Islam and feminism, I need your thoughts on this

[veclock]

It comes down to a matter of choice. While it's true that a strong argument can be made that the sexuakization of women in Western society is a sign of male domination, woman can choose whether or not they buy into that. If a woman decides to wear a conservative business suit or a thick sweater that hides her curves the odds of her getting thrown in jail or stoned to death are fairly low. Women can decide for themselves whether or not to buy into the narrative in the West. They don't have men making the decision for them. Thwt makes the two situations incomparable.

Agree. But I've heard some people argue against this. That "these aren't islamic problems but cultural problems".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzusSqcotDw

Calling an argument 'Islamophobic' does not refute the argument. They need to give reasons for their rejection of an argument.

I was told that women are not seen as property in Islam and that clothes like the hiqab isn't denying women their sexuality. Also, my
argument was called "biologistic". "Biologism" is a term that some feminists use in order to label someone who invokes human biological nature, instincts and evolutionary psychology in the discussion.

To be honest, I think I'd have lost interest in arguing with someone who would use the term 'biologism'. Biology is not fantasy. It's science.

If I return to that discussion, could you provide me with some good source that shows evidence for the explanation that clothes like the hiqab are designed for minimizing competition from other males so that the husband can keep her for himself.

What would someone who uses the term 'biologism' regard as a good source?

Indeed. This happened on a political discussion board, where people discuss politics and feminism, I don't think they are very familiar with skeptical discussions and the religion/science issue.
From their perspective, they see Islam as being unfairly attacked/criticized by people and the media, which leads them to feel sorry for believers in Islam. Then they go on and say that the critique of Islam is racist and islamophobic. As Malcolm Gladwell argues, being an underdog can be to your advantage.

I was about to write a long text about the term "biologism" and the phobia of biology within gender studies and within some parts of feminism, but I think that deserves a separate thread.
You're right, they would probaby reject even a good source. But I'd still like to give it a try because if they do, that would be evidence for their closemindedness.

"Islamophobic" is basically a version of the race card.

Yep, which makes no sense. As far as I know anyone can convert to Islam. Criticizing a religion = criticizing ideas.
I'm skeptic to the term islamophobia being used as a defense when someone criticizes Islam, it's a simple defense mechanism. Memes gotta survive.
Phobia is about being afraid, it's something you could seek help for. Criticism of Islam is something we discuss, nothing we seek help for.

Feminists defend Islam?

Feminists defend one of the most notoriously sexist religions on the planet? The religion that is even more sexist than Christianity?

Uh, why would feminists defend Islam? What is your evidence that feminists defend Islam? More importantly, is your explanation for feminists defending Islam explained by any conservative conspiracy theories? The Waco conspiracy? Obama's secret weather machine? The liberal conspiracy to shoot gay beams out of the nation's televisions to turn all the children gay?

They insist that Islamic discrimination of women isn't linked to Islam, it's just the same old patriarchy. The reason, they claim, is the lack of democracy, not religion.
The view is that the patriarchy is global, and the same pattern, structures and norms can be seen everywhere, both in Scandinavia and the middle east. It's worse there because there's less democracy. To blame Islam would be islamophobic and therefore racist, so that's a no no. This is the arguing of many political parties here. Feminists here are protesting for womens _right_ to wear burqua and niqab, with arguments like "why do men always care about what women wear". I can see that point, but I think they miss the bigger picture...

 

[Shadowy Man]

Agree. But I've heard some people argue against this. That "these aren't islamic problems but cultural problems".

Well, it's clearly true that not all muslims do this, so it's not a systemic islamic problem at least. That there are cultures that do this and that these cultures are islamic may or may not be an important correlation.

 

[Malintent]

I do not think that "repressed" is the right word to use to compare the two cultures.

Sex-based roles are different in different cultures. The Arabic culture pushes women in a particular role and the Western culture pushes women in a particular role. Each thinks their own culture represents what is right. And it does... within their own culture... but one cannot compare right and wrong between cultures, exactly for that reason. There is no objective morality... it is all culturally subjective.

But can't one compare between the two a level of third party control?
Women in the west are not "forced" to walk around in bikinis and heels via threat of arrest.
Women in Islamist countries are. Whether they want to comply or not.

No western woman ever has anyone actually say anything to her from government or pulpit that they must take off clothes to be normal. The cartoon is simply a lie, it's not true at all.

Probably not... name your third party and state the reason they are a fair and reasonable choice for performing the comparison. In this discussion, Western culture is 'trying' to be the third party... seems unfair for one of the contenders to be the judge.

