Gender Oppression
Some people say that women are biologically inferior to men. For example, Right-Winger's say that women are less intelligent than men are or less capable of doing certain tasks. This may be right, however, a man still must respect the woman. The same people that say this also say that women must accept their inferior position in society because it is part of their culture. This is very problematic. This oppression isn’t just born today it is founded many years ago and I can say many centuries ago. But the issue is why ?Women play an important part in their culture. Women have the right to strive for liberation within in their own cultures. Women have the right to shape and change the cultures to which they belong. Nonetheless, these women that are oppressed do not resist their oppressors and continue on with the oppression.
The women face oppression from the men in their lives. These men can be their husbands, fathers, brothers, and sometimes even the sons. I would like to say in the beginning to the men. “Yes, we are stronger but this strength is a gift from god. However, god gave this strength to men to protect women and not to abuse them.” Every woman should be shown respect and given their dignity. This means not only your wife, sister, mother, and daughter, but the respect must be to each woman you know and each woman you don't know.
A man that does not respect his wife in front of his children, teaches his children not to respect her also. A father that gives no respect to his daughter shows all that she has no worth and men will see her as worthless. A brother that does not respect a sister will make the woman feel as she has no meaning to him. However, the worst offense of oppression comes from the son. When a son does not respect his mother this can destroy her soul.
Oppression comes from a lack of trust and maybe even jealousy. This lack of trust and jealousy leads to fights and more oppression for the woman. Fights in front of children and in front of others. The woman loses always in this matter, because the man is stronger. When the fights are in front of the children this effects them and enforces these children to not respect the woman. When these fights occur in front of others, others will also see this woman at fault and give her no value in life.
Oppression comes in many forms in a woman's life. It may be in the form of a wife that is not allowed to have friends. Or when women are exploited and face oppression in the workplace by giving women the worst work, with no job security and low wages, the bosses create a super- cheap workforce, which they can hire and fire at will. Or it may be in the form of a husband, father, or boyfriend that does not allow the woman to have a cell phone, inter net chatting, or in the worst scenario it may be in the form of abuse from a man. This abuse may come in many forms of itself. A man may lose control of his emotions and hit the woman, which does nothing but hurt her physically. Or he may even choose to rape her to gain emotional control over her. Oppression comes in many forms, and none of them are good for the women that experience them. Yes, there are laws to protect women from such abuse. However, when a woman has been oppressed for so long, she may see herself with no value and that nobody would care that she was being hurt.
Women that have experienced this form of oppression are more likely to never report it to the authorities. They will continue with their lives and waste their rights as human beings, because of their lack of feeling of no value in their lives. Or she may continue with this oppression because of religious beliefs and feeling that it is best to keep the family together. Men may see this as a weakness and will continue to abuse these women over and over. Man must not oppress the woman because he is stronger, he must protect her and cherish her as god intended.
-
- Share:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Credibility
Post a Comment Comments: 67
I'm amazed when Muslim women exhibit some boldness of speech as to what is fair, just and proper. Kudos to you, YusufMarey.
Now, let me enlighten you as to some gender truths. Firstly, women are NOT INFERIOR to men. In fact, science has shown that as far as the intellect is concerned, females and males are simply DIFFERENT--she being ruled more by the left hemisphere, and he by the right hemisphere. Men have more muscles, but they tend to die younger (natural deaths).
Human biology even shows something surprising: that the FEMALE is the DEFAULT sex and development . An individual becomes female if fetal chromosomes are XX; male is XY, with X being female and male being Y. Thus, without that quarter Y chromosome, an individual becomes female. Put it another way, male is even the aberration!
Islam also does not teach women as inferior. In fact, your religion says that man and woman came forth from the same soul or spirit, right? Christianity and Judaism do teach that the first woman came forth from the first man's ribs, but science simply don't support that. Yes, women are less strong in terms of muscular power (note female's greater long-term survivability), but female is the default sex.
As to why women are oppressed in certain cultures (such as yours, I am presuming), is because women allow the oppression, no thanks to miseducation. It is as simple as that. Women in patriarchal societies better start asserting their rights because you and the rest deserve nothing less. Women cannot be less human than men--hey, we're the default sex.
Now, let me enlighten you as to some gender truths. Firstly, women are NOT INFERIOR to men. In fact, science has shown that as far as the intellect is concerned, females and males are simply DIFFERENT--she being ruled more by the left hemisphere, and he by the right hemisphere. Men have more muscles, but they tend to die younger (natural deaths).
Human biology even shows something surprising: that the FEMALE is the DEFAULT sex and development . An individual becomes female if fetal chromosomes are XX; male is XY, with X being female and male being Y. Thus, without that quarter Y chromosome, an individual becomes female. Put it another way, male is even the aberration!
Islam also does not teach women as inferior. In fact, your religion says that man and woman came forth from the same soul or spirit, right? Christianity and Judaism do teach that the first woman came forth from the first man's ribs, but science simply don't support that. Yes, women are less strong in terms of muscular power (note female's greater long-term survivability), but female is the default sex.
