( ... a weird little conversation I'm having with myself here ... I wish someone would interrupt with some superior insights!
)
.. Take the case of Iraq. Of course many Iraqis want to lead better & freer lives than under the previous regime. But is invasion & occupation by a culture that's totally foreign to most Iraqis the way to go about it? (Not that I believe that was the reason for the invasion for a minute) Are ther other, better ways? I would hate any well-meaning attempts to assist the worst abuses of Muslim women in say, the middle east or Africa, to be interpreted as a sort of cultural intrusion that could be used to thwart progressive changes for women in those countries.
I don't know msolga...if we agree that the subjugation and exploitation of women is wrong, what excuse do women of the world have for standing by and seeing their sistern(!) continually abused in the context of religion and culture? I mean, should we wait 100 more years in hopes of making subtle changes?
sorry to interrupt, but I'm just checking to see if Letty has been subjugated.
Don't you remember when the bass player snatched your umbrella in the rain to protect his double bass?
Oh, yes, panz. Letty would dry out, but the wood on that acoustic bass wouldn't.
Ahem. Sorry, Msolga.
My information is second hand, but one of the problems the WAW women have is that the many of the Afghan women here in the states who are involved are certain that the best way to change the status of Afghan women is to work through Afghan men!
Needless to say, the American feminists, are taking this sort of attitude as the first challenge.
Noddy24 wrote:My information is second hand, but one of the problems the WAW women have is that the many of the Afghan women here in the states who are involved are certain that the best way to change the status of Afghan women is to work through Afghan men!
Needless to say, the American feminists, are taking this sort of attitude as the first challenge.
Really, Noddy? Now there's a challenge!
I had some thoughts about this thread today. Sort of strange.. but here goes..
We hear alot about the abuse of women in the news here in america that happens in other countries.
Well, here in america our women are abused as well. We are raped, murdered and controlled. Alot! And it hits the news ALOT. We also have a legal system to catch these men who are doing this crap to women. It isnt acceptable in this coutnry. But if you were outside looking in ( as we are to them ) is it possible that someone might think the same way about american women??? being abused constantly..etc..
Is it possible, that with the diluted news we recieve that this is just a crime and not a way of life?
i am referring to the acid in the face, beating of women etc...
I truly dont think that this behavior is acceptable in the muslim religion and I cant help but wonder if it may be a very small percentage of people who are doing this. But because it is so horrific, that when we hear this , it sounds like it is everywhere?
Did i make my point?
msolga--
The Feminists control the purse strings--and have a list of groups who believe that change in Afghanistan should come through men. WAW makes lots of referrals.
shewolfnm wrote:I had some thoughts about this thread today. Sort of strange.. but here goes..
We hear alot about the abuse of women in the news here in america that happens in other countries.
Well, here in america our women are abused as well. We are raped, murdered and controlled. Alot! And it hits the news ALOT. We also have a legal system to catch these men who are doing this crap to women. It isnt acceptable in this coutnry. But if you were outside looking in ( as we are to them ) is it possible that someone might think the same way about american women??? being abused constantly..etc..
Is it possible, that with the diluted news we recieve that this is just a crime and not a way of life?
i am referring to the acid in the face, beating of women etc...
I truly dont think that this behavior is acceptable in the muslim religion and I cant help but wonder if it may be a very small percentage of people who are doing this. But because it is so horrific, that when we hear this , it sounds like it is everywhere?
Did i make my point?
I totally get what you're saying. There is still alot of sexism here in this country. The law may not even be enough to prevent it sometimes.
But still, in the US men usually tell their daughters they can do anything they want when they grow up. We have the same hopes and dreams for our daughters as we do for our sons. I honestly think that every new generation of girls has a better chance than the last one at getting treated equally.
Basically what i'm saying is that even though it isn't perfect there is progress.Eventually 2nd and 3rd generation islamic women here in the US show progress in terms of liberating themselves from sexism.
In some islamic countries things are going backwards. Islam religions are going back to their old ways of life. Some are interpreting the koran to find new ways to oppress women. I also know that some islamic countries are more secular than others. Palestine, Turkey, Egypt, and malasia are examples. Women in these countries are nowhere near as opressed as women who are in Afganistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq.
