bosnia and Herzegovina (UNFPA BiH), cantonal education ministries, and health sector experts, the FMON has initiated the development of the “Comprehensive Education on Youth Health” Manual for primary schools in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The “Comprehensive Youth Health Education” program is an interactive and participatory educational concept based on life skills, covering a wide range of topics related to youth health. Topics include Sex, Gender, Friendship; Gender and Social Norms; Puberty and Gender-Based Violence; Myths and Prejudices about Violence, among others. These subjects will be taught in community classrooms across the Federation.

The UNFPA, in partnership with the XY Association, has supported the introduction of comprehensive education on these topics in two cantons of the Federation: Sarajevo Canton and Bosnian Podrinje Canton of Goražde (BPK). Through a collaborative effort involving the Federal Ministry of Education and Science, the Federal Ministry of Health, cantonal ministries of education and health, educational and pedagogical institutes, the Council of Parents, and the XY Association, the Healthy Lifestyles curriculum and the corresponding Teacher’s Manual have been developed. The curriculum covers topics such as healthy nutrition, physical activity, prevention of substance abuse, gender aspects, school violence prevention, nurturing diversity, and sexual and reproductive health. The topics are interconnected and require a synergistic and creative approach in their implementation.

In the Canton of Sarajevo, following a Constitutional Court ruling, the Ministry of Education, Science, and Youth amended the Law on Elementary Education to create the necessary conditions for introducing this subject into elementary schools. Alongside Religious Studies and Society for the Culture of Religions, a third subject was introduced to provide equal status to parents and students whose choices did not include the listed subjects.

In contrast, in the Bosnian Podrinje Canton of Goražde, the Healthy Lifestyles program (initiated in 2013/2014) is implemented as an optional subject for students in grades 5 through 9. Since the 2018/2019 school year, all students in grades 6 through 9 have participated in the specialized “Youth Health” program, which includes educational modules on health, violence prevention, healthy lifestyles, and reproductive health. From the 2019/2020 school year, this program was extended to include students in grades 4 and 5.

FMON noted that one challenge in this area could be the reluctance of cantonal education ministries to incorporate these topics into the formal education system. Tacno.net also inquired with the Ministry of Education, Science, Culture, and Sports of the Croatian National Academy of Sciences about the potential introduction of education on gender-based violence in schools, but received no response before this text was published.

Introducing education on gender-based violence is crucial for the health of children, as well as for the well-being of school and social communities. Our sources believe that at the community level, we need to increase awareness, engage actively, and support the development of a system that prevents violence.

“Unfortunately, we only react when extreme forms of violence occur, rather than taking preventive actions. The patriarchal culture continues to promote gender roles where women are seen as weaker, and even those who are not must sometimes pretend to be to survive. The same applies to men who do not conform to stereotypical patterns of masculinity, such as macho behavior and aggression. These men also become victims of violence because they do not fit the expected norms of masculinity,” explains Prof. Spahić-Šiljak.

The post ON THE RESULTS OF UNIGEM RESEARCH – Zilka Spahić Šiljak appeared first on FER ŠKOLA.

Source: https://www.nacional.hr/zilka-spahic-siljak-na-sveucilistima-u-regiji-nasilje-se-zataskava-o-njemu-se-nerado-govori/

Last Tuesday, at the Faculty of Law of the University of Zagreb, the results of a regional survey on gender-based violence and discrimination across 18 universities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, and Montenegro were presented. During this event, we spoke with Prof. Dr. Sci. Zilka Spahić-Šiljak, one of the editors of the scientific publication and a leading researcher, professor, and activist.

This concept is relatively unknown in these regions, and our research has shown that many people misunderstand it, often conflating gender-based violence with domestic violence. However, gender-based violence refers to violence committed based on someone’s sex or gender and can manifest in various forms. It may be psychological, verbal, or physical, with the most severe forms including sexual violence and rape. These issues are reported daily in the media, yet there is still a lack of effective solutions.

NATIONAL: Are there differences in the awareness of gender equality issues among universities based on the results obtained?

Of course, there are differences, though they are not significant. For instance, Croatia stands out compared to Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro in terms of greater awareness and information regarding gender equality and gender-based violence. However, these differences are not substantial.

It is essential to work equally across all universities, focusing primarily on changing the organizational culture and the dynamics of power structures within the university community. As revealed by both the interviews and the quantitative research, although mechanisms such as gender action plans, gender equality bodies, guidelines, and protocols for handling cases of gender-based violence exist, there is still inadequate accessibility and coordination among all actors when a specific act of violence occurs and is reported. This lack of coordination hampers the victim’s ability to navigate the process and results in ineffective sanctioning of the perpetrator.

Violence is often covered up and there is reluctance to discuss it openly. Power structures are hesitant to prosecute their staff because it tarnishes the university’s image. Older generations of teaching staff, in particular, seem to be shielded and are difficult to hold accountable. There have been cases in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Serbia that have reached the courts, but these cases often drag on unresolved, discouraging victims from pursuing justice.

“The power structures are reluctant to prosecute their professors because it would damage the university’s reputation. Older generations of faculty members are particularly shielded, making it difficult to hold them accountable.”

