truth dancer wrote:I almost wonder if there really is something in the female psyche that demands subordination.
No, no and NO!
Is this based on scientific evidence or faith?
truth dancer wrote:I almost wonder if there really is something in the female psyche that demands subordination.
No, no and NO!
antishock8 wrote:I think taking the Tureg tribe and using them as an example of men veling themselves is... To say the least... Seriously misguided. You might as well tell Muslims that the FLDS are an appropriate examle of Christian practices.
I think Islamic doctrine Trump's tribal influence. In other words the reason why the ajority of Muslims wear the hijab and so many cover themselves from head to toe is because Islamic doctrine is recognized as god-inspired... Not tribal custom.
Infantalizing men and hiding women are effective ways at controlling the population, apparently.
It's demoralizing for someone like myself who has two daughters that he's trying to raise in a world that would seek to marginalize them based on their gender.
I almost wonder if there really is something in the female psyche that demands subordination.
But I do know if a daughter of mine voluntarily placed a burqa on herself I would be extremely disappointed in her. Perhaps I believe in antiquated notions of standing for something rather than accommodating everything...
Hally McIlrath wrote:But I do know if a daughter of mine voluntarily placed a burqa on herself I would be extremely disappointed in her. Perhaps I believe in antiquated notions of standing for something rather than accommodating everything...
So you don't let them dress up like medieval princesses for Halloween?
skippy the dead wrote:I noticed two relatively young women (late 20s/early 30s) in full length black burqas (sans veils, but heads fully covered) with their children.
While these ladies did everything possible to cover themselves, despite the attendant suffering in the heat, their spouses were not likewise required to do so. A perfect example of the issues inherent in that code. The woman must keep herself hidden; the man, not so much.
Hally McIlrath wrote:much as Mormon women would be affronted at the suggestion that the garments or the veil in the temple were somehow a form of subjugation, rather than a fully-embraced religious mandate. Neither would see those things as overtly sexist in origin.
Egyptian women are not required to wear the veil, and they don't. I think that's true of Lebanese women as well. That would argue to its being cultural.
Uh...I wore it for five minutes to see what it would be like to be a woman in Afghanistan. If it's any consolation to you, I also had my eleven-year-old son try it on, so he could know what it was like to be a woman in Afghanistan. And if I had my way, I'd have Dick Cheney, George w. Bush, and Donald Rumsfeld do the same thing.
You see, I think there's too much of the assumption that you can see exactly what the nature of the world is from your own constricted viewpoint. I hope I caught the dichotomy of wearing the burka in my post. It's beautifully feminine, with elaborate embroidery and shiny satin. But also a tool of misogyny. And I felt at the same time completely constrained by it, but also, delightfully anonymous. I'd never know there was any nuance to it at all, if I hadn't tried it on, and I'm glad I did. I feel a little more solidarity with the women of Afghanistan that I didn't have before.
So you don't let them dress up like medieval princesses for Halloween?
antishock8 wrote:Of course Muslim women defend their right to subjugate themselves. They have that right. The problem is the creeping generational effect religious oppression has on the female gender, AND the societal implications it has for women who want freedom, but are denied it because a society, once freer than it is now, denies those rights to women. These basic humans rights should be vigorously defended. Constantly defended. Tolerance for intolerant customs, laws, practices, and people leads to enslavement. I don't need to know what a rope around my neck feels like in order to know what the end result is.
And do you know why? Because they're secular governments that are being funded by secular Western governments that preserve those rights. In Egypt, home of the Muslim Brotherhood (al qaeda ring a bell?) and in Lebanon (HAMAS ring a bell?) both governments are at serious risk of being overthrown by religious organizations that will summarily erase that particular freedom of choice for women. It is the US and Europe that stems the tide of Islamic supremacism in those countries. For how long... That's the question...
What??? If it weren't for those three men Afghanistan would still be under the thumb of the Taleban, and Iraq would be under the thumb of an autocrat. Freedom only exists in those two countries because of those men. Womens' rights in Afghanistan increased exponentially because of them, and they've desired that. Iraq... Well, Iraq is a potpourri that is best left to anther thread. I have NO idea why you would think those men should try on a burqa, even metaphorically.
I think what I find difficulty with is the ambivalence of your piece. I understand I'm projecting my fear of loss (potential implications of Sharia on a global scale) on you, and that's not fair, though.
I haven't had the chance, but would most likely discourage anything that I viewed as overly gender-role specific. But I haven't had to do that, either. They've naturally chosen costumes that have been unique or creative. However, I'm not such a fanatic that would forbid it. If they choose that route then that's their choice. It doesn't mean I have to agree with everything or feel great about it, but on the other hand I get to share my opinion.. ;)
Hally McIlrath wrote:...even though they were prepared to raze to the ground an entire country, apparently on the mistaken notion they'd be "greeted as liberators."
And by the way, if you think their ham-fisted, ram-rodded Blitzkrieg of Afghanistan, ostensibly to eradicate the odious Taliban, but in practice only allowing the rise of the equally odious Northern Alliance, which is FULL of defected Taliban fighters who merely traded outfits and shaved their beards but STILL demand women to wear the burka and hide in fear just like before, is "freedom," well then, oh yes, pummeling an already pummeled country to dust was SO worth it, and God Bless America, and can't you just smell the scent of McDonald's Freedom Fries hanging in the sunset air over Kabul...
If it weren't for those three men Afghanistan would still be under the thumb of the Taleban...Freedom only exists in those two countries because of those men. Womens' rights in Afghanistan increased exponentially because of them, and they've desired that.
Hally McIlrath wrote:Okay, Antishock, here's what you said:If it weren't for those three men Afghanistan would still be under the thumb of the Taleban...Freedom only exists in those two countries because of those men. Womens' rights in Afghanistan increased exponentially because of them, and they've desired that.
In fact, Northern Alliance/Taliban warlords (one and the same) STILL force women to wear the Burka and sequester themselves just as before. Outside of Kandahar and Kabul (and, arguably, inside) life is no different for these women than life under the Taliban. So what "women's rights" are they enjoying? Please tell me, if a woman was forced to wear the Burka while the Taliban was in power, and now is still forced to wear it by the Northern Alliance (Taliban) warlords, what tangible difference are these women experiencing in their human rights?