Another article by Pamela Bone, published yesterday. I have to respect her for her bravery. She's tackling difficult issues that rarely get a mention here, they're so controversial :
Religious extremists an insult to our values
April 14, 2005/the AGE
Some disturbing views on women run counter to multiculturalism, writes Pamela Bone.
'Every minute in the world a woman is raped, and she has no one to blame but herself, for she has displayed her beauty to the whole world," Sheikh Feiz Muhammad told a packed public meeting in the Bankstown Town Hall last month. "Strapless, backless, sleeveless - they are nothing but satanical. Mini-skirts, tight jeans - all this to tease men and to appeal to (their) carnal nature."
There was pressure on Muslim women to unveil, the sheikh said, and this was because "they want you to be available for their gross, disgusting, filthy abomination! They want you to be a sex symbol!" The woman who wore the hijab was hiding her beauty from the eyes of "lustful, hungry wolves", he said.
Sheikh Feiz Muhammad teaches at the Global Islamic Youth Centre in Liverpool, NSW. His long, ranting speech, damning and ridiculing Western culture (if you allow your wife to watch the "devil" of daytime television, he advised men, you will come home from work and find she is being "negative" towards you) was greeted with frequent applause.
Somewhat more moderately, Dr Amirudin Ahamed wrote in last week's Sunday Age (10/4) that a woman who wears a short skirt and gets drunk "would definitely be at higher risk of sexual violation than, say, a sober Muslim woman at home".
What should be the response to such comments? Ignore them, remembering that in times past Italian and Greek migrants wanted to lock up their daughters too? Reflect that as the majority, non-Muslims ought to be robust enough to take criticisms of their culture in our stride? Remember too that good old Aussie-born men can hold not dissimilar views about women (a state government effort to change the culture of male team sports cited a survey that found nearly 10 per cent of young men thought it was OK to force a woman to have sex if she was wearing revealing clothing). And that feminists have traditionally railed against women as sex objects.
We are a multicultural society, and most people like it that way and want it to continue to work.There are, however, some "issues" here. Leave aside the use of a public venue to make a speech clearly derogatory towards the wider culture: at its worst the sheikh's speech can be seen as at least a justification for rape. A non-Muslim religious leader making public comments far milder than the above would be forced to resign. If a Muslim leader's words are to be simply overlooked (perhaps nothing better can be expected?) is this itself not a kind of racism?
My first conclusion is that multiculturalism is valuable and worth protecting. We are, irrevocably, a multicultural society, and most people like it that way and want it to continue to work. There is also, despite some disgraceful attacks on mosques and on individuals, a lot of goodwill towards Muslims. There are many Muslim leaders who are preaching moderation, and who would likely be embarrassed by the sheikh's speech. We want a society in which people of all religions and cultures can get on together. But there also have to be some core values, and - notwithstanding the views of a minority of unreconstructed football players - one of those values is the equality of women.
The second is that laws against religious vilification are a mistake. Yes, laws against racial hatred, because no one has any choice about their race. But unless we are to accept that human beings are incapable of overcoming their social conditioning, we do have a choice about what we believe. Beliefs are about ideas, and ideas must be open to debate, to criticism and even ridicule. We are entitled to find some beliefs of any religion absurd and to say that we do.
The third conclusion is that Feiz Muhammad and Ahamed are simply wrong. There is no evidence that women in societies where they are forced to cover are less subject to violence, sexual or otherwise. There may be less reporting of rape (when the word of four honest Muslim men is required to prove the rape and if it is not proved the woman is then liable to be punished for adultery, it is rather less likely to be reported); but there is overwhelming evidence across the Muslim world of violence against women, in the form of honour killings, stonings, or beatings for minor infringements of religious codes.
The home, where Ahamed claims Muslim women are safe, is exactly where women in any society are most likely to be assaulted. But a British study of family violence (reported by Geraldine Brooks in her book about Islamic women, Nine Parts of Desire) found that women married to men of Muslim background were eight times more likely to be killed by their husbands than any other women in Britain.
What is really angering the fundamentalists is that Muslim women not only in the West but across the Muslim world are coming out, challenging male interpretations of their religion, demanding an end to their oppression.
Yes, these women are still a minority, and they have a far harder struggle ahead of them than Western feminists ever did; but they are making gains (Morocco has brought in family law reforms; in Saudi Arabia it has just been announced that women may apply for driving licences).