 

[Malintent]

It comes down to a matter of choice. While it's true that a strong argument can be made that the sexuakization of women in Western society is a sign of male domination, woman can choose whether or not they buy into that. If a woman decides to wear a conservative business suit or a thick sweater that hides her curves the odds of her getting thrown in jail or stoned to death are fairly low.

Women can decide for themselves whether or not to buy into the narrative in the West. They don't have men making the decision for them. Thwt makes the two situations incomparable.

Waht makes the two situations incomparable is that they are both the locally accepted culture that will either stand the test of time, or will not. But potato-sacked women in the East have no valid opinion of naked women in the West... and vica versa.

"How dare they prohibit women from showing thier boobs" is no more valid than "how dare they allow men to gaze upon their boobs"

In the West, we have laws that favor women's rights to call anything rape.
In the East they have laws that favor men's rights to not be motivated to rape.

which do you agree with... your own cultures position, obviously.

Go <my team>!

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Agree. But I've heard some people argue against this. That "these aren't islamic problems but cultural problems".

Well, it's clearly true that not all muslims do this, so it's not a systemic islamic problem at least. That there are cultures that do this and that these cultures are islamic may or may not be an important correlation.

I think it's more that Islam encourages this kind of behaviour and Muslim countries don't have a lot of other prevailing ideologies to counter balance this sort of idea. There are a number of Muslims who are integrated into Western society and have no problem taking a cherry-picking approach to their religion and ignoring all of the conservative crap, for instance. There's nothing specific to Islamic ideology which makes the oppressive interpretations a necessary component than there is to Christianity which would make the Fred Phelps type of interpretation dominant.

The more humanist ideologies of Western nations have derailed all of the worst abuses of Christianity and things like witch burning, the Inquisition and the Holocaust are mainly historical artifacts at the moment as opposed to central themes of the faith. If Islam gets more influences like Christianity has had, it can become a milquetoast waste of time, too.

 

[doubtingt]

I was told that women are not seen as property in Islam and that clothes like the hiqab isn't denying women their sexuality. Also, my
argument was called "biologistic". "Biologism" is a term that some feminists use in order to label someone who invokes human biological nature, instincts and evolutionary psychology in the discussion.

The only sense in which Biologism is a negative is when it refers to when every aspect of human life is interpreted strictly and solely in terms of biology. IOW, it doesn't exist and no one is guilty of it. It is a term used almost exclusively as a dishonest strawman insult against anyone who merely makes statements that in any way relate to biology, which is not Biologism, just the rational application of relevant science to understanding human psychology and behavior which is undeniably influenced by biology. Don't bother going back to engage them. They are pseudo-intellectual, anti-science ideologues that try to mask their purely emotion-based political activism in academic sounding gibberish. You will just wind up aggravating yourself trying to pin them down on the ever shifting goalposts and dishonest rhetorical strategies.
Note that I did not call them Feminists, because people who use Biologism as an insult aren't worthy of that label and plenty of feminists would reject their use of Biologism (and the rest of their argument on this issue).


More generally, it is true that women in the West are pressured into sexualizing themselves and basically walking around everywhere as though they are willing and receptive to sexual advances at every moment. The fact that they get less respect than men for pretty much anything else about them (other than child rearing prowess), is part of this sometimes coercive pressure. This relates to Metaphors comment above wear he characterized this as women merely "using one's physical gifts". If women were equally acknowledged as men for their gifts other than beauty, this would be a valid point, but they are not. The culture pressures women to emphasize their beauty all the time by devaluing their other gifts. That said, it isn't remotely the same as strict laws with extreme violent punishments that women suffer in Islam for their attire and/or their sex-related behaviors. In the West, women can get by, often quite well, without sexualizing themselves. Their is pressure and even coercion, and yet still choice, and there are women that would choose to emphasize their beauty and sexual desirability even with social pressure to do so (and good for them). The cartoon is absurd and unseasoned moral equivalency.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It comes down to a matter of choice. While it's true that a strong argument can be made that the sexuakization of women in Western society is a sign of male domination, woman can choose whether or not they buy into that. If a woman decides to wear a conservative business suit or a thick sweater that hides her curves the odds of her getting thrown in jail or stoned to death are fairly low.

Women can decide for themselves whether or not to buy into the narrative in the West. They don't have men making the decision for them. Thwt makes the two situations incomparable.

Waht makes the two situations incomparable is that they are both the locally accepted culture that will either stand the test of time, or will not. But potato-sacked women in the East have no valid opinion of naked women in the West... and vica versa.