NACIONAL: To what extent did the #MeToo and Nisam tražila movements influence the perception of the problem of gender-based violence?

Certainly, they had an impact. Both the #MeToo movement and the Nisam tražila movement, which began in Belgrade, encouraged many primarily female students, as well as female teachers from the university and academic communities, to openly discuss their experiences. We now have web portals featuring hundreds of testimonials from both students and teaching staff. The #MeToo movement also empowered women in these fields to find the courage to speak publicly about their experiences. It is challenging to address forms of violence that are not readily recognized as such, and difficult to process and prove unless they are the most blatant forms of gender-based violence. Therefore, the #MeToo movement has significantly influenced women to speak out. There are numerous portals with extensive testimonies, complete with identities and detailed stories. During our research, we even encountered female professors who told us, “We learned about cases of gender-based violence at our university from the portals where our female students shared their experiences.”

NACIONAL: One of the conclusions of the research is that gender-based violence exists in universities, but it remains unspoken due to a “culture of silence.” Could you elaborate on this?

First of all, the university community is hierarchically structured, with men predominantly holding positions of power. There are very few women in these roles, and even if they have their own opinions, they often choose not to express them publicly. They are reluctant to hold grudges or risk losing their positions of power. As a result, there is a culture of non-resistance, where individuals prefer not to be questioned or scrutinized, fearing repercussions. This fear and mistrust are significant. Research has shown a lack of confidence in the power structures. Although the system has formal mechanisms in place, there is no real trust in them. If people do not believe that processes will be transparent or that they will receive fair treatment and respect, they are unlikely to report issues, such as violence or harassment. Victims are deterred by the fear of mobbing, pressure, and stigma associated with coming forward.

Female students have particularly highlighted their perception that teachers are untouchable. They believe that no matter what they report or say, these teachers act as if they are above accountability—like minor deities who control everything in the classroom and within the university. Consequently, they feel that their complaints will not be taken seriously, and no action will be taken against such teachers. Unfortunately, this perception is often confirmed in practice. When cases are brought to a judicial resolution, the outcomes are usually ineffective; offending teachers may even return to work or receive promotions.

NACIONAL: What is the current status of bodies and mechanisms for protecting against discrimination and abuse at universities?

There are regulations, protocols, guidelines, and various types of documents in place. Most universities also have trustees. However, the problem lies in the fact that the appointed commissioners serve only in an advisory capacity. While it is possible to report incidents of violence, these individuals and their offices cannot classify the act or provide legal assistance. There are no legal clinics or psychological counseling centers available.

Through the UNIGEM project, we have enabled partner universities to establish psychological and legal counseling centers for those reporting violence. Despite the existence of protocols, guidelines, and regulations, we have observed a disconnect between these laws, the university’s statutes and rules, and the newly established bodies. This creates a significant gap that needs to be addressed to ensure that individuals who report violence understand the process and know where to turn for help.

Additionally, we have identified another issue. There is not only a culture of non-responsibility but also a tendency to deflect. Everyone seems eager to distance themselves from responsibility due to the weight of it. This results in a constant passing of responsibility—from the ethics committee to the ethics council, from the ethics council to the disciplinary procedure, and so on—leading to a lack of cohesion. Although everything is theoretically in place, nothing is effectively connected.

After a year of the project, it has become clear that harmonizing and integrating all existing documents and regulations within the university is essential for streamlining the process and ensuring its effectiveness. We have all the necessary elements, but they are not functioning as a cohesive system.

“We don’t just have a culture of non-responsibility; we also have a culture of deflection. Everyone wants to distance themselves from responsibility.”

. PHOTO: Saša Zinaja / NFOTO

NACIONAL: How aware are students of the available protection measures against such types of abuse?

Very little is known about this topic. We have an entire chapter dedicated to it. Over 50 percent of both male and female students are unaware that there are bodies, regulations, and other documents related to this issue. They do not know that such entities exist within their university, highlighting the need for greater efforts to inform them. It is crucial to implement campaigns and enhance the education of both students and teaching staff. This information must be made more widely available. Therefore, we request that our partners include a dedicated section on their websites that features not only the project but also the gender action plan, guidelines, and protocols. This information should be distributed broadly. While details might be accessible in faculties such as philosophy, law, or political science, students from fields like electrical engineering or technical disciplines may struggle to find this information unless they are personally motivated. It is essential to increase transparency through the university’s social media channels and to utilize every opportunity within the university community to disseminate this information.

NATIONAL: The chapter by Alija Selimović and Ljubica Tomić Selimović examines experiences of gender-based violence and discrimination among university faculty. It addresses issues such as covert exploitation, professional degradation, belittlement, and conflict. Could you provide more details on these topics?

The chapter by Ljubica and Alija Selimović delves into the aspects of research that analyze the results of various forms of mobbing, exploitation, and abuse, emphasizing that not all violence is sexual in nature. Violence also manifests when an individual is unable to advance, when their standard of work is undermined, or when they are excluded from projects that could lead to career advancement. It includes instances where someone cannot progress professionally due to exclusion from important meetings, discovering after months that crucial discussions related to a project were held without their knowledge. This chapter highlights the more subtle forms of violence, which disproportionately affect women due to systemic exclusion. The authors reveal how these subtle forms of violence, often overlooked, impact the health, career, and overall well-being of teachers—primarily female teachers. Many female teachers aged between 30 and 50 have faced severe health issues and are retiring early due to the overwhelming pressure they experience.

NACIONAL: In the chapter on sexist humor and offensive comments at universities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Croatia, and Serbia—authored by you and Jelena Ćeriman—what conclusions did you draw?

My colleague, Jelena Ćeriman from the Institute of Philosophy in Belgrade, and I analyzed part of the research related to sexist humor, and we symbolically titled our chapter “I’m Just Kidding” because it is a phrase we often encounter. When you confront someone who frequently uses sexist humor to demean, exclude, or ridicule others, that person often responds with “I was just joking.” They might also say, “Well, we’re people who appreciate humor; don’t take it too seriously, colleagues.” This puts you in a position where you find yourself apologizing and questioning whether you misunderstood the situation.

This is why we analyzed the data: we observed that sexist humor is pervasive, with Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina being particularly notable in this regard. Our analysis revealed not only a high prevalence of sexist humor but also that it is not seen as problematic but rather as an integral part of the culture. Responses such as, “For heaven’s sake, are we going to lose our spontaneity in communication? Are you turning everything into an issue of violence?” exemplify this mindset.

Sexist humor can also be directed at men, but there is a significant difference in how it affects men and women. For instance, labels applied to women—such as “babushka,” “gossiper,” or “climacteric woman”—undermine their essence, nature, and rationality. In contrast, comments aimed at men often label them as “womanizers,” “careerists,” or “henpecked,” without questioning their rational abilities or work capacity. Women, on the other hand, are frequently reminded that their roles as mothers are natural and that menstruation, childbirth, and hormonal changes render them less capable. This discrepancy highlights the unequal impact of such humor on women compared to men. For example, when a colleague dismisses a comment about the curriculum by saying, “You must be having those days,” it serves as a constant reminder of one’s biological role as a disadvantage.

“When a specific act of violence occurs and is reported, there is no effective coordination within the university community to support the victim and hold the perpetrator accountable.”

NACIONAL: One of the key aspects of this research is its intersectional approach, which involves examining the specific challenges faced by vulnerable groups across multiple dimensions…

Since this research focused not only on gender-based violence but also on gender equality in general, we dedicated a section to intersectionality. We aimed to explore how these issues affect minorities—whether they are ethnic, national, gender, or other minorities—and particularly individuals with disabilities and those with learning and developmental disabilities. What kind of violence do they experience? We found that awareness of these issues is severely lacking. The university community shows the most empathy toward people with disabilities and developmental difficulties, but this often only extends to whether or not there is a ramp at the college entrance. Beyond that, questions of adapted support, specialized programs, and responses to instances of violence that these individuals may struggle to articulate are largely ignored. Even people without such difficulties often struggle to articulate their experiences of violence, as society tends to overlook many forms of it. So, how can people with disabilities or developmental difficulties express what is happening to them? There are no specialized counseling centers or programs for them. In our interviews, we heard that these individuals often face insulting comments, are excluded, and are essentially rendered invisible. That is the core issue—these people are invisible. Everything hinges on the presence of a ramp, as if that alone solves the problem.

NACIONAL: Do you think this research will have an impact on institutions and lead to some changes?

We certainly hope so, especially since the project is still ongoing—nearly three to four years now. Our goal is to collaborate with partner institutions after these results to improve areas within the university community that need attention, focusing on specific problem points. We aim to change the organizational culture and develop policies of zero tolerance toward gender-based violence, which will be completely unacceptable—not something to be laughed at or made the subject of jokes in everyday communication. We are committed to working on this and hope to see changes, at least within the partner institutions we collaborate with. However, there are no guarantees. Much will depend on the dedication and enthusiasm of individuals within these communities who are committed to making a difference.

The challenge lies in the fact that most of the teaching staff are not engaged. This is a common issue across various topics, not just this one. People often do only what is necessary within their specific areas of responsibility, with little interest in anything beyond that. We’ve observed that in faculties with an activist orientation, where there is a strong effort to initiate change and organize events, the biggest challenge is engaging the teaching staff. It’s crucial for them to understand that this issue affects all of us, not just women or certain groups.

Gender-based violence is a significant social, economic, and health problem. It impacts all of us and strains the state budget. Few consider that violence incurs costs—from reporting and services to social work centers and health institutions, including the costs associated with taking sick leave. If we were to quantify it—something some countries have already done—we would likely approach it differently. We are deeply entrenched in neoliberal capitalism, where everything is viewed through the lens of profit, and this issue is costly. It’s not just a matter of health; it’s also economically unsustainable.

The post At universities in the region, violence is often covered up and is rarely discussed openly Interview: Zilka Spahić Šiljak appeared first on FER ŠKOLA.

No biblical figure—perhaps not even Judas, and certainly not Jesus—has been imagined and portrayed as colorfully and bizarrely in human imagination, legends, literature, fine arts, theater, and film as Mary Magdalene.