The argument of some moderate Muslims and well-meaning cultural relativists is that non-Muslim feminists have no business criticising the treatment of Muslim women, and that any change must come from within. As Emma Bonino, a member of the European Parliament, said recently: "I remember how important it was for those of us fighting for basic rights and equality in Italy to receive support from women in other European countries who were further ahead in the same fight."
-Pamela Bone is an associate editor.
Not only a disgusting and insulting view of women, but also of men.
Paradox: In that Noodle-headed world the Men are in charge and the Women are responsible.
The easiest way to make people tolerate abuse is to make them proud of it. It's not a particularly difficult trick either. This is the thought that flashes through my mind when people talk about the islamic women who are happy and proud to dress in the burqah.
I'm a moral relativist. I don't think that my way is (in an absolute sense) any better than anyone elses. Yet more so than just about anyone else the behaviour that comes out of the hardline islamic countries sickens me. Then again my cultural values probably have the same effect on them.
In the end what I'm left with is this, if any islamic woman asks for my help to escape her situation then maybe I can. Otherwise it's up to her.
watchmakers guidedog
Thanks for a thoughtful post. This is one of those areas that (as Pamela Bone, the author of both articles I've quoted here suggests) we tend to shy away from ... perhaps out of misguided "respect" for another, very different, culture?
Yes, if help is asked, we should respond!
More food for thought. This time from the perspective of a Muslim woman. Joumanah El Matrah, a former psychologist born in Lebanon, is manager of the Islamic Women's Welfare Council of Victoria, Australia.:
Stolen voices of Muslim women
By Joumanah El Matrah
April 22, 2005/the AGE
Western discourse on the plight of Muslim women reflects ignorance at best, and racism at worst, writes Joumanah El Matrah.
The shedding of crocodile tears over the plight of Muslim women has come to characterise many self-proclaimed feminists, journalists and government officials. The plight of Muslim women has become a paradigm of victimhood.
Instead of working with Muslim women as one disadvantaged group among many in Australia, Muslim women have been misrepresented and used under the pretence of feminist discourse and exploring multiculturalism in a way that reflects at the very least ignorance and at worst racism.
The situation of Muslim women globally is too complex and contradictory for one comprehensive critique. In some nations Muslim women experience horrendous forms of violence and oppression, often under the label of Islam. To explain the reality and suffering of women in such nations by reducing it to a simple consequence of Islam becomes impossible when, in neighbouring Muslim nations, women occupy positions of power in significant social and political institutions.
Without denying the inequities and barriers women face in these countries, we can say that women in Syria and Tunisia hold 10.4 per cent and 11.5 per cent respectively of seats in parliament, compared with 12 per cent in the United States and 11.8 per cent in France.
In Tunisia, 24 per cent of magistrates are women and the penal code now defines domestic violence as aggravated assault, bringing heavier penalties than assaults between unrelated individuals. In Syria, maternity leave and national child care for many professions are provided by the state.
Muslim women have arrived at those positions with greater speed and impact than women in Western nations, given that significant literacy and education levels are new to many Muslim-majority countries.
Perhaps concern for the oppression of Muslim women is more correctly identified as concern at the intrusion of Muslim women into Australia.Just as there are vast differences in the situation of Muslim women, there are significant differences in how women define, understand and practise Islam. In Australia, the representation of Muslim women has been deceptively homogenised, particularly among public commentators who have taken it upon themselves to speak on behalf of Muslim women.
One of the most common strategies in the attack against Muslim women is the representation of the hijab, or head scarf. There appear to be two major arguments: firstly, that most Muslim women are forced to wear the hijab and, secondly, that the hijab is by its very nature oppressive. These arguments not only misrepresent Muslim women who don't wear the hijab, but also those that do. The reality is far more complex.
In Saudi Arabia and other so-called Islamic states, Muslim women are punished for not wearing the hijab. In non-Islamic "progressive secular" states such as Turkey and France, Muslim women are punished for wearing the hijab.
Many Muslim women have resisted laws enforcing different forms of veiling. In response to the Ayatollah Khomeini's decree that all Iranian women must adopt the chador, a long scarf that completely covers women's hair and body, women staged massive demonstrations, sit-ins and work stoppages; Khomeini responded by having women tortured and murdered by law-enforcement agencies.
