Muslim Madness

[redstar2000]

The country where driving might lead to sex

Conservatives believe women should be shielded from strange men; they say driving will allow a woman to leave home whenever she pleases and go wherever she wishes.

"Driving by women leads to evil," wrote Munir al-Shahrani in a letter to the editor of the Al-Watan daily. "Can you imagine what would happen if her car broke down? She would have to seek help from men."

Neither the law nor Islam, however, prohibits women from driving. The ban is based on fatwas, or Islamic edicts, by senior clerics who say that any driving by women would create situations for sinful temptation.

The same argument is used to restrict other freedoms. Women may not travel, attend school or work without written permission from a male guardian. They are not allowed to mix with men in public or leave home without wearing black cloaks called abayas.

http://www.motoring.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=2545141

Ok, Muslims, step up now and defend this shit-brained idiocy.

Try not to drool on your keyboard while typing. :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[RedSkinheadUltra]

I'm not sure it's accurate to call this "Muslim Madness."

Ever think of the possibility many Muslims might disagree with this as much as you do?

I don't think there are too many Islamic fundamentalists on this forum who can defend it.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

It even goes so far that a son has authority over his mother. You should seperate the different streams. Saudi Arabia is wahabism, which is a very strict form of Sunni Islam.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 08:11 PM
I'm not sure it's accurate to call this "Muslim Madness."

Ever think of the possibility many Muslims might disagree with this as much as you do?
Muslim men?

I'll believe it when I see it.

And I'm not holding my breath!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[RedSkinheadUltra]

I thought I left reaction and ignorance behind when I logged off of fascistshithole.com

:( :rolleyes:

I personally have (male) Muslim friends who don't want to enslave women. Shocking as that may seem to you.

Turn off Fox News.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jun 6 2005, 02:20 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Jun 6 2005, 02:20 AM)
[email protected] 5 2005, 08:11 PM
I'm not sure it's accurate to call this "Muslim Madness."

Ever think of the possibility many Muslims might disagree with this as much as you do?
Muslim men?

I'll believe it when I see it.

And I'm not holding my breath!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif[/b]
Actually my parents are muslim. My mom walks around without a cloack on, she isn't hit and in some ways she has more power then my dad. She was even an underground commie/feminist activist.

Same for my dead granddad, while others were conservative about even letting girls to schools. He sent all his daughters to school, did not tolerate sexism, promoted independant thinking and learned my grandmother to read and write. This in 1950's Afghanistan. The same for a large part of my family. They don't even tolerate hitting children or women.

I only see my mom with a headscarf on at funerals. I have to note though that my parents are only muslim out of tradition, but muslim nonetheless. My parents are moderate sunni's.

Your crusade against religion is great and I support it. But don't fall into stereotyping and overgeneralizations.

[Eastside Revolt]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!+Jun 6 2005, 01:50 AM--> (Non-Sectarian Bastard! @ Jun 6 2005, 01:50 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 02:20 AM

[email protected] 5 2005, 08:11 PM
I'm not sure it's accurate to call this "Muslim Madness."

Ever think of the possibility many Muslims might disagree with this as much as you do?
Muslim men?

I'll believe it when I see it.

And I'm not holding my breath!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif
Actually my parents are muslim. My mom walks around without a cloack on, she isn't hit and in some ways she has more power then my dad. She was even an underground commie/feminist activist.

Same for my dead granddad, while others were conservative about even letting girls to schools. He sent all his daughters to school, did not tolerate sexism, promoted independant thinking and learned my grandmother to read and write. This in 1950's Afghanistan. The same for a large part of my family. They don't even tolerate hitting children or women.

I only see my mom with a headscarf on at funerals. I have to note though that my parents are only muslim out of tradition, but muslim nonetheless. My parents are moderate sunni's.

Your crusade against religion is great and I support it. But don't fall into stereotyping and overgeneralizations. [/b]
It's true that many Muslims including B'hai(sp) Muslims are not into the whole "litteral meaning" to their holy books, however this a Muslim problem and it most certainly is "muslim madness". ;)

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

True, but my point was and is; don't overgeneralize. It doesn't help in any way.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by RedSkinheadUltra+--> (RedSkinheadUltra)Turn off Fox News.[/b]

I have not owned a dummyvision set since 1986 and have never seen Fox News or any Fox program...ever.

Do you deny the truth of the report with which I began this thread?


Non-Sectarian Bastard
Actually my parents are Muslim. My mom walks around without a cloak on, she isn't hit and in some ways she has more power then my dad. She was even an underground commie/feminist activist.

Same for my dead granddad, while others were conservative about even letting girls to schools. He sent all his daughters to school, did not tolerate sexism, promoted independent thinking and learned my grandmother to read and write. This in 1950's Afghanistan. The same for a large part of my family. They don't even tolerate hitting children or women.

I think that's a terrific story; you are tremendously fortunate to have such an admirable family!

But I think you would have to admit that your family is highly unusual in the Muslim world.

One in 10,000? One in 100,000? One in a million? That third figure may be too high, granted...but I'll bet your family falls somewhere between the first two figures.

That is, somewhere between 1 in 10,000 and 1 in 100,000 Muslim families are as enlightened as yours.

In "Saudi" Arabia, there might not even be a single Muslim family as enlightened as yours.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

To be honest, muslims have no reason not to criticise the actions of the mad mullahs in Saudi Arabia.

So why aren't they criticising them?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 04:25 AM
That is, somewhere between 1 in 10,000 and 1 in 100,000 Muslim families are as enlightened as yours.


Don't overgeneralize. I personally would guess that more muslim families are "enlightend", because quite some people are religious out of tradition rather then true believe.

Anyway, they are not that ubergreat. Par example my parents are homophobic, became comformist with capitalist society, initially discouraged me off any politcal activity and believe that state-education is one of the most important things in life. They now even encourage me to become middle-class! :o But for their time and location, they were pretty proggressive.

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 06:28 AM
To be honest, muslims have no reason not to criticise the actions of the mad mullahs in Saudi Arabia.

So why aren't they criticising them?
Who says people aren't criticizing them?

[Intifada]

All the Muslim relatives I have do not treat women in such a sexist and ignorant manner.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by guerillablack+Jun 6 2005, 12:58 PM--> (guerillablack @ Jun 6 2005, 12:58 PM)
[email protected] 6 2005, 06:28 AM
To be honest, muslims have no reason not to criticise the actions of the mad mullahs in Saudi Arabia.

So why aren't they criticising them?
Who says people aren't criticizing them? [/b]

I've never heard any moderate muslims critisize islamic theocracy - outside of those in Iran, but we rarely hear them thanks to their government's iron grip over communications.

[Severian]

Then you're not listening.

It's incredible that anyone would seriously suggest that all Muslim men oppose women driving and would want to "defend this shit-brained idiocy." I'd say that suggestion is beyond Fox News in its Islamophobia.

Even the Muslim men in power, in countries other than Saudi Arabia, obviously don't agree with this. Considering that women can drive in those countries.

And obviously some people in Saudi Arabia are trying to change this law....or others wouldn't need to be defending it.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
I'd say that suggestion is beyond Fox News in its Islamophobia.

Of course you'd say that...the longer you're here, the more you scramble to find "excuses" for communists to ally with superstition.

I am indeed "Islamophobic". I also happen to be "Christian-phobic", "Judaism-phobic", "Hinduism-phobic", "Buddhist-phobic", etc.