The New Testament character of Mary from Magdala has undergone a transformation: from a disciple of Jesus, a witness to the resurrection events and the first herald of the resurrection, an apostle to the apostles, to a repentant and converted sinner, and even to the lover or wife of Jesus. These shifts in her portrayal reflect the themes of particular ecclesiastical and social contexts and are therefore intriguing, even when they deviate from New Testament sources.

With these words, the Ivo Pilar Institute of Social Sciences invites you to the presentation of Dr. Sc. Jadranka Rebeka Anić’s book on Wednesday, February 20th, at 7:30 PM in the Pinacotheca of Our Lady of Health. The book, titled “Mary Magdalene: From Jesus’ Disciple to Movie Prostitute,” was co-authored by theologian Anić from Split and Irena Sever Globan, who contributed a cultural analysis of Mary Magdalene’s portrayal in film. The book will be presented by Dr. Domagoj Runje and M.Sc. Blažena Radas, alongside the authors.

Before the book presentation, we spoke with Dr. Anić about some of the topics covered in the book.

To begin with, who is Mary of Magdala?

— A follower of Jesus, disciple, and apostle.

What was her role, as well as the role of women in general, in the Jesus movement and early Christianity?

— Mainly, the role of women in the Jesus movement was reduced to providing material support to Jesus and the disciples and serving in everyday life. However, the role of Mary of Magdala and other women is described using three verbs: follow, serve, and accompany. These terms describe true discipleship. “Serving” cannot be reduced to mere daily tasks.

According to Gospel interpreters, the noun “servant” is used to describe the ideal disciple and leader. In his epistles, the apostle Paul refers to women as his “collaborators in Christ Jesus” and “fellow soldiers,” which highlights their missionary work and role in building communities. We must not forget that in early European Christianity, there was Lydia, who led a house church, and Martha, for example, was credited with a confession of faith that was equal to or even stronger than Peter’s, yet today she is mostly remembered as a housewife.

How paradigmatic is Mary’s fate when discussing the marginalization of women in the Catholic Church?

— Her image illustrates the power of discourse—the promotion of certain interpretations while suppressing others. For instance, the synoptic Gospels report that Mary Magdalene and other women were with Jesus at the moment of his passion and death, while the male disciples scattered. They risked their lives, as the Romans sought to capture sympathizers while punishing rebels, even crucifying women.

The Gospel of John shows that after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to Mary of Magdala and sent her to convey the good news to the disciples, who were hiding in fear. But then come the interpretations. I’ll mention two examples from the early centuries of Christianity. The church writer Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170 – 235/236) explicitly calls women apostles. However, we have a completely different interpretation from St. Ambrose (+397), Bishop of Milan and Church Father. He doesn’t deny that Mary of Magdala announced the resurrection to the male apostles, but he argues that Jesus forbade her to touch him due to her lack of faith, and that preaching requires constancy—a quality the “weaker sex” supposedly lacks, thus relegating the role of proclaiming to men. Yet, if we read the New Testament and the entire Bible carefully, we find no mention of the “weaker sex” anywhere. This reinterpretation of the New Testament text had significant consequences for the position of women in the Church throughout history.

In the book, you discuss the thesis that the reputation of Peter and the mother of Jesus grew as Mary’s importance diminished. Is this falsification?

— In that section of the book, I present Ann Graham Brock’s research, which analyzes how Peter and Mary of Magdala are portrayed in texts where they appear together. It turns out that texts where she plays an important role are more critical of Peter, and vice versa. There are also texts where her role as an apostle is diminished by replacing her figure with Peter or the mother of Jesus. Brock argues that these character shifts have significant theological and ecclesiastical implications, and given their widespread nature, they are likely not accidental.

Nowhere in the New Testament is Mary Magdalene described as a harlot. How did this portrayal emerge, and why?

— Based on the New Testament, we can conclude with considerable certainty that her name was Mary, that she was a Jewish woman from a prosperous town influenced by Greco-Roman culture, and that she was a well-known and respected member of the Jesus movement. Pope Gregory the Great merged her image with two other New Testament female figures: the unnamed sinner who washes Jesus’ feet and wipes them with her hair, and Mary of Bethany, the sister of Lazarus and Martha. This fusion created a new figure of Mary Magdalene. The focus shifted from her being a disciple and apostle to a great sinner forgiven for her great love and willingness to repent. She was no longer a model apostle but a witness to God’s mercy. Gregory the Great did not intend to devalue Mary Magdalene as an individual but created a character he could use for pastoral purposes: a model of a sinful person willing to repent. Throughout history, this process of merging Mary of Magdala with other New Testament figures continued, for example, with the unnamed woman who anoints Jesus’ head, the woman caught in adultery, the Samaritan woman, the anonymous bride at the wedding in Cana…

What is the Gospel of Mary about? What makes it special?

— It is an apocryphal text from the 2nd century, the only gospel attributed to a woman, indicating the high regard she had in the community where the text was written. In this text, Mary Magdalene is depicted as a calm, wise disciple of Jesus who encourages, comforts, and teaches the fearful disciples. In Jesus’ absence, she assumes his role, although Jesus remains the central figure.

How is Mary Magdalene remembered in Eastern Christianity?

— In the Christian East, she is portrayed as a bearer of peace, a true witness of the Risen One, and a herald of the Resurrection. Legends emphasize her virginity, sinless purity, deep knowledge, and constant study of the Holy Scriptures, as well as her martyrdom. According to these legends, she does not engage in stereotypically female tasks but attends school, preaches, and travels like the other apostles. She is presented as equal to the apostles and as a miracle worker.

When did your academic interest in Mary Magdalene begin?

— My interest was sparked in the early 1990s when, after finishing theology, I came across a book that argued for distinguishing Mary of Magdala from other New Testament female figures that had been merged with her. I noticed that there were no scholarly works on this topic in Croatian, so I decided to write a book that would present the complexity of research on Mary Magdalene, contemporary interpretations of her character in the New Testament and the Apocrypha, as well as modern discussions on women as disciples of Jesus and apostles, to the Croatian audience. I didn’t want to simply retell the legends but analyze their origin and development. I was particularly interested in making the book interdisciplinary, so I am pleased that my colleague Irena Sever agreed to analyze the character of Mary Magdalene in film art. This is a pioneering effort. The combination of theology and film enables critical reflection on their interaction and opens up new perspectives for research and creation in both fields.

The post Sister Jadranka Rebeka Anić: Mary Magdalene was not a harlot but Jesus’ most devoted disciple and apostle; however, she should as an example of conversion. appeared first on FER ŠKOLA.

Rebeka Anić holds a PhD in Catholic Theology and serves as a scientific advisor at the Ivo Pilar Institute of Social Sciences. For several years, she taught the “Religion and Gender” course in the Master’s program in Religious Studies and Gender Studies at the University of Sarajevo. Additionally, she has worked as an external associate at the Department of Sociology at the University of Zadar, and taught at University Center for Protestant Theology Matthias Flacius Illyricus at the University of Zagreb, as well as the Catholic Theological Faculty at the University of Split. Rebeka Anić has participated in several international and domestic projects and led two projects at the Franciscan Institute for the Culture of Peace. Her research focuses on gender theories, biblical and theological anthropology from a gender perspective, and the position of women in the Church and society.

Zilka Spahić Šiljak is a professor of gender studies whose expertise spans gender, religion, human rights, politics, and peacebuilding. She has extensive experience working in both governmental and non-governmental sectors, as well as in academia. She has served as a lecturer and researcher at Harvard and Stanford Universities in the United States and led the Religious Studies program at the University of Sarajevo. Currently, she is the director of the TPO Foundation in Sarajevo, which addresses issues related to education, intercultural dialogue, peacebuilding, and empowering young people and women in leadership roles. She is also a visiting professor at Roehampton University in London and teaches at the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Zenica.

Rebeka and Zilka speak with Polis.ba about the establishment of the FER school, as well as topics such as feminism and religion, gender stereotypes, the perception of women in society and religious communities, the burden of misinterpretations of the roles of men and women in both secular and religious contexts, and the misunderstandings and ignorance surrounding feminist theology.

At the beginning of this month, the online FER School: Feminism and Religion commenced. According to the invitation to apply, the goal of the FER School is “the deconstruction of the foundations of gender stereotypes and the construction of egalitarian gender models based on scientific and religious arguments.” What are gender stereotypes, and what are their foundations?

Rebeka: Gender stereotypes are generalized beliefs about the characteristics and roles of women and men. Men are often perceived as active, rational, ambitious, and skilled in mathematics and technology, with their primary domain being the public sphere. Conversely, women are seen as sensitive, nurturing, and oriented toward others, with their primary role being in the family. These traits are often justified by perceived physical and sexual differences between men and women. The metaphysical nature of women is thought to stem from their physical characteristics, which are considered inherent and uniform across all women, regardless of social or cultural influences, and distinct from the supposedly timeless male nature. The crucial question, however, is: How do we come to understand this nature? More specifically, given that we base our understanding of male and female nature on bodily differences, what knowledge about the body serves as the foundation for understanding the metaphysical nature of women or men? Gender stereotypes are rooted in Aristotelian assumptions that the mixture of elements in a woman’s body is weaker than in a man’s, leading to the belief that women are passive in childbirth, while men are active. This has also been used to argue that women are more susceptible to passions and less rational than men, requiring male leadership. Aristotle’s influence on biology and medicine has been so pervasive over the centuries that its impact is still felt today, with some research continuing along the lines of active-male and passive-female. However, contemporary scientific research often challenges these assumptions, though such studies are less popular in the media and mainstream science literature. In contrast, books promoting gender stereotypes are quickly translated into numerous languages and become bestsellers. These authors often present their work as scientific while disregarding critical analysis that questions their validity. Examples of such books, some of which have been translated into Croatian and referenced in theological works, include Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus, Why Don’t Men Listen and Women Can’t Read Maps?, Why Do Men Lie and Women Cry?, The Female Brain, and The Male Brain.

Zilka: I have approached these issues from a sociological perspective, investigating how stereotypes impact women who aspire to leadership roles in society. Research shows that men are generally evaluated based on their potential, while women are assessed on their results, with the standards often shift in favor of men. For instance, an experiment involving American university students revealed that when presented with the biography of a successful businessperson, one group was told the person’s name was Alan, while the other group was told it was Lidija. Both groups rated the person as competent, but the first group described Alan as authentic, likable, and good, whereas the second group described Lidija as aggressive, boastful, and power-hungry. This illustrates the significant pressures women face due to contradictory expectations. On one hand, they are expected to be feminine, but in leadership roles, they are also expected to demonstrate determination without being perceived as exhibiting masculine traits.

Additionally, it is crucial to consider the self-stereotypes that women internalize, which can lead to a lack of self-confidence and feelings of inadequacy and incompetence. Women often question their own suitability for certain positions and tend to prepare more thoroughly, knowing that criticism directed at them is usually more severe than that aimed at their male counterparts.

We are currently witnessing discussions about sex and gender. How, in fact, should we correctly understand the concept of gender?

Rebeka: The simplest interpretation would be that the term “sex” refers to the body and the anatomical and physical differences between the sexes, while “gender” refers to social sex—the characteristics and roles attributed to that body. In other words, people are born male or female, but from birth, they are exposed to various social factors that teach them how to be boys and girls, and consequently, men and women. The interpretation of the relationship between sex and gender has, however, become more complex. It has become clear that it is not enough to discuss only the social conditioning of gender; different interpretations of gender itself must also be considered. Biological and medical definitions—the so-called objective descriptions of the human body—change over time and vary between cultures. These descriptions and interpretations have also been influenced by the social relations of specific periods. Judith Butler summarized the realization that the body is a discursive category and that its interpretation is subject to social and power relations with the statement: “And gender is gender.” This statement is often misinterpreted by the anti-gender movement as a denial of physicality, which is not accurate. Butler has repeatedly emphasized that she does not believe purely cultural signs produce a material body; rather, the body does not become sexually legible without such signs, and these signs are irreducibly both cultural and material simultaneously. Gender studies do not deny the material body, as they are sometimes wrongly accused of doing, but instead explore the interpretations of the body both past and present, and the implications these interpretations have for definitions of masculinity and femininity. This is what we refer to when discussing the construction and deconstruction of masculinity and femininity.

At the very beginnings of the Church, patriarchy overcame Christianity, and this victory has since been theologically justified. To deconstruct theological traditions regarding women and their role in the Church and to construct egalitarian gender models, a reformation of existing church structures is necessary. Implementing this reform requires a faith grounded in the Gospel and people willing to embark on an adventure with God.Rebeka Anić | Photo source: Slobodna Dalmacija

However, gender is increasingly recognized as both an analytical scientific category and a category of justice. Unlike the feminist perspective, which primarily focuses on women, a gender perspective encompasses an analysis of both masculinity and femininity, as well as male and female roles, social positions, and power relations. For example, a gender-sensitive exegesis does not merely investigate the role of women in the Bible but examines the biblical narratives about women alongside those about men. This approach raises questions about why certain terms are translated and interpreted differently depending on whether they refer to men or women, and what implications this has for contemporary women.

It is also important to note that modern research has moved beyond gender-based studies to embrace the principle of intersectionality. This principle analyzes the interplay of various social and cultural categories, such as gender, race, class, nationality, and sexual orientation, in an individual’s life. For instance, white heterosexual women from the middle or upper class do not have the same opportunities as black women from the same class. Intersectional theology, which explores these complex interconnections, is another area of study that is not extensively covered here.

Many people believe that gender stereotypes are established within religious communities and religions themselves. However, in your article “Secularization of Religion as a Source of Religious Gender Stereotypes,” published last year in the journal “Feminist Theology”, you argue that it is secular principles, rather than religious ones, that underpin gender stereotypes. Could you clarify this perspective?

Rebeka: Zilka and I wrote that article. While working together, we observed that the gender model of complementarity, which continues to prevail in official Catholic Church documents and mainstream Islamic teachings, is based on the sex dichotomy as interpreted by Aristotle. Consequently, this anthropology is grounded in Aristotelian natural philosophy rather than in the sacred writings of these two traditions—the Bible and the Qur’an. Thus, it has a secular, rather than a theological, foundation. Regarding Catholic theology, I will illustrate this using John Paul II’s teachings on women and his so-called “new feminism.”

The Bible, both Old Testament and New Testament, does not provide a definition of female or male nature. Referring to Genesis 1:26-28, the Pope teaches that both man and woman are made in the image of God, possessing reason and free will. When interpreting the dignity and role of women, the Pope does not focus solely on women as individuals but on their special female nature and feminine qualities. To understand how knowledge of female nature is derived, it is necessary to consider his philosophy, which combines “Aristotelian Thomism” and the phenomenological method, with an emphasis on the act of experience. In summary, to grasp the metaphysical nature of women, the Pope uses the phenomenological method, starting from the act of childbirth. Through induction and reduction, he arrives at an understanding of the metaphysical nature of women. Analysis of the Pope’s teachings shows that his conclusions about women’s nature are based on Aristotelian-Thomistic assumptions, recognized in the act of childbirth, and then transformed into an ontological understanding of women through induction and reduction. This circular foundation implies deriving something from nature that was projected onto it initially. This is where Judith Butler’s assertion that “sex is also gender” proves to be accurate.

Had the Pope considered another act or experience from women’s lives instead of childbirth, he might have reached a different conclusion about the metaphysical nature of women. However, it was essential for him to demonstrate that women are inherently more sensitive, nurturing, and oriented toward others. He interprets the relationship between men and women as one of complementarity. Yet, this model reveals itself as one of subordination when transferred from the anthropological to the institutional level. Specifically, the Pope uses this model to interpret relationships within the Church, distinguishing between the apostolic-Petrine (hierarchical, male) dimension that leads and decides, and the Marian (lay, female) dimension that listens and follows. Such a relationship model does not embody complementarity but rather represents a pure model of subordination, which characterized Catholic anthropology until the Second Vatican Council. If a complementary gender model were in place in the Catholic Church, ecclesiastical law would reflect the principle of equal dignity for women and men, rather than different rights, and we might see a 50% male and 50% female representation among cardinals.

Zilka: The notion of nature as the basis for determining the identity and role of women has also influenced Islamic tradition, despite its absence in the Qur’an. In fact, the Qur’an does not define male and female nature nor command obedience to a man but rather to God and the Prophet. As Amina Wadud concludes in her analysis of the Qur’anic text, obedience to a husband is not a characteristic of “better” women nor a prerequisite for being part of the Muslim community. In Islamic tradition, men and women have always been considered equal by virtue of creation, both receiving the same gifts from God. Dignity and personal integrity are based on possessing a soul (a part of the divine), reason, and free will. However, throughout history, women have mostly been defined in relation to men, who was seen as the norm in patriarchal and tribal societies. Although they are equal before God in rights and obligations, the roles of men and women are defined based on biological and other differences derived from them. Islamic theological anthropology of women was significantly influenced by Judeo-Christian religious traditions and Greek philosophical thought, especially Aristotle. Muslim scholars adopted Aristotle’s dualistic understanding of humanity as body and spirit, defining men as more inclined toward the spiritual and women as more inclined toward emotions and the material world. Aristotle’s concept of women as “incomplete” men and the scholastic interpretation of women as “incomplete” men had a lasting impact on classical Islamic thought, unfortunately persisting even today. The theory of gender complementarity still prevails, where men and women are seen as complementing each other through stereotypical differences, with these differences granting men primacy and control over women, their bodies, and their lives.

Within the framework of FER School, you offer students a variety of courses: “History of Feminism in the East and the West,” “Philosophy and Gender,” “Gender, Religion, and Peacebuilding,” and “Religion and Gender-Based Violence.” Were you motivated to start this school due to the lack of knowledge about feminism and feminist theology in our society? It seems to me that both of these terms are often perceived more as threats from the West than as opportunities to build a better society. Why do you think this is the case?

Zilka: Our motivation stems from both personal beliefs and the social necessity to engage in a dialogue about gender issues, considering both secular and religious perspectives. As believers, we often find ourselves bridging the gap between the secular and the religious, demonstrating through our own example that one can be both a believer and a citizen, with neither aspect excluding the other. If prominent sociologists have characterized the 21st century as the age of religion and the age of women, then now is the ideal time to discuss religion—prevalent in the public sphere in the Balkans and other parts of the world—in a new light. We must seek dialogical solutions to integrate religion into contemporary social contexts. The excessive politicization of religion and its reduction to mere political tools make it crucial to detach religion from political manipulation and to explore its role and potential for contributing to the humanization of society, benefiting both women and men. It is also important for women to discuss, interpret, question, and deconstruct religion, while also offering their visions for practicing religion in secular societies. My vision of religion today includes the freedom to ask questions, to listen to one another, to respect differing opinions—even those with which we disagree—and to avoid committing violence under the guise of faith, as God transcends any limitations we impose on Him.

Education serves as a powerful means of awakening us from the slumber of powerlessness and hopelessness. Only when we recognize how deeply we have sunk can we rise to the surface and see that the world is far larger than the cages into which we are confined, where we suffocate in ignorance and hatred. Zilka Spahić Šiljak | Photo: Imrana Kapetanović / K2.0.

Due to these reasons and after listening to the experiences of women from this region, we decided to establish the FER School. Our goal is to dismantle at least one barrier of prejudice and fear, and to inspire both women and men to reflect on transcendence, themselves, and the world around them. If we achieve this, we will have succeeded. Everything else would mean surrendering to the status quo and accepting powerlessness as an unchangeable condition, which we refuse to accept. We view education as a powerful tool for awakening from the slumber of powerlessness and hopelessness. Only by recognizing how deeply we have sunk can we rise to the surface and see that the world is much larger than the confines that stifle us in ignorance and hatred.

The courses you have listed are just a part of the FER School’s pilot program, which runs until the end of December 2021. Starting in early 2022, the FER School will expand its offerings to include courses such as Anthropology in Christian and Islamic Traditions, Feminist Theology, Gender, Literature and Spirituality, Sociology of Gender, and Gender, Religion, and Media. These courses are designed as academic programs lasting 15 weeks each, with 45 hours of lectures and exercises, along with mandatory readings and academic writing. The entire program is structured to adhere to academic standards and provide a thorough understanding of gender issues in conjunction with today’s critical topics.