"How dare they prohibit women from showing thier boobs" is no more valid than "how dare they allow men to gaze upon their boobs"

In the West, we have laws that favor women's rights to call anything rape.
In the East they have laws that favor men's rights to not be motivated to rape.

which do you agree with... your own cultures position, obviously.

Go <my team>!

That's the poorest logic I've heard all week and I've read statements from the Harper government in that time.

A couple of things to parse out:

What was it that I said that makes you think I either agree with women being able to call anything rape and, additionally, why do you think that a statement like that would be related to the discussion?
Do you think that a woman's clothing is a significant factor in men's decisions to rape them?

 

[Shadowy Man]

More generally, it is true that women in the West are pressured into sexualizing themselves...

And this starts at a very young age. Far, far younger than is appropriate, even if this could be deemed appropriate.

 

[veclock]

I was told that women are not seen as property in Islam and that clothes like the hiqab isn't denying women their sexuality. Also, my
argument was called "biologistic". "Biologism" is a term that some feminists use in order to label someone who invokes human biological nature, instincts and evolutionary psychology in the discussion.

The only sense in which Biologism is a negative is when it refers to when every aspect of human life is interpreted strictly and solely in terms of biology. IOW, it doesn't exist and no one is guilty of it. It is a term used almost exclusively as a dishonest strawman insult against anyone who merely makes statements that in any way relate to biology, which is not Biologism, just the rational application of relevant science to understanding human psychology and behavior which is undeniably influenced by biology. Don't bother going back to engage them. They are pseudo-intellectual, anti-science ideologues that try to mask their purely emotion-based political activism in academic sounding gibberish. You will just wind up aggravating yourself trying to pin them down on the ever shifting goalposts and dishonest rhetorical strategies.
Note that I did not call them Feminists, because people who use Biologism as an insult aren't worthy of that label and plenty of feminists would reject their use of Biologism (and the rest of their argument on this issue).

I'm going off topic a little now, so this reply is about "biologism" and not about the islam question.

As you may know, Julian Assange called Sweden "the Saudi Arabia of feminism". I wish I could ignore them, but I rather fight for reason because their views is becoming the norm here.
In the background of what happens in the world, the view on the gender subject are really escalating here in Scandinavia. It's true that we have the most gender equality which is good,
but since we're still fighting for equality more than ever, some parts of it has escalated and lead to pseudoscience. It's quite established too, and I'd guess it's because of the lack of self criticism.
You may want to look this up, and I might start a thread about it.

I agree on your description of them, but the problem is that these people are viewed as the "enlightened". These are the activists, the most popular feminist bloggers, and these views represent the majority in every feminist discussion board I've been to, and they are affecting the politics more than ever. These views are also established in our universities, and a "gender perspective" are meant to be included in EVERY programme at for example Lunds university. Further more, I recently heard about a course called "feminist science critique" and "feminist science theory" within a gender studies programme. So I guess I'll have to accept that I live in a country where politics have invaded science. Sweden don't have much problems with religion or creationism, we have political fundamentalism instead.

Biologism is a true enemy for many if not most feminists here and gender is being totally viewed as a social construction. Biology is NEVER part of the equation.

I'm glad that you don't want to call them feminists, but here it's the otherway around. One of the reasons why I don't bother calling myself a feminist but an antisexist instead.

 

[Rhea]

But can't one compare between the two a level of third party control?
Women in the west are not "forced" to walk around in bikinis and heels via threat of arrest.
Women in Islamist countries are. Whether they want to comply or not.

No western woman ever has anyone actually say anything to her from government or pulpit that they must take off clothes to be normal. The cartoon is simply a lie, it's not true at all.

Probably not... name your third party and state the reason they are a fair and reasonable choice for performing the comparison. In this discussion, Western culture is 'trying' to be the third party... seems unfair for one of the contenders to be the judge.

I meant in one case a third party (government, religion (even other mosques than her own)) control the clothes via threat of arrest or harm.
In the other case only the women and their self-esteem do any "forcing."

I meant that a valid comparison can be made strictly on whether the "male dominated culture" is doing anything to force the issue from outside of her.

 

[Togo]

Agree. But I've heard some people argue against this. That "these aren't islamic problems but cultural problems".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzusSqcotDw

They insist that Islamic discrimination of women isn't linked to Islam, it's just the same old patriarchy.

They have a point. There are plenty of muslims who don't wear any special clothing, and don't appear to have any particular restrictions on female behaviour.

The reason, they claim, is the lack of democracy, not religion. The view is that the patriarchy is global, and the same pattern, structures and norms can be seen everywhere, both in Scandinavia and the middle east. It's worse there because there's less democracy.

Well, no, I don't think that's accurate. Yes the problem is patriarchy and cultural attitudes, and those exist outside of Islam. But there are forms of Islam that support and reinforce patriarchy, just as there forms of any other religion that do the same. That they do this is a problem with certain forms of Islam, and those forms of Islam do need to be condemned as a result, just as sexist religious views in the West are condemned as a result. Once you get away from the idea that all Islamic religions are identical, then the religion, as a supporter and enforcer of patrarchial attitudes, is very much part of the problem.

By the same token, a lot of the problematical expressions of Christian fundamentalism are cultural beliefs as much as anything else, but that doesn't make Christian fundamentalism blameless in supporting and nurturing those beliefs. Most Christians are fine with sexual equality, but if you're at a church wedding and get a 20 minute lecture on the evils of pretending that men and woman are equal, then it's hard to argue that religious beliefs are not part of the problem, even if those beliefs are not common across the entire religion.

 

[Rhea]

A lot of the comments (including one of mine) are based on the differences between countries. But I want to clarify that my original response about whether I see a woman's intelligence or personality more when she is hiding her features from me is based on interactions with veiled women here in America; where her husband may not and courts certainly will not punish her for taking it off so she is doing it of her own will. Even in those cases, the headscarf or veil is a barrier to knowing her, not a conduit. It's a lot like talking to someone wearing mirrored sunglasses - except these women do it every single time you talk to them with a stated desire of hiding part of themselves from you.

 

[dx713]

A lot of the comments (including one of mine) are based on the differences between countries. But I want to clarify that my original response about whether I see a woman's intelligence or personality more when she is hiding her features from me is based on interactions with veiled women here in America; where her husband may not and courts certainly will not punish her for taking it off so she is doing it of her own will. Even in those cases, the headscarf or veil is a barrier to knowing her, not a conduit. It's a lot like talking to someone wearing mirrored sunglasses - except these women do it every single time you talk to them with a stated desire of hiding part of themselves from you.

Everybody hides parts of oneself in public or polite company. It's called decency, and culture generally teach us to hide sexual signals. Or course, what is a sexual signal depends on the culture, but even nudists try to hide erections.
So, I don't take a woman from an arabic culture hiding hair as more "not wanting me to know her" than a western woman covering her breasts with some garnment. Everyone has things they consider intimate and want covered out in public, we just have different thresholds depending on our culture and how we were raised.
Plus, the whole "freedom of religion" thing. I wouldn't begrudge a scarf to a Muslim, if she just wears it as a religious symbol, more than a cross to a Christian or a kippa to Jew.

So, to go back to the OP, I understand the feminist defense of voluntarily veiled Muslim women. Basically, it's the "let them wear what they want" defense, that can apply equally to the shy and repressed as to the "slutty" the other way.
Of course, it doesn't mean not wondering how repressed they are and if the choices are really personnal. But that being a cultural subject, I agree with the posters here who note that it has not more to do than religion than the examination of patriarchy in countries of Christian culture: religion can feed on it or reinforce it, but the problem is not directly linked to one religion.

 

[veclock]

They have a point. There are plenty of muslims who don't wear any special clothing, and don't appear to have any particular restrictions on female behaviour.

Yes, you're probably right about that, do you have any numbers?

My point however, was that this is because of a more literate reading of the Quran.
That islam has a more central role in the extremer cultures. In other cases, reason has done away with discriminating views and rules.
It's possible that I'm wrong, I haven't read islamology.

 

[Warpoet]

Yes, you're probably right about that, do you have any numbers?

Not sure about "no special clothing" worldwide as you will definitely find that hijab is a common fixture in pretty much all Muslim communities, but burqa most certainly is not.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

^^ To be fair, most of that study was based on one woman who answered multiple times and the researchers didn't notice.

 

[Warpoet]

^^ To be fair, most of that study was based on one woman who answered multiple times and the researchers didn't notice.

Source?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

^^ To be fair, most of that study was based on one woman who answered multiple times and the researchers didn't notice.

Source?

Wow ... really?

I have absolutely no response to that

 

[Warpoet]

Wow ... really?

I have absolutely no response to that

You mean that was an attempt at humor?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Wow ... really?

I have absolutely no response to that

You mean that was an attempt at humor?

No, sir. It was not an attempt at humour. It was humour and it was funny.

You know it, I know it and everyone else knows it. That was a quality joke.