Nonetheless, women continued to resist and many religious women participated because they opposed the chador's violent enforcement. In 1981, in part as a result of demonstrations against enforced veiling of women, it was widely believed that more than half the political prisoners in Iran were women.
Yet even in such dire circumstances, Iranian women repeatedly stated that the chador should not be the focus of international activism or condemnation; there were far more oppressive and life-threatening violations requiring attention.
We need to relinquish this homogenising equation that veil equals oppression or, more absurdly, that veiling is the worst form of oppression. Continually ruminating on the oppressiveness of the hijab has become more than a stale obsession; it is actively preventing an understanding of the situation of Muslim women and the various meanings the hijab has for them.
The feminist tradition has always treated women's voices as sacred, so why isn't it enough when some women state that the hijab is both meaningful and empowering for them? Why must the interrogation continue, to the neglect of all else?
The focus on the hijab often conceals other, more important issues. In Afghanistan, the preoccupation with the burqa - an all-encompassing robe that covers the head, face and body down to the ankles - as evidence of Islamic excesses blinded many to what would have been obvious if Afghans had not been Muslim.
The Taliban, among other violations, excluded women from education on the grounds that it was a violation of Islamic teaching. A basic understanding of Islam shows that the Koran teaches that women have a right to education. An astute analysis, then, would have focused on the Taliban's incipient fascism rather than questions of Islam's compatibility with human rights and women's dignity.
Judging from the commentary in Australia, it would appear that Muslim women are capable neither of understanding nor of speaking on such issues as sexism, discrimination, equality or justice.
In reality, Muslim women have a notable and proud tradition of activism. Why is it, then, that we hear so little of it? Perhaps the concern for the oppression of Muslim women is more correctly identified as a concern about the intrusion of Muslim women into the Australian landscape.
Instead of being understood, Muslim women have been relegated to being saved. The historical discourse on Muslim women's emancipation might be crudely summarised as follows: colonising nations were to save us from Islam's misogyny, then the socialist/nationalist movements were to save us from our imperial masters, then the Islamists were to save us from nationalist heresy and the evils of the West, and now the human rights movement offers itself as our saviour. Pardon us if we don't faint in anticipation!
Muslim women have long responded to the calling of a movement of themselves and for themselves, working against the historical tendency of Muslims and non-Muslims to speak about and for Muslim women. There is now a 1400-year history that resolutely proves that neither Muslim men nor Western societies are fundamentally interested in facilitating our rights, and it is perhaps unreasonable to expect otherwise.
In the West, and Australia in particular, a significant amount of Muslim women's time "on air" has been used to either explain the hijab or to advocate women's right to wear it. There are many consequences of this, but two urgent issues are that Muslim women increasingly appear incapable of addressing any other issue and that in restricting ourselves to this topic, an opportunity has been created for Muslim men to monopolise and define Islam. (This is one of the major issues women have with the current explosion in inter-faith dialogue meetings.)
To have men as sole representatives significantly skews not only the representation of Islam and Muslims, but also what Islam and Muslims will develop into in this country.
Similarly, allowing ourselves to be co-opted by "democratic" movements in the West has also compromised the position of Muslim women, as Western powers have repeatedly demonstrated their delusion that they have a God-given right to do as they please in Arab and Muslim lands.
Bookmark. Lots of good points in dlowans post on the first page here, thanks
Back a couple of pages, someone--dlowan, I think--said we can't blame the religion for burkas and submissive women... in Islam
--that it is the 'culture'.
Was there an Arab, or related, culture that instilled these practices before Islam? Isn't it Islamic culture, based on the Islamic religion? Or not?
I don't know anything about Arab culture, separate from Islam. Does anyone here?
Well, a number of Islamic feminists argue that the burkha etc is no part of Islam - but corruption of it.
I know I had a number of sources at one time - but I no longer know where they are!
Interestingly, I had an Islamic family in yesterday - with a 13 year old daughter rebelling. I asked the parents if children rebelled in Egypt and Syria (their home countries) - the father said yes, that fundamentalism is a form of rebellion in their countries. He was a very educated man - I would have loved to ask more.