Our societies are patriarchal, and this is also reflected in religious communities of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions, where patriarchal attitudes toward women prevail. However, the sacred texts of these religions contain numerous examples of egalitarian behavior. Of course, there are also examples that discriminate against women. Observing churches and religious communities, as well as the position of women within them, one might get the impression that these institutions are more inclined towards discriminatory rather than egalitarian treatment. Even women themselves often accept the roles imposed on them, believing in the legitimacy of such a way of life. Why, then, are religious communities fearful of women?

Rebeka: At the very beginning of the Church, patriarchy overcame Christianity, and this victory has been theologically justified ever since. Deconstructing theological traditions about women and their role in the Church, and developing egalitarian gender models, necessitates a reform of existing church structures. To implement such reform, faith rooted in the Gospel and people ready for a journey with God are essential. Theological knowledge, including an understanding of the development of ecclesiology, is also required.

I would like to refer to the Franciscan theologian Kenan Osborne, who, in his book A Theology of the Church for the Third Millennium: A Franciscan Approach, discusses the crisis in contemporary ecclesiology. According to Osborne, modern Catholic ecclesiology is centered on hierarchy and adheres to Aristotle’s ideas about the necessity and immutability of what exists. This perspective leads to the interpretation that the historically developed church structure, simply because it exists, is seen as necessary and therefore unchangeable.

As with theological anthropology, Aristotle’s influence and philosophy resurface here, yet no philosophy should be binding for the Church. The principle supporting necessity is philosophical, not theological. In line with Franciscan theological tradition, infinite free will would be paramount. No created being or situation can constrain the infinitely free God. Osborne argues that we can only call something immutable and necessary if God has freely promised that it will not change. Church structures and practices have evolved and changed throughout history.

Osborne contends that the inclusion of women in church leadership is a major issue in ecclesiology. I would argue that it is a matter of faithfulness to the Gospel. While we discuss leeches in state institutions, we often overlook their  presence in the Church. Such individuals seek security and prestige through a “spiritual” vocation that they could not attain in secular life. These people are resistant to reform, uninterested in the Gospel or theology, and instead cling to traditionalism under the guise of tradition. The problem is that such individuals often ascend quickly within the church hierarchy, gaining the power to determine the future direction of the Church.

I’d like to ask you a somewhat more personal question. You’ve experienced the consequences of your views firsthand. As a woman and a nun, you faced attacks from some hierarchs. Zilka has also faced attacks and criticism, and it’s likely that some of your friends have distanced themselves from you as well. How do you cope with this? Should people be afraid of Rebeka Anić and Zilka Spahić Šiljak?

Rebeka: I don’t think anyone is afraid of me. People like me, along with other theologians who share similar views, are simply ignored and excluded. One bishop summed it up in a single sentence: “I’m not interested in her; she’s not important.” For lectures on women and gender relations, female theologians who generally don’t focus on these topics are often invited. I find it amusing to watch or read reports from those lectures.

Enduring attacks is not easy, especially when they come from both outside and within the religious community. I find the attacks from within the community more painful, not only because it is the only space of privacy I have but also because I know these sisters have not read my work. They are attacking me and asking superiors to prevent me from writing and speaking, either on the orders of the head of the Catholic association to which they belong or on the advice of male theologians. However, I am aware that I cannot think or act differently. One theologian told me, “You know who heads my department and what I can say if I want to teach at the university.” And I want to. Some theologians think similarly and have told me, “A Catholic theologian knows what can and cannot be said in public.” Is that hypocritical? It is not my way of thinking or acting.

Regarding friends, I lost the ones who were not genuine. I have made some new friends. Some people treat me like Nicodemus: they communicate with me in secret and try to avoid me in public. I don’t blame them.

Zilka: It’s a little easier for me than for Rebeka because I am not part of an institution and work in a secular environment, both at the university and in the non-governmental sector. My work focuses more on the sociology of gender and religion, which offers me a bit more protection than Rebeka has. I wouldn’t say that anyone is afraid of me, nor should they be, but many would prefer that I don’t ask questions or point out the limited opportunities for women in the Islamic community, where their work is mostly confined to education and charitable projects.

The best strategy of our religious and secular institutions is to ignore any miracle by principle for three days, or until it passes—just ignore the importance of what you are doing. Thus, there is no desire for dialogue on gender issues within the community; well-learned lessons about where women belong are merely repeated. Women who accept these limitations may make some progress.

However, for a community and society to advance, it is necessary to push boundaries and constantly question everything, including our ways of believing. Instead of fostering true reflection and freedom of spirit, these ways often stifle, silence, and sometimes threaten and destroy us and everything around us.

Living my faith authentically means I will never tolerate injustice. As long as there is gender inequality, I will feel compelled to speak and act. The FER school is one of the avenues for this, so if we don’t achieve anything grand, let it at least be known that we stood on the side of justice, equality, and humanity, striving to witness these values in the best manner according to our religious traditions.

Source: https://polis.ba/rebeka-anic-i-zilka-spahic-siljak-za-polis-nas-zene-se-jednostavno-ignorira/

The post Rebeka Anić and Zilka Spahić Šiljak for Polis: We women are simply ignored appeared first on FER ŠKOLA.

The post Online roundtable “Gender Equality in the Church for Gender Equality in Society” at the Human Rights Film Festival (December 7, 2020) appeared first on FER ŠKOLA.