Pick your superstition...and I'm against it! :angry:

You, of course, are...of a different opinion.


And obviously some people in Saudi Arabia are trying to change this law....or others wouldn't need to be defending it.

Did you bother to follow the link I posted to the full story?

One guy suggested a change...and he's getting death threats on his fucking cell phone. :o

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

PS: you might want to make a note of this. The "politically correct" term for this particular country is "Saudi" Arabia -- the majority of people who live in the Arabian Peninsula do not recognize the "right" of the Saud family to name the country after themselves.

[Severian]

"You might want to" check a map. There are other countries in the Arabian Peninsula.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 12:56 AM
"You might want to" check a map. There are other countries in the Arabian Peninsula.
Yes, tiny despotisms run by "mini-Sauds" at the service of U.S. imperialism.

Calling them "countries" is a stretch.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[turkishXstyle]

the Muslim and the Western are 2 extremes:
While women in Saudi Arabia have are reduced to faceless housewives, women in USA are faceless sex-objects

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by turkishXstyle
women in USA are faceless sex-objects

In the spirit of scientific inquiry, I suggest you put this hypothesis to an empirical test.

Approach a young American woman and tell her to her face that she "is a faceless sex-object" and see how she responds.

As a precaution, have your hospital insurance paid up before you do this. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[guerillablack]

How does that test prove she isn't a face-less sex object.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 06:30 PM
the Muslim and the Western are 2 extremes:
While women in Saudi Arabia have are reduced to faceless housewives, women in USA are faceless sex-objects
While this is an exageration, I do think to an extent you do have a point. Being greatly a result of feminism, women in the U.S. look at doing things like staying home and raising children, and being a housewife as ways of being 'servants of men.' Many women today in the United States, dress like men, work at jobs that men would be expected to do, talk like men, try to think like men, and some even look like men. Another words the goals that some feminists stand for have become stronger, goals which are basically to live like men. They see the world as being sexist because it is run by men, so instead of seriously changing the ways of the world, they just want women to do what men are doing all the time. The world is hardly any less 'masculinity dominated' then it was before, many women have just become less feminine. With this happening, one shouldn't be surprised at some men looking at women as nothing more than sexual objects. And it's not like modern-day women in the United States are totally against this idea, it's much easier to find a woman who can give you a satisfying blowjob then one who can cook. And you can try testing this scientifically, it's true sadly.

[Eastside Revolt]

"How does that test prove she isn't a face-less sex object?"

Because a sex object can't break you're nose.

[LSD]

Because a sex object can't break you're nose.

Exactly, and because if you call a Saudi Arabian woman a "faceless housewife", there's nothing she could do.

Yeah, there's sexism in the US, there's sexism everywhere. But comparing the sexism of the United States to that of Saudi Arabia is beyond ludicrous.

turkishXstyle, the US and Saudi Arabia are not on "opposite extremes". Saudi Arabia is is on an extreme, but its opposite is freedom, not the US. The US is sort of somewhere in the middle, Saudi Arabia is waaaaay to the opression side.


Many women today in the United States, dress like men, work at jobs that men would be expected to do

What kind of jobs are those?

And what's wrong with women doing them? :unsure:


talk like men

Is there some way that they "should" talk?


With this happening, one shouldn't be surprised at some men looking at women as nothing more than sexual objects.

um... that's been going on since well before the feminist movement.

Blaming the objectivisation of women on feminism is like blaming segragation on Malcolm X.

[guerillablack]

That doesn't prove shit. A faceless sex object might break your nose and a girl that isn't one might break your nose and vice versa.

[LSD]

A faceless sex object would break your nose for calling her a faceless sex object?

Well, if she considers herself nothing but a sex object or, more importantly, if society told her that all she was was a sex object, she wouldn't feel empowered to hit you. Likewise if she were "faceless", in this case meaning completely disenfranchised, she would be unable to hit you.

In Saudi Arabia, women are faceless and so cannot strike back at a man no matter what he calls her. And, by the way, if you called a Saudi Arabian woman a "faceless housewife" she would probably agree with you. Within that society, it is all that she is.

But tell me, guerillablack, do you actually agree with turkishXstyle? Do you really think that "women in USA are faceless sex-objects"?

[turkishXstyle]

I think i could not express me rightly, of course the situation of women in the US are not as critical as the situation in Saudi Arabia. We need to say thanks to the feminist-movement here, which did a very good job.
But if we want to make a fair comparison between women in different countries, we CAN NOT keep quit about sexism and sex discrimination in the western countries.(ill add explenation later)

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid Diethylamide+Jun 9 2005, 08:32 AM--> (Lysergic Acid Diethylamide @ Jun 9 2005, 08:32 AM)What kind of jobs are those? [/b]

All sorts of jobs. There are 'firewomen' today. There are women police officers(And I don't refer to women officers who actually tend to deal specifically with women, but there are certain women who act as any normal police officer, and are much easier to be killed by some criminal trying to escape). This isn't always true obviously, plenty of women are much stronger than the average woman today in the U.S.(Not to mention those fatass, out-of-shape cops which I have seen), and some women have talents that may be in this area, and not everyone's "hormones are in perfect tact" as the stereotype goes. But generally, women don't do these jobs as well as men do, and it isn't all that good to have them working these sorts of careers.

And another point, a lot of jobs that women work that don't fall into this category are jobs where they really are 'servants of men,' like secretaries and such.


Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 9 2005, 08:32 AM
And what's wrong with women doing them? :unsure:

Of course women should "have the right" to do whatever job they want, but ethically I think people should do jobs they're actually good at(if they can, which isn't easy to do). As I said, some women may be good at certain jobs like these, but a lot simply are not.


Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 9 2005, 08:32 AM
Is there some way that they "should" talk?

Here we go. Look, a lot of women are influenced by this culture they're a part of and some more involved in the work place are more inclined to say and think more masculine things. I have seen it so many times myself.


Lysergic Acid [email protected] 9 2005, 08:32 AM
um... that's been going on since well before the feminist movement.

Blaming the objectivisation of women on feminism is like blaming segragation on Malcolm X.

Just to clarify, I wasn't blaming these things completely on feminism(Not even close in fact). Also, you're right of course, these feelings have been around forever. But I do think some males, starting at a startlingly young age, do get influenced to think these thoughts, and some of this is influence is (indirectly) a result of feminism.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by turkishXstyle
But if we want to make a fair comparison between women in different countries, we CAN NOT keep quiet about sexism and sex discrimination in the western countries.

We don't.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=35816

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Luz do you feel that there are roles in society specificly for men and women?!

[guerillablack]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 9 2005, 05:00 PM
A faceless sex object would break your nose for calling her a faceless sex object?

Well, if she considers herself nothing but a sex object or, more importantly, if society told her that all she was was a sex object, she wouldn't feel empowered to hit you. Likewise if she were "faceless", in this case meaning completely disenfranchised, she would be unable to hit you.

In Saudi Arabia, women are faceless and so cannot strike back at a man no matter what he calls her. And, by the way, if you called a Saudi Arabian woman a "faceless housewife" she would probably agree with you. Within that society, it is all that she is.