As to why women are oppressed in certain cultures (such as yours, I am presuming), is because women allow the oppression, no thanks to miseducation. It is as simple as that. Women in patriarchal societies better start asserting their rights because you and the rest deserve nothing less. Women cannot be less human than men--hey, we're the default sex.
our religion islam does not state us inferior to men but actually addresses addresses us as equal and i can state we are physically even more strong then the men, reason being we under go pregnancy and other things that require a great deal of physical and emotional strength.
No culture and no religion should make any women inferior, not even intellectually as we both share the same right to education. Although it is really sad that in many rural and developing countries women stay abused and derived of their right and for that more awareness should be generated so that they learn of their right and not stay opressed!
No culture and no religion should make any women inferior, not even intellectually as we both share the same right to education. Although it is really sad that in many rural and developing countries women stay abused and derived of their right and for that more awareness should be generated so that they learn of their right and not stay opressed!
Sorry Jesusa i don't agree with you, the man is the default the evidence that Islam ,Christianity and Judaism said that the woman came from the man rips so we are the default. right ? This mean also that they came from the same soul .However Adam was the default not Eve .
Let me tell you Islam is a thing and Muslims is another thing .
For example Islam says that the man must treat the woman as a queen but in the upper Egypt they may not allow the girl to go to school , or may not allow her to take part of her father wealth so there is a big difference between Muslims and Islam .
Let me tell you Islam is a thing and Muslims is another thing .
For example Islam says that the man must treat the woman as a queen but in the upper Egypt they may not allow the girl to go to school , or may not allow her to take part of her father wealth so there is a big difference between Muslims and Islam .
Sorry Jesusa i don't agree with you, the man is the default the evidence that Islam ,Christianity and Judaism said that the woman came from the man rips so we are the default. right ? This mean also that they came from the same soul .However Adam was the default not Eve .
Let me tell you Islam is a thing and Muslims is another thing .
For example Islam says that the man must treat the woman as a queen but in the upper Egypt they may not allow the girl to go to school , or may not allow her to take part of her father wealth so there is a big difference between Muslims and Islam .
Let me tell you Islam is a thing and Muslims is another thing .
For example Islam says that the man must treat the woman as a queen but in the upper Egypt they may not allow the girl to go to school , or may not allow her to take part of her father wealth so there is a big difference between Muslims and Islam .
The oppression of women can be described as a hangover from man's days in the cave when physical strength was all that mattered, as opposed to emotional strength and intelligence. As Jesusa says, there is just a difference in approaching problems, not an actual difference in quantity or quality of intelligence. If humanity truly wants to evolve, then the oppression of women based on an instinctual and habitual behaviour dating back a million years needs to be overcome. The most abhorrent things, however, is when women agree that their subjugation and oppression is a good thing and are willing to oppress other women. There are few things sadder than watching a woman suppress or tyrannise her daughter or her sister.
I agree with u Mona about the Islam thing but u have to know that the man is more strong the evidence if a woman did fight with a man he can beat her even she didn't become pregnant yet
right ?
However the respect is required
right ?
However the respect is required
What proof is there that "right wingers" claim that women are inferior to men?
i have my friends from the right wingers they do belief that the woman is inferior to the man and more over i did read that in many articles
Hi. YusufMarey, your opinion that man is the default sex emanates from your faith--rather your interpretation of it. I know Islam to be scientific--judging by early developments in science. Why you don't agree with me emanates from your MORTAL PATRIARCHY. Nowhere in the Quran does it say that women are inferior to men.
Now, what SCIENCE proves--that female is the default sex--cannot be disproved by mere opinion, faith, religious belief. With all due respect, study the history of human civilization so you'll know that it is PATRIARCHAL INSECURITY that has driven men to control women, which has led to female oppression. If God thinks of men as the default, how come S/He (I don't believe God is male) bestowed women with the advantage of motherhood and the certainty that the baby she carries is her won--unlike men? Think of it?
Now, what SCIENCE proves--that female is the default sex--cannot be disproved by mere opinion, faith, religious belief. With all due respect, study the history of human civilization so you'll know that it is PATRIARCHAL INSECURITY that has driven men to control women, which has led to female oppression. If God thinks of men as the default, how come S/He (I don't believe God is male) bestowed women with the advantage of motherhood and the certainty that the baby she carries is her won--unlike men? Think of it?
just i will ask do u belief in god ?
if u do r u christian or Jews or Muslim ?
and tell me do u trust ur religion ?
if u do trust tell me what is ur religion say about that issue ?
if u do r u christian or Jews or Muslim ?
and tell me do u trust ur religion ?
if u do trust tell me what is ur religion say about that issue ?
I was raised and educated a Catholic, and you know what they teach. My religion now is sort of eclectic, now being open-minded as to the virtues (NOT dogmas) that every religion on this Earth teaches. However, I also have a scientific mind to the issue of religion, having come to the conