Islam and feminism, I need your thoughts on this

[Derec]

This is really a silly argument. Women are grossly mistreated in many Muslim countries.

That is true, but death penalty by stoning is really a good example as men are subject to it as well. Of course, when it affects women it becomes a much bigger story in the West even when she doesn't get stoned.

 

[Derec]

But how has this barbaric regime maintained power? With the help of the West.

If the Kingdom were allowed to fall, do you think things would be any better? No, they'd be much worse, as the largely Wahabist population of KSA is much more fundamentalist than the Saud family.
That is the exact opposite of Iran where the population (at least in the cities) is more liberal than the weirdbeard dictators.

 

[Sheshbazzar]

How many imams who set the rules in Islam are women? How many authors of Koran were women?

Zero.

So even if your opponents claims that the dress code in Islam is somehow more respectful of women than some other type of clothing, that would be coincidental as there is no doubt that women had very little impact in actually deciding what the dress code should be. Same with the other misogynist rules that the religion has, such as women's testimony being only half of that of a man and so on.

Don't underestimate the level of social pressure exerted by Islamic females to maintain these social traditions regarding 'proper' clothing. (and the males Allah sanctioned right and obligation to dictate and to rule over womankind. Ya buy into Islam, this is a givin )

I have personally overheard and observed my female Muslim-American family members daily conversational pressure influencing and manipulating their young daughters, granddaughters, and nieces 'free choices' of clothing.
They say; 'It's your choice' ....but the reality is clear that any 'choice' other than that dictated by Islamic tradition will be shameful and disappointing to mom, grandma, aunts, and scandalous to the family's social standing and community reputation.
The men of the house don't even need to say a single damn word in the matter.

 

[Axulus]

In places like Saudi Arabia men are treated barbarically as well.

You can be beheaded for the crimes of sorcery or for leaving the Muslim faith or for saying the wrong things about religious matters. Kind of like ISIS.

Barbaric places treat more than women barbarically.

But how has this barbaric regime maintained power? With the help of the West.

And yet Iraq was arguably better off under the barbaric regime of Saddam Hussein. That is pretty unsettling when Saddam Hussein is an improvement.

 

[untermensche]

But how has this barbaric regime maintained power? With the help of the West.

If the Kingdom were allowed to fall, do you think things would be any better? No, they'd be much worse, as the largely Wahabist population of KSA is much more fundamentalist than the Saud family.
That is the exact opposite of Iran where the population (at least in the cities) is more liberal than the weirdbeard dictators.

We don't have the slightest idea what Saudi Arabia would look like had the West not propped up a tyrannical dictatorship.

All we know is that by propping up this fundamentalist dictatorship and by giving it extreme power in the form of weapons we have helped the spread of fundamentalism in the region.

What we do now is tricky but what we should be doing is working as hard as possible to free ourselves from the need of oil. Our goal should be to create alternative energy sources and leave as much oil in the ground as possible.

But of course the same people who claim we must be friendly with a brutal dictatorship also say we must burn the oil in the ground as quickly as possible.

They are dangerous and destructive.

 

[Sabine Grant]

This is really a silly argument. Women are grossly mistreated in many Muslim countries.

That is true, but death penalty by stoning is really a good example as men are subject to it as well. Of course, when it affects women it becomes a much bigger story in the West even when she doesn't get stoned.

The reason why it becomes a "much bigger story" is because in Islamist Theocratic shitholes, women are given no credibility when it comes to being rape victims. As a result, they end up being convicted of adultery or fornication and punished in barbaric ways. Let me remind you that such women have to bring forth 4 MALE witnesses of the crime that was committed against them.

 

[Underseer]

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?

 

[Derec]

The reason why it becomes a "much bigger story" is because in Islamist Theocratic shitholes, women are given no credibility when it comes to being rape victims. As a result, they end up being convicted of adultery or fornication and punished in barbaric ways. Let me remind you that such women have to bring forth 4 MALE witnesses of the crime that was committed against them.

The woman Ashanti or whatever her name is that caused such huge publicity wasn't a rape victim but had a lover. In fact, she and her lover also murdered her husband. Despite all that she became a cause celebre with even Hillary chiming in.
Yet the two men who were actually stoned to death (and not released after international pressure) were only mentioned peripherally in the media. Do male adulterers deserve to be stoned? Do people brutally executed by Islamic theocracies only matter when they are female?

No, contrary to feminist dogma, that denies any female privilege in any area of life, there is actual sexism in how these stories are reported. And that leads to many people believing that only women are subject to stoning for adultery in Islamic theocracies. The poster who posted that photo of a woman being prepared for stoning used that picture as an argument for mistreatment of women in Islam when both men and women are subject to death penalty by stoning for adultery.

 

[Rhea]

No, contrary to feminist dogma, that denies any female privilege in any area of life, there is actual sexism in how these stories are reported. And that leads to many people believing that only women are subject to stoning for adultery in Islamic theocracies. The poster who posted that photo of a woman being prepared for stoning used that picture as an argument for mistreatment of women in Islam when both men and women are subject to death penalty by stoning for adultery.

And both people who are black and those who are white are subject to arrest by USA cops. But... what we see carried out is not the same. So I don't think your point stands up by itself. More data?

 

[Derec]

We don't have the slightest idea what Saudi Arabia would look like had the West not propped up a tyrannical dictatorship.

We do not have perfect knowledge of counterfactual history. That doesn't mean that we do not have some idea. Specifically, the monarchy is under threat from the more fundamentalist side, not liberal.

All we know is that by propping up this fundamentalist dictatorship and by giving it extreme power in the form of weapons we have helped the spread of fundamentalism in the region.

Often Realpolitik is a choice between two evils.

What we do now is tricky but what we should be doing is working as hard as possible to free ourselves from the need of oil. Our goal should be to create alternative energy sources and leave as much oil in the ground as possible.

We won't be able to forego oil for several more decades even under best case scenarios. Sure, our goal should be to create alternative energy systems but also encourage oil production outside the Middle East, preferably friendly, developed nations with high environmental standards. Which is why I find the hostility toward Canadian oil sands so baffling. How is being more reliant on OPEC (including Venezuelan oil sands but of course lefties like Venezuela because Chavez) helping anything, even the environment?

But of course the same people who claim we must be friendly with a brutal dictatorship also say we must burn the oil in the ground as quickly as possible.

KSA has traditionally had spare capacity, the ability to open their spigots at will to counteract any production disruptions. That makes them a useful ally and dangerous adversary. Therefore, it has been in US and Europe's strategic interest to have a halfway friendly government there. I suspect that will change in the coming years as it is questionable if KSA has any spare capacity left and oil production has diversified with new technologies and high oil prices that make it economical to exploit marginal, deep water, Arctic, and non-conventional (shale, sands) sources.

They are dangerous and destructive.

Again, choice between two evils. Have a terrible theocracy that sits on an ocean of oil and is openly hostile to you or have a terrible theocracy that sits on an ocean of oil and is openly friendly (albeit with problems). Nobody is imagining Saudi Arabia becoming a liberal democracy anytime soon (or perhaps ever).

 

[Derec]

And both people who are black and those who are white are subject to arrest by USA cops.

Blacks also commit more crimes on a per capita basis. Should not be a major factor here as it takes two to tango for adultery.

But... what we see carried out is not the same. So I don't think your point stands up by itself. More data?

Do you have data on adultery stonings in Iran by gender? I don't have them, but what is clear is that significant number of men and women are being stoned to death. Yet, all we hear is how women, not people in general, are being stoned for adultery.

 

[Rhea]

Blacks also commit more crimes on a per capita basis. Should not be a major factor here as it takes two to tango for adultery.

But their arrest rates don't match their crime rates. You know that, right? And for White people their arrest rates don't match their crime rates. You know that, right? So despite both "being subject to arrest for crimes" it doesn't come out even. Not even a little even. By the same token, the fact that men may be "subject to stoning" does not alone make them actually stoned. So show some data if you intend to make that claim. Then we can see if you're proposing something that's actually a thing.

But... what we see carried out is not the same. So I don't think your point stands up by itself. More data?

Do you have data on adultery stonings in Iran by gender? I don't have them, but what is clear is that significant number of men and women are being stoned to death. Yet, all we hear is how women, not people in general, are being stoned for adultery.

I don't actually hear about it much at all. I recall one woman out of Somalia and a picture somewhere with the man and woman being stoned together. So... ???

 

[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.

 

[Rhea]

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.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

To be fair, though, that is only because the GOP won control of the Congress in the 1994 mid-terms, so Bill Clinton's plan to mandate Bikini Fridays across the US was defeated.

Stupid Republicans

 

[Jokodo]

We do not have perfect knowledge of counterfactual history. That doesn't mean that we do not have some idea. Specifically, the monarchy is under threat from the more fundamentalist side, not liberal. <snip>

Yes, and? That does not imply that their population is inherently more fundamentalist than they are. It just means that the fundamentalists are better organised. And the reason for that is -- the governments own ideology and the options it affords them. They can easily crack down on liberal oppositional voices and justify doing so on religious grounds without loosing face, but they must be much more careful cracking down on fundamentalist clerics who say pretty much the same things they say apart from a few minor disagreements lest they show their hypocrisy. The predictable result is that one but not the other group is able to build fully operational networks. It doesn't tell us much about numbers of sympathisers and much less about inherent predispositions.

 

[arkirk]

We do not have perfect knowledge of counterfactual history. That doesn't mean that we do not have some idea. Specifically, the monarchy is under threat from the more fundamentalist side, not liberal. <snip>

Yes, and? That does not imply that their population is inherently more fundamentalist than they are. It just means that the fundamentalists are better organised. And the reason for that is -- the governments own ideology and the options it affords them. They can easily crack down on liberal oppositional voices and justify doing so on religious grounds without loosing face, but they must be much more careful cracking down on fundamentalist clerics who say pretty much the same things they say apart from a few minor disagreements lest they show their hypocrisy. The predictable result is that one but not the other group is able to build fully operational networks. It doesn't tell us much about numbers of sympathisers and much less about inherent predispositions.

The absence and non existence of "objective morality" has no bearing on issues of human rights. There is no question in my mind that the burka is the uniform of a person with less civil rights than those not forced to wear it. If it were otherwise, they would be allowed to take the damned thing off. There clearly is a discrimination and a social assignment of low status associated with the burka. It isn't just the clothing. Social prohibition of women doing things men may freely do is a fact. It is clear to see that whether you have a moral compass or not. Women in that culture have a reduced status and are subject to terrible punishments for small infractions. It is not Islamophobia to recognize this and disapprove of it. Strict authoritarian societies are always full of intrigue. Can you guess why? If you want a hint, try on a burka.

 

[Jokodo]

Yes, and? That does not imply that their population is inherently more fundamentalist than they are. It just means that the fundamentalists are better organised. And the reason for that is -- the governments own ideology and the options it affords them. They can easily crack down on liberal oppositional voices and justify doing so on religious grounds without loosing face, but they must be much more careful cracking down on fundamentalist clerics who say pretty much the same things they say apart from a few minor disagreements lest they show their hypocrisy. The predictable result is that one but not the other group is able to build fully operational networks. It doesn't tell us much about numbers of sympathisers and much less about inherent predispositions.

The absence and non existence of "objective morality" has no bearing on issues of human rights. There is no question in my mind that the burka is the uniform of a person with less civil rights than those not forced to wear it. If it were otherwise, they would be allowed to take the damned thing off. There clearly is a discrimination and a social assignment of low status associated with the burka. It isn't just the clothing. Social prohibition of women doing things men may freely do is a fact. It is clear to see that whether you have a moral compass or not. Women in that culture have a reduced status and are subject to terrible punishments for small infractions. It is not Islamophobia to recognize this and disapprove of it. Strict authoritarian societies are always full of intrigue. Can you guess why? If you want a hint, try on a burka.

How is this in any way a response to my post?

 

[Metaphor]

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?

Go to feministing; you'll find an orgy of evidence of feminists defending any faith, no matter how misogynist, as long as that faith is Islam.

Unless you think feministing is a false flag website run by people trying to satirise feminism. (Hint: it isn't).

 

[Metaphor]

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.

Nonsense. It is morally wrong for religious police to beat women who walk outside without a male escort.

It is morally wrong for religious police to beat women who aren't covered head to toe in a sack.

It is morally wrong for a culture to endorse the mutilation of children's genitals.

All of these have taken place and do take place in Islamist societies. And they're all morally wrong.