But tell me, guerillablack, do you actually agree with turkishXstyle? Do you really think that "women in USA are faceless sex-objects"?
No, i don't think women are faceless sex objects. I was just putting it out there that there's females who aren't sex objects won't hit you for calling them that and girls that are may not hit you. I don't know how many times you been in a fight, but it usually takes more than calling someone a faceless sex object to run up on you. It's not whether i agree with it, i just saying thats a silly and pointless "test".

[marxist_socialist_aussie]

to take on the original argument slightly, I personally know quite a number of muslim men, none of whom wish for the enslavement of women. I think it is a baseless generalisation to state that the majority of muslim men wish this, these muslim men are simply the ones always talked of on the news and in the papers.

However, those laws which exist in Saudi Arabian are simply sexist and baseless and really must be changed.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!@Jun 10 2005, 04:22 AM
Luz do you feel that there are roles in society specificly for men and women?!
To an extent, yes. Like I said, there are always exceptions, and no one has a right to actually inforce this, but ethically I do think we have to realize that there are certain qualities that one sex will have over another and vice-versa. For an example so obvious it borders on stupidity to point it out, women are better made to raise children. We are different, and no matter how much we want to change that, we can't!

[Black Dagger]

women are better made to raise children

Beyond the biological realities? (pregnancy etc)
I.E, the 'nature' of women means they are 'better' at raising children?

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 10 2005, 08:49 PM
Beyond the biological realities? (pregnancy etc)
I.E, the 'nature' of women means they are 'better' at raising children?
Yes, I did mean beyond the biological realities. The feminine characteristics of women make them more suited to raise children. Women are more sensitive then men, and therefore more suited(Not that a child needs nothing but sensitivity...).

[Black Dagger]

What are the 'feminine' characteristics of women? And how do these make them more suited to raise children?
How did you come to the conclusion that women are more 'sensitive' than men? And how does this apparenty 'sensitivity' make them suited to child-rearing?

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 10 2005, 08:55 PM
What are the 'feminine' characteristics of women? And how do these make them more suited to raise children?
How did you come to the conclusion that women are more 'sensitive' than men? And does this apparenty 'sensitivity' make them suited to child-rearing?
How can one answer such questions? These are the things we see everyday. There isn't any thing else I can add to what I said(except maybe adding more "fancy" words), women are more 'soft' then men, they are more sensitive. Men are 'harder' than women, and are physically stronger. I don't see how these conclusions can be questioned, unless you are suggesting we have somehow taught ourselves to have these qualities(And I am not talking about biological adpatation here, that's another story), meaning that they are superficial(explaining the exceptions).

In regards to your last question, I think the answer is no, but I might not know what you're talking about. Would you be more specific on what you mean by "child-rearing?"

[Black Dagger]

How can one answer such questions?

I'm just asking you to explain the terms you're using, you use phrases like 'feminine characteristics', and 'sensitivity'- and imply that these are objectively defined, and universally understood, which they are not. Hence, i asked if you could tell me what you meant by them.



women are more 'soft' then men, they are more sensitive.

Is the second part of that sentence meant to be an explanation for the first part? If not, what do you mean by 'soft'? And what are you basing this assumption on?



I don't see how these conclusions can be questioned, unless you are suggesting we have somehow taught ourselves to have these qualities

I'm suggesting that these (with the exception of biological difference) are largely cultural constructions, and thus completely mutable. That is, outside of biology, there's nothing 'inherent' in women that makes them 'better' at raising children- as if that was their 'natural' station.



Would you be more specific on what you mean by "child-rearing?"

Raising children.

[LuZhiming]

I can define sensitive for you, I don't mean something like easily hurt or damaged but something like: delicately aware of the attitudes and feelings of others.


Originally posted by Black Dagger+Jun 10 2005, 09:33 PM--> (Black Dagger @ Jun 10 2005, 09:33 PM)Is the second part of that sentence meant to be an explanation for the first part? [/b]

Yes.


Originally posted by Black [email protected] 10 2005, 09:33 PM
And what are you basing this assumption on?

Experience. It seems a simple analysis when one looks at women and compares them with men anywhere.


Originally posted by Black [email protected] 10 2005, 09:33 PM
I'm suggesting that these (with the exception of biological difference) are largely cultural constructions, and thus completely mutable. That is, outside of biology, there's nothing 'inherent' in women that makes them 'better' at raising children- as if that was their 'natural' station.

Then why have women traditionally(meaning in basically every culture with exceptions) so predominately played that role? I think it is natural, perhaps an adaptation for the survival of the species when men had to hunt for food(and possibly die) while women stayed to raise the children.


Black [email protected] 10 2005, 09:33 PM
Raising children.

I just noticed that your statement said how does this apparenty 'sensitivity' make them suited to child-rearing? I read it incorrectly. Anyway, I think this sensitivity makes women more suited to raise children because it gives them a better knowledge of the child's feelings and makes them more understanding and better to raise the child.

[Mujer Libre]

Originally posted by LuZhiming
I can define sensitive for you, I don't mean something like easily hurt or damaged but something like: delicately aware of the attitudes and feelings of others.

Experience. It seems a simple analysis when one looks at women and compares them with men anywhere.
Um, do you realise that your experience doesn't count for much, because all the men and women you see and interact with are a product of society, and at at least to some extent defined by cultural norms?



Then why have women traditionally(meaning in basically every culture with exceptions) so predominately played that role? I think it is natural, perhaps an adaptation for the survival of the species when men had to hunt for food(and possibly die) while women stayed to raise the children.
That's like saying Communism hasn't ever existed, so it's impossible. :lol: So, for most of recorded history gender roles have been defined clearly, with women drawing the short straw... Woohoo. And we DON'T need to hunt for food anymore... I reckon women would be capable of hunting anyway. We're not all incapable damsels in distress (who sit around being "soft" and delicate :lol:) , you know.



I just noticed that your statement said how does this apparenty 'sensitivity' make them suited to child-rearing? I read it incorrectly. Anyway, I think this sensitivity makes women more suited to raise children because it gives them a better knowledge of the child's feelings and makes them more understanding and better to raise the child.
Uh huh... I know women who HATE children and literally have NO idea how to react to them, and men who absolutely adore them. As if women are NOT conditioned to child rear. Let's look at the toys kids get given. Little girls get dolls that look like BABIES. Boys get monsters and stuff like that, reinforcing that whole "hunter" ideal. I knw this is generalising, but I think it's a common enough scenario to allow the point to stand.

[Black Dagger]

I reckon women would be capable of hunting anyway.

It's a western myth that women were 'always' in these 'gathering' roles (implying they were too 'weak' to hunt etc), in many Indigenous societies the accumulation of food was shared, even hunting duties, like in Australia for example.

[Sons_of_Eureka]

Where in the Koran does it say women are inferior?I've just got a hunch that it might be culture and not religion that has caused repression of the wimin.

[LSD]

Where in the Koran does it say women are inferior?

"Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great." - 4:34

"And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them." - 2:228

[Black Dagger]

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/women/long.html

That page has plenty.

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by Mujer Libre+Jun 11 2005, 02:28 AM--> (Mujer Libre @ Jun 11 2005, 02:28 AM)Um, do you realise that your experience doesn't count for much, because all the men and women you see and interact with are a product of society, and at at least to some extent defined by cultural norms? [/b]

So? You can read all you can about past cultures. You can go to other countries, or even different parts of one's own countries. There isn't much evidence to the contrary, regardless of how much feminist whine about it. Besides, people can try to raise their child "differently" but a lot of stereotypes have still come through, girls and boys have been more interested in the typical things boys and girls have been interested in. And there have been numerous studies on this, the only "refuting" of these is a bunch of cop-out arguement.


Originally posted by Mujer [email protected] 11 2005, 02:28 AM
That's like saying Communism hasn't ever existed, so it's impossible. :lol: So, for most of recorded history gender roles have been defined clearly, with women drawing the short straw... Woohoo. And we DON'T need to hunt for food anymore... I reckon women would be capable of hunting anyway. We're not all incapable damsels in distress (who sit around being "soft" and delicate :lol:) , you know.

If you're going to attack my words try debating them. Otherwords you're merely trolling. The comparison with Communism is not one thought out too well. It isn't very difficult to point out why Communism hasn't existed yet, arguements that Communism is in some way against human nature are not convincing at all. Sex differences are another story however. Here's a question: Why have so many cultures practiced basically the exact same thing in this matter? It is not illogical at all to think that men are physically stronger and less sensitive while women are the opposite and that the skills of killing and the skills of raising would be naturally better for each sex, although these would not be limits, as the members of the species can easily go beyond these roles.

You say you suppose women are capable of hunting. Under the circumstances, that is a very stupid statement. Yeah, I suppose men are capable of raising children. That isn't the point! I never questioned that either sex could do these activities. I was suggesting that one sex was better than the other at a particular activity. You seem unable to even address this. If you would spend more time thinking about your own post and the one of the person you are responding to rather than putting effort into launching senseless attacks, you would know that.

As for the bit of trash on "incapable damsels in distress" these are words I never said or implied, so please don't lie and say I said things that I clearly did not. Also, you might want to rethink the statement that raising children is "sit[ting] around being soft and delicate." Raising children is work, you know.


Originally posted by Mujer [email protected] 11 2005, 02:28 AM
Uh huh... I know women who HATE children and literally have NO idea how to react to them, and men who absolutely adore them. As if women are NOT conditioned to child rear.

What is the point with this? It is much easier to prove that women hating children is something created more by their surroundings and experience(culture) then hating them. Or are you suggesting that loving children is also a culture creation and not in any way natural. Remember you are the one who brought up "love and hate."


Mujer [email protected] 11 2005, 02:28 AM
Let's look at the toys kids get given. Little girls get dolls that look like BABIES. Boys get monsters and stuff like that, reinforcing that whole "hunter" ideal. I knw this is generalising, but I think it's a common enough scenario to allow the point to stand.

Oh please, this has been addressed and studied too many times. In some studies parents have actually tried to keep their children from certain toys and activities. They can force them, but in terms of choice, it doesn't work very well. It has been found so many times that for some reason, kids of particular sexes really do have interest in particular toys. Studies have also shown that, for example, women are more likely to remember how to go places by particular sites they saw along the way, while men find using actual direction more useful. These things aren't simply cultural differences, they are natural. Sure, you can argue that there are exceptions, because there are, they are only tendencies after all, (not to mention that, like I said, everyone's hormones are not perfectly "male" or "female" anyway) but it isn't really the point.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by LuZhiming
There isn't much evidence to the contrary, regardless of how much feminists whine about it. -- emphasis added.

Interesting choice of words there.

Presumably feminists don't study or discuss or criticize patriarchal concepts...they "whine".

Like little children.

Who just childishly refuse to accept their "biological female destiny".

Shame on them! :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[LuZhiming]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 08:05 PM
Interesting choice of words there.

Presumably feminists don't study or discuss or criticize patriarchal concepts...they "whine".

Like little children.

Who just childishly refuse to accept their "biological female destiny".

Shame on them! :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif
Yes, for that particular sentence, whining is the correct word. They don't have great documentation to suggest otherwise. They don't have serious studies. All they have is 'but, but that is a cultural constraint', 'but, but just because it happens constantly, does mean we can't change it!" and such copouts.

Although I should clarify that I mean "some feminists" because not all feminists believe in those idiotic ideas.

[Black Dagger]

So? You can read all you can about past cultures. You can go to other countries, or even different parts of one's own countries. There isn't much evidence to the contrary, regardless of how much feminist whine about it.

Evidence to the contrary of what? That women are inherently ‘sensitive’ in nature? Where is their evidence in support of it? It’s my ‘experience’ that both men and women are ‘sensitive’ beings (depending on each individual), the fact that its not culturally acceptable for men to show this sensitivity may make this facet of their personality less-overt, but that does not mean it is absent. As Mujer Libre pointed out, what you see in your ‘experience’ is the product of social norms not necessarily ‘inherent’ characteristics, and the social norms are for women to be portrayed as 'sensitive' and for men to hide this, a sensitive man is considered 'weak'.



girls and boys have been more interested in the typical things boys and girls have been interested in.

Girls and boys are more interested in the ‘typical things’ boys and girls have been interested in because this is their learned/conditioned behavior-response, suggesting there are preordained ‘girl and boy’ things to do is ignoring the role environment (society/culture etc) plays in constructing gender-roles and identity.



And there have been numerous studies on this; the only "refuting" of these is a bunch of cop-out argument.

What studies?


Otherwords you're merely trolling.

Hardly.



The comparison with Communism is not one thought out too well. It isn't very difficult to point out why Communism hasn't existed yet, arguments that Communism is in some way against human nature are not convincing at all. Sex differences are another story however.

Actually, the comparison with communism does make sense. The argument you’re using to justify gender-norms (women are ‘soft’, ‘sensitive’ child-rearers) is just as ‘unconvincing’ as human nature argument against communism, both suggest that there is an inherent ‘human nature’- that is ‘natural’ and to a great extent immutable.



Here's a question: Why have so many cultures practiced basically the exact same thing in this matter?

Well I think there is a trend in human society for male-dominance - that is patriarchy. But I don’t agree that this dominance is practiced ‘basically the exact same’ way across cultures, it’s a lot more nuanced than that. Male-dominance in modern Canada is much different to male-dominance in modern India. Men may occupy a position of dominance in both but they exercise this power differently because the norms of their societies are different. As it for the women of the countries, women in Canada and India do not occupy the same role in society. There are different constructions of what makes a ‘woman’ in Canada vs. a ‘woman’ in India (not to mention the variation within each country), what they are meant to ‘do’, how they are meant to ‘act’- as women, and also what their status is in regards to the men in these societies. Neither of these constructions of gender are ‘natural’, they’re both products of a culture- each with a different history, different gender-relations/expectations, different social norms, norms of behavior and so forth.



It is not illogical at all to think that men are physically stronger and less sensitive while women are the opposite and that the skills of killing and the skills of raising would be naturally better for each sex, although these would not be limits, as the members of the species can easily go beyond these roles.

It would not be ‘illogical’, except for the fact that you haven’t provided any evidence as to why this is ‘natural’ law – merely stated that it is. Yes, men are – on average- physically stronger than women, but that’s where the ‘logic’ of your statement ends. Not only is there no evidence to show that men are ‘less sensitive’ than women, there is no scientific definition of ‘sensitivity’, how on earth would you measure that? Instead, you rely on sexist constructions gender behaviour, ‘women do this’ or ‘women act like this’- ‘men don’t act like this, they act like that’- these assumptions are based on socio-cultural constructions of gender, and the ‘correct’ roles and behaviours of women and men.

There is nothing inherent in men that makes them better at ‘killing’, physical strength is by no means the only or most important trait required to be a killer, least of all in the age of firearms. And because is there is no scientific definition of ‘sensitivity’, there is correspondingly no identifiable link between being ‘sensitive’ and being more capable of raising children, we then would have to measure the 'capability' of men and women to raise children, another equally subjective measure.


You say you suppose women are capable of hunting. Under the circumstances, that is a very stupid statement.

How is that a ‘very stupid’ suggestion? Women are capable of hunting, are you suggesting that they’re not?



Yeah, I suppose men are capable of raising children.

Of course they are!


That isn't the point! I never questioned that either sex could do these activities. I was suggesting that one sex was better than the other at a particular activity.

And you have provided no proof as to why this is the case. You don’t think that maybe your assumption that women are better ‘suited’ to raising children and men at ‘hunting’ and ‘killing’ is rooted in (sexist) constructions of gender and gender roles?



You seem unable to even address this.

Quite frankly, there’s little to address- that hasn't been already.



If you would spend more time thinking about your own post and the one of the person you are responding to rather than putting effort into launching senseless attacks, you would know that.

Defensive any? I can see no ‘senseless attacks’ in her post, she responded to everything you said with a lot less hostility than you responded to her post.



As for the bit of trash on "incapable damsels in distress" these are words I never said or implied, so please don't lie and say I said things that I clearly did not.

‘Trash’? Annoyed ay? Mujer Libre never said that you said those words, so how can she be ‘lying’?



Also, you might want to rethink the statement that raising children is "sit[ting] around being soft and delicate." Raising children is work, you know.

Now who’s ‘lying’? She never said that raising children is ‘sitting around being soft and delicate’, in fact she didn’t mention raising children at all in that paragraph. She was noting how women are predominantly portrayed in society (and in your assumptions of their ‘nature’), it had nothing to do with the facility of raising children.



What is the point with this? It is much easier to prove that women hating children is something created more by their surroundings and experience(culture) then hating them.

Right. So any mode of behaviour that deviates from the ‘female nature’ that you have constructed must be an artificial imposition of ‘surroundings and experience’? Women who hate children are going against their inherent ‘nature’, which is to ‘love’ children, and want to have them? Your definition is creating a role for women, an opressive one.


Or are you suggesting that loving children is also a culture creation and not in any way natural. Remember you are the one who brought up "love and hate."

To quote one of your earlier remarks, “that is a very stupid statement”. The intention of the original poster was clearly not to suggest that a woman hating children was culturally constructed, it was to point out that indeed some women (contrary to your assertion) aren’t ‘naturally’ inclined towards children- at all, despite their 'sensitivity' :lol:


Oh please, this has been addressed and studied too many times. In some studies parents have actually tried to keep their children from certain toys and activities. They can force them, but in terms of choice, it doesn't work very well. It has been found so many times that for some reason, kids of particular sexes really do have interest in particular toys. Studies have also shown that, for example, women are more likely to remember how to go places by particular sites they saw along the way, while men find using actual direction more useful.

Which studies are these? But more importantly, how does a study about memory vs direction and kids choosing toys support your point that women are more ‘sensitive’ than men, and are ‘naturally’ suited to raising children?


They don't have great documentation to suggest otherwise. They don't have serious studies.

Neither do you. Your whole argument thus far has been based on the assumption that women are more 'sensitive' than men, and that this somehow makes them 'naturally' inclined towards raising children. Please, point out the 'serious studies' that illustrate this link, i want to see how they define 'sensitivity' and our they measure gender capability in child-rearing :rolleyes:

[JC1]

I Hate to interupt but what does not driving and wearing a burka have to do with the Quaran ? I Mean Mohammeds wives ran around Fighting Jihads and some of his wives ran there own Theogolgy Schools.

Fuckin' fake ass suadi Imans.

[deathpasser]

Diethylamide:



"Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great." - 4:34

I'm going to suppose you do not know Arabic, so here is another translation, this one my Yusuf Ali with his commentary in '(' and ')':

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).


SO men are protectors of women and maintainers (bread-earners), how does this indicate male superiority? This only says men have their occupation, getting cash and protecting their wives from whatever they require protection from and women have their occupation (not in this verse).

--------------------------------------------------------------

For your second verse you posted.



"And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them." - 2:228

That's not even the actual verse, it seems your source is getting rid of what the rest of the verse has to say.

1 translation

228. Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods. Nor is it lawful for them to hide what Allah Hath created in their wombs, if they have faith in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they wish for reconciliation. And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.

And another translation, Shakir:

And the divorced women should keep themselves in waiting for three courses; and it is not lawful for them that they should conceal what Allah has created in their wombs, if they believe in Allah and the last day; and their husbands have a better right to take them back in the meanwhile if they wish for reconciliation; and they have rights similar to those against them in a just manner, and the men are a degree above them, and Allah is Mighty, Wise.

What this verse says is that women who happen to be pregnent may want to go back to their husbands whom they divorced (they found out about the pregnancy AFTER the divorce). Men would have greater right to take them back or not in such an instance, the woman shouldn't be forced to raise the child on her own, and if the man is compassionate, he can take the wife back, but it is up to him. The reasons are quite evident, for one thing men are meant to be bread earners as God forces them, and after divorce, men wouldn't know if that kid was really theirs in this case, so by waiting the period the Quran says to wait and then deciding is up to them.

check your sources.

[LSD]

SO men are protectors of women and maintainers (bread-earners), how does this indicate male superiority?

Well, from your translation "therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient" and advocating wife beating (no matter how "light") are clearly examples of advocating male superiority


for one thing men are meant to be bread earners as God forces them

How is this not another example of patriarchy?

The men go out and work while the women stay home and look after the kids?

Interesting that the values that "God forces" are very similar to those of 7th century Arabia! :lol:

[deathpasser]

Well, from your translation "therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient" and advocating wife beating (no matter how "light") are clearly examples of advocating male superiority

1) Authority != Superiority. Just because someone has a position of authority does not make them in any way superior to someone who has less authority but works in a different field. Here we have a case where men are given authority over women in certain cases, they are bread-winners after all, and they supply the roof over the woman's head. Let's put it in an economic perspective (assuming you aren't anarchist), you have a small civilization

Where you have a guy who learns farming and farms, brings food. Another person learns geography and plans where the farm goes, the farmer was going to put it in a dessert. Another person directs what is to be farmed and allocates areas where each seed is farmed. Another person is a cook and looks after making meals.

As seen, nobody is superior, each one is required for their feild, each feild requires authority pretaining to the feild.

2) Advocating wife beating also does not support superiority, the reason was if the wife is seen as whoreing herself off and commiting illicit acts. Here the man would have superiority over her, but the men do not do have to cook, raise the children as much, etc. So the woman has superiority in this aspect as she can cut off her part of the relationship and then you have divorce



How is this not another example of patriarchy?

1) Women are allowed to work, they simply don't have to. When did I say the woman must stay home, although according to Quran it is her duty to take care of children (if any) and keep the home tidy and what not, she isn't forbidden from working, the difference is the woman keeps all of her earnings whereas the men must use theirs to support their family financially

2) How is this patriarchy, the husband isn't given in any since a position that is greater then the woman, only roles that he must fulfill different from women, while haveing the same value.



Interesting that the values that "God forces" are very similar to those of 7th century Arabia!

These weren't values of 7th century Arabia before Islam...


EDIT:

Sorry for the double post, I accidentlly clicked back and posted my editing there instead of with Edit.

[LSD]

Authority != Superiority.

Not in an inherent way, no. But in a societal sense, superiority is defined as authority.

What we're talking about is patriarchy which is, by definition, male authority over women.


Here we have a case where men are given authority over women in certain cases, they are bread-winners after all, and they supply the roof over the woman's head.

That is an unequal relationship and advocating it perpetuates male-dominant society.

There are no "natural" roles for men or women. Claiming that there are maintains inequality in gender relations.


2) Advocating wife beating also does not support superiority

Of course it does.

It says that a man can beat his wife, but she cannot beat him. It legitimizes oppression by one gender over the other by saying that only one sex has the right to physically hurt the other. It gives that sex rights over the other's body and as such places them in a superior position.


the reason was if the wife is seen as whoreing herself off and commiting illicit acts.

Who cares?

It really doesn't matter what she does, spousal abuse is never justified.

And what if the man "sleeps around"? Does his wife get to beat him?


Here the man would have superiority over her

"Here"? What's "here"?

He has authority over her in regards to her "horeing herself off and commiting illicit acts"?

In other words, over her free will.


but the men do not do have to cook, raise the children as much, etc.

A role with much less power, authority, or social respect. And one in which she is socialy isolated and limited by the economic power of her husband.


) Women are allowed to work, they simply don't have to. When did I say the woman must stay home, although according to Quran it is her duty to take care of children (if any) and keep the home tidy and what not, she isn't forbidden from working, the difference is the woman keeps all of her earnings whereas the men must use theirs to support their family financially

The "difference" is that while men can just work, if women choose to work they have to do it in addition to the "perscribed" job of raising the children, cooking, tiddying, homemaking...

Why?

Why can't the man do these things? Why can't they both do these things like an equal partnership?


These weren't values of 7th century Arabia before Islam...

I won't deny that in many important ways Islam was progressive for its time.

But it's now been almost 1500 years and the tables have turned. Islam is now pushing a regressive ideology predicated, in this case, on assigned roles for men and women.

That has no place in modern society!


Sorry for the double post, I accidentlly clicked back and posted my editing there instead of with Edit.

:) No problem, taken care of.

[deathpasser]

What we're talking about is patriarchy which is, by definition, male authority over women.

But if men have authority in this sense over women, then women also have authority over men. That would make the system matriarchal at the same time then.

And women hold quite a bit of authority, even over men, in Islam.


Originally posted by Sahih Muslim 3:684+--> (Sahih Muslim 3:684)
Abu Musa reported: There cropped up a difference of opinion between a group of Muhajirs (Emigrants and a group of Ansar (Helpers) (and the point of dispute was) that the Ansar said: The bath (because of sexual intercourse) becomes obligatory only-when the semen spurts out or ejaculates. But the Muhajirs said: When a man has sexual intercourse (with the woman), a bath becomes obligatory (no matter whether or not there is seminal emission or ejaculation). Abu Musa said: Well, I satisfy you on this (issue). He (Abu Musa, the narrator) said: I got up (and went) to 'Aisha and sought her permission and it was granted, and I said to her: O Mother, or Mother of the Faithful, I want to ask you about a matter on which I feel shy. She said: Don't feel shy of asking me about a thing which you can ask your mother, who gave you birth, for I am too your mother. Upon this I said: What makes a bath obligatory for a person? She replied: You have come across one well informed! The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: When anyone sits amidst four parts (of the woman) and the circumcised parts touch each other a bath becomes obligatory.[/b]

Rather then relying on a what all the other men had to say about the Quranic verses in question here, they went to Aisha(ra) instead (a woman).

Another example where women are asked instead since in certain cases they have more authority:


Sahih Muslim 7:2854
Muslim al-Qurri reported: I asked Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with them) about Tamattu' in Hajj and he permitted it, whereas Ibn Zubair had forbidden it. He (Ibn 'Abbas) said: This is the mother of Ibn Zubair who states that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) had permitted it, so you better go to her and ask her about it. He (Muslim al-Qurri said): So we went to her and she was a bulky blind lady and she said: Verily Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) permitted it.

----------------------------------------------------------



There are no "natural" roles for men or women. Claiming that there are maintains inequality in gender relations.

Religon is an idea, you aren't born naturally thinking there is a God or there isn't a God. And I never said it was natural roles, I said that this is how God wants it according to Quran.



It says that a man can beat his wife, but she cannot beat him.

No, it says a man SHOULD beat the wife when she is part of these type of acts. THe idea that the woman can not beat the man is something you implied yourself, where does it say that?


And what if the man "sleeps around"? Does his wife get to beat him?

1) Where does it say the wife doesn't get to beat him for it?

2) If he was "sleeping around' he'd get executed, who needs beating there?



A role with much less power, authority, or social respect. And one in which she is socialy isolated and limited by the economic power of her husband.

Less power yes, but this is only a number of roles held by a woman where she'd have authority. And what do you mean 'less social respect'? Putting food on the table is one of the things holding the greatest social respect for women in the middle east, rather then looking for how "sexy" a woman looks as is done in the West, more attention is given to how she would do as a mother.

Islam teaches about mothers, that of importance the first is the mother, the second is the mother and the third is the mother, she holds three places before the father is even put in the equation.

And when the hell does beating women hold social respect? Even in Islamic circles, beating your wife in certain instances may be legitamized, but actually doing it and talking about it is not socially respectable.

And her husband has no economic power over her, his money goes to her and the children, her money goes entirely to herself.



The "difference" is that while men can just work, if women choose to work they have to do it in addition to the "perscribed" job of raising the children, cooking, tiddying, homemaking...

No, man not only 'can work', they have to work.


Why can't the man do these things? Why can't they both do these things like an equal partnership?

It isn't supposed to be equal in the case of housework, the man must also chip in, he has to put in extra in Islam even more then his already focusing on work. When did I say man can't do those things? In Islam they are supposed to help in those things, but not with an idea of equal partnership since women aren't supposed to work though they can, it isn't their duty.



That has no place in modern society!

For one thing that's an opinion, and even then, one relative only to its holder.

[Raisa]

Well , approach a muslim woman and tell her shes been believign crap her whole life or half the things you say, and she will probably disagree.

And you will say "well she was opressed her whole life so no wonder"

Well in america we dont even notice our objectification, so what does that tell you.

[LSD]

But if men have authority in this sense over women, then women also have authority over men. That would make the system matriarchal at the same time then.

Yes but those areas in which the woman has "authority" are all aubjugational roles.

Cooking, clearning, etc..

Whereas the man has authority in positive areas such as finance and purchasing, not to mention her behavior in regards to "illicit acts".

The women is dependent on him but he is not dependent on her. She needs the money that he brings in and the house that he pays for. Now, you say that Islam teaches that he is obligated to provide for her. Well, fine, but he is still in the position of authority because she needs him to live.

Furthermore, his "duty" is to go out into the world, to meet people, to form social bonds, to experience life, while her "duty" is to stay at home, isolated from the rest of the community. This keeps her subserviant and socially dependent on him.

Look, the Quran commands that women be "obediant" to men, to follow his "orders". Indeed, according to most interpretations, he is even permitted to rape her with no consequences (http://www.msapubli.com/islam-qa/Volume_24/Chapter_2.htm#_RWTOC-40)!


No, it says a man SHOULD beat the wife when she is part of these type of acts. THe idea that the woman can not beat the man is something you implied yourself, where does it say that?

Do women have the right to hit their husbands. (http://www.islam-qa.com/QA/5%7CJurisprudence_and_Islamic_Rulings(Fiqh)/Nikaah_(_Marriage_)/Do_women_have_the_right_to_hit_their_husbands.1006 1998.2083.shtml)


2) If he was "sleeping around' he'd get executed, who needs beating there?

Except that he is permitted multiple wives so... no.


Less power yes, but this is only a number of roles held by a woman where she'd have authority. And what do you mean 'less social respect'?

There is less social respect in cleaning and cooking then there is in working a job. The former is considered to be harder, to be more difficult, and to be more important. That's a social fact.


And her husband has no economic power over her, his money goes to her and the children, her money goes entirely to herself.

Yes, he has to clothe and feed her unless she is "disobediant"!

If that isn't an example of economic power, what it?

He controls her by the threat of cutting off her basic nescessities.


Religon is an idea, you aren't born naturally thinking there is a God or there isn't a God. And I never said it was natural roles, I said that this is how God wants it according to Quran.

Right.

It promotes gender disparity and patriarchy by putting women in an inferior position to men.

Now, this isn't surprising! The ides that men and women could actually be equal would have been insane in the 7th century. So when they wrote the Quran they could hardly have included such instructions. Like the bible and the Vedas, it's a product of its time and must be treated as such. Again, it is a fascinating historical document and must be acknowldeged to have made some progressive changes at the time.

But today it is antiquated and reactionary.

[deathpasser]

Well, fine, but he is still in the position of authority because she needs him to live.

No, she could get a divorce and marry someone else. She could ask her parents for money, and she also has the right to get a job. She has just as much need for him as he for her.



Furthermore, his "duty" is to go out into the world, to meet people, to form social bonds, to experience life, while her "duty" is to stay at home, isolated from the rest of the community. This keeps her subserviant and socially dependent on him.

You keep making more assumptions, women don't have to stay home, when the children (if any) are off at school and the home is nice and clean, she can go out and mingle with her freinds. The husband when home from work, can also look after kids (housework is also a man's duty as I pointed out) while she goes and socializes. Not to mention she can invite people to her place to have tea and whatnot.

And the man's duty isn't to form social bonds, its to get money.



Look, the Quran commands that women be "obediant" to men, to follow his "orders". Indeed, according to most interpretations, he is even permitted to rape her with no consequences!

That's not raping her, she is allowed to disobey at the cost of not getting those oh so fancy clothes she wants the next day. Or him canceling vacation or whatever. If he was going to rape her, he would have to put a gun to her head, but the hadeeth mentioned there said:

"If a man calls his wife to his bed and she refuses, and he spends the night angry with her, the angels curse her until morning."

It doesn't say she HAS TO, only that the angels will curse her for disobediance. She is supposed to because it is against religon for her not to without reason.


Except that he is permitted multiple wives so... no.

That isn't considered sleep around, I though you meant illigitamitly, as cheating. When he's marrying another wife, he does so with his first wive's aggreement, if she had him sign the contract before marriage in which she forbade him from multiple wives, then he can't have more then one.



There is less social respect in cleaning and cooking then there is in working a job. The former is considered to be harder, to be more difficult, and to be more important. That's a social fact.

Maybe where you live, but I have a Muslim background and nobody in my family sees working outside to be more difficult then the duty of a mother, if you read my last post, there is ahadeeth which lead to the contrary. That a mother's job is 3 positions more importent then that of the fathers.


He controls her by the threat of cutting off her basic nescessities.

And she can easily file for divorce and leave the man unmarried as women will not want such a man who doesn't look after his wife (she will tell her lady freinds who in turn will tell their lady freinds). And he won't have his necessities, he won't have food cooked each day, he won't have get sex, he won't have his home in good shape and socially he will be seen as unfit without a wife.


The ides that men and women could actually be equal would have been insane in the 7th century. So when they wrote the Quran they could hardly have included such instructions.

Then you've probably never read the Quran, almost everything therein would've been considered as insane at that time. The ideas preached in the Quran and by Muhemmed(saw) were seen as so insane that people attempted to assassinate him, lead wars against him and persecuted his followers.

[LSD]

That's not raping her, she is allowed to disobey at the cost of not getting those oh so fancy clothes she wants the next day.

...or food.

"She forfeits her right to maintenance and clothing if she does not let him be intimate with her. He has the right to hit her if she persists in being defiant. It is not permissible for her to refuse intimacy if he asks for that, rather she is disobeying Allaah and His Messenger (by refusing)."

Rape is still rape if it's done through the threat of starvation or cutting off "maintanance".

Islam says that a man has the right to demand sex whenever he feels and the woman never has the right to decided to refuse.

The same, however, does not apply in the reverse.

This gives men rights over women's bodies. It does not give these rights to women in regards to men. It says that women are sexually subserviant because their prime concern should be their husbands happiness, whereas he is not required to satisfy hers.


No, she could get a divorce and marry someone else.

And she can easily file for divorce and leave the man unmarried as women will not want such a man who doesn't look after his wife

Not really. A woman can only file for divorce based on legitimate shar'i reasons. This case would not qualify. Based on Quronic laws the man has trhe right to force her to have sex and hit her if she does not agree. She cannot divorce him because of it as it is his "sacred" right.

If she persists in exersizing her free will then the man has the right to "allow" her to seperate from him, but she has to suffer a financial cost for it.

"So the wife should be admonished first, and warned against defiance (nushooz) and of the anger of Allaah and the curse of the angels. If she does not respond, then the husband should forsake her in her bed, and if she does not respond to that, then he may hit her in a manner that does not cause injury. If none of these steps are effective, then he may stop spending on her maintenance and clothing, and he has the right to divorce her or to allow her to separate from him by khula' in return for some financial settlement, such as giving up the mahr."


That isn't considered sleep around, I though you meant illigitamitly, as cheating. When he's marrying another wife, he does so with his first wive's aggreement, if she had him sign the contract before marriage in which she forbade him from multiple wives, then he can't have more then one.

"With regard to the permission and approval of the first wife for a plural marriage, this is not a condition and the husband does not have to seek the permission of his first wife to marry a second."
http://www.msapubli.com/islam-qa/Volume_24..._1.htm#_RWTOC-3 (http://www.msapubli.com/islam-qa/Volume_24/Chapter_1.htm#_RWTOC-3)

Oh and, while we're on the subject, how is permitting polygamy but not polyandry not an instance of sexism?


You keep making more assumptions, women don't have to stay home, when the children (if any) are off at school and the home is nice and clean, she can go out and mingle with her freinds. The husband when home from work, can also look after kids (housework is also a man's duty as I pointed out) while she goes and socializes.

Women are instructed to remain at home and if they do go out to be completely covered.

""O wives of the Prophet you are not like any other women. If you would keep your duty, be not soft in speech, lest he whose heart contains malice may thereby be encouraged. Employ suitable speech. Stay in your houses and do not dress to display your finery in the way they dressed during the time of primitive ignorance; and keep up prayer, and give welfare due and obey Allah and His Messenger; for Allah desires only to remove from you abomination (of vanity since you are) the household (of the Prophet) and to purify you by a perfect purification"
Quran 33:32-33.

""O Prophet, tell your wives and daughters and the women of the believers to draw upon them their over-garments. That is more appropriate so that they may be recognised and not molested" 33:59

This is yet another example of rampant sexism. Women are required to cover themselves in public whereas men are not. This, again, reduces the social contact of women. Men are required to be out in the world and perfectly free to go, uncovered, and speak to whom they will. Women are instructed to stay at home and to only go out covered and isolated.


Maybe where you live, but I have a Muslim background and nobody in my family sees working outside to be more difficult then the duty of a mother, if you read my last post, there is ahadeeth which lead to the contrary. That a mother's job is 3 positions more importent then that of the fathers.

Look, this is getting ridiculous.

How can you honestly argue that Islam does not give men more rights than women?

Women are commanded to obey men! "The best woman is she who, when you see her you feel pleased, and when you direct her she obeys. She protects your rights and keeps her chastity when you are absent"

Furthermore, men are permitted to beat their wives while wives may not hit their husbands!

Women are required to sexually satisfy their husbans whenever he chooses, but not vice versa.

Men are the "leaders" of the house-hold and women must "support him".

Men are permitted multiple wives, women are not permitted multiple husbands

Men are able to go outside uncovered, women must cover themselves.

etc...


"When a man and a woman come together in marriage and live together, there are bound to be differences in opinion between them, and one party must have the final say in order to resolve the issue, otherwise the differences will multiply and disputes will increase. So there has to be someone in charge, otherwise the marriage will founder.

Hence Islam made the husband the protector and maintainer of the wife and gave him the responsibility of heading the household, because he is more perfect in rational thinking than her in most cases. This means that it is obligatory for her to obey him."
http://www.msapubli.com/islam-qa/Volume_24...2.htm#_RWTOC-64 (http://www.msapubli.com/islam-qa/Volume_24/Chapter_2.htm#_RWTOC-64)

[Zapata's Ghost]

Redstar, have you ever lived in a middle-eastern country? Are you close friend with a large group of Muslims? I don't think so you misguided shit. I've lived in Saudi Arabia for five years, and you know, the hundreds of women at the mall down the street wearing clothing from Armani without cloaks, in the shisha bars would really disagree with you. As the conservatives age and die, so do their oppressive traditions. In Jeddah, about half of the women are cloaked, and they usually aren't fully cloaked but are just cloaking their faces, partially because it really does protect you from the heat, which is one of the reasons women cloak themselves. I was in Egypt last month and the same was true in Cairo, and when I was in Abu Dabai at the beginning of the year I hardly ever saw a cloaked woman. So before you decide to share your lovely information about 'Muslim Madness', visit these places, learn to know and understand these people, and I guarantee you that you won't come back spurting anti-Islamic bullshit like you did at the beginning of this thread.

[redstar2000]

"Misguided shit" that I undoubtedly am, I didn't just make this "anti-Islamic bullshit" up.

My comments were based on a news story. Do you deny the truth of that story? Did they "make it up"?

You mention the "malls" in Jeddah...how did those "uncloaked women" get to the malls if they can't drive? Did they walk?

I am aware that there are "western zones" in some Muslim countries where women are granted more freedom of personal behavior. Cairo certainly qualifies in that regard. But if you leave the city and visit Egyptian villages, things haven't changed at all, now have they?

And, as in everything else, I'm sure class is one of the determining factors...in the "west", upper class women have always had more freedom of personal behavior than working class or even lower middle class women.

I assume it's the same in the Middle East and other Muslim countries.

An important purpose of Islam, like all other religions, is controlling the "morals" of the "lower classes" while the ruling classes behave as they see fit.

It was that way in 19th century Christian England...and it's that way in the Muslim world today, right?

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[JC1]

Suadi Arabia is a exception. Even in Iran (A crude Bourgoise Democracy) there are limited freedoms for women. However , in most countrys in the semitic world , Jurisprudence is just words. Lebenon for example , Has a law on the books Illegalizing Homosexuality. However, It has the largest Gay Scene in the Mid East.

[deathpasser]

...or food.


If she doesn't have all her rights from her husband such as food clothing etc. Why would she continue to do her other duties to him? He'd be left without all of the wife's uses.

And as before, Islam does not forbid women from working, she can fend for herself during these times or stay at her parents. Also, this is a right according to Quran, it isn't an obligation to gently beat one's wife, I come from a Muslim background as I said before, and such occurances are rare if not non-existant.



Islam says that a man has the right to demand sex whenever he feels and the woman never has the right to decided to refuse.

Take a closer look at the links YOU posted:

"...so long as that will not harm her or keep her from doing an obligatory duty."


It says that women are sexually subserviant because their prime concern should be their husbands happiness, whereas he is not required to satisfy hers.

That's an assumption on your part, according to the ahadeeth, the men HAVE TO keep their wives happy, be "gentle" with them. Would you like references such as Sahih Bukhari?


Not really. A woman can only file for divorce based on legitimate shar'i reasons. This case would not qualify. Based on Quronic laws the man has trhe right to force her to have sex and hit her if she does not agree. She cannot divorce him because of it as it is his "sacred" right.

She has other reasons for which she can file for divorce, in case he continues to lust after sex although it can cause her harm as said in the link you posted. And if it keeps her from obligatory duties, and one such duty is children. In court she can claim that she can't look after her children because of her horny stud in the room. :P
And I don't see why the husband would have any objections to getting a divorce if his wife isn't being loyal so it wouldn't take much time in court either.


he has the right to divorce her or to allow her to separate from him by khula' in return for some financial settlement, such as giving up the mahr."

Mahr doesn't come out of the wife's pockets, its the dowry the male gives, she wouldn't be losing anything financially there...



"With regard to the permission and approval of the first wife for a plural marriage, this is not a condition and the husband does not have to seek the permission of his first wife to marry a second."

I meant that if it was put in the initial marriage contract that he would have to ask, as is common in Muslim marriage contracts. But before marriage the woman can also specify in the marriage contract, that he can not marry other wives, that by marrying this woman he is forfeiting this right.


Oh and, while we're on the subject, how is permitting polygamy but not polyandry not an instance of sexism?

It is...haveing different laws for men and women is sexism. I don't beleive sexism is necessarily wrong though, although while I'm still in the US wouldn't mind that women can also be allowed to run around topless. But there is also no denying that men and women are different, usually they are capable of most of the same things but can women masturbate and shoot semen? Unless science creates a way for something so scary and to me unimaginable, then no.
What a woman can do if she doesn't agree with this sexism?

1) Leave Islam, yet I see more women joining it knowing they are placing restrictions upon themselves.

2) Live in a secular society.


Women are instructed to remain at home and if they do go out to be completely covered.

Completely covered? I would like to see where you got this, not from a government but rather, where in Islamic religous text does it say women must be 'completely' covered?


Women are instructed to stay at home and to only go out covered and isolated.

I've already replied about this, my own cousin covers her hair when she is outside (which is what I know is religously mandatory) and she gets along preatty damn fine socially with people.


www.msapubli.com

Is this the only place where you get information regarding Islam?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 08:43 PM
[If she doesn't have all her rights from her husband such as food clothing etc. Why would she continue to do her other duties to him? He'd be left without all of the wife's uses.
In other words, you see marriage as a form of prostitution, only longer-term. If she doesn't perform, she doesn't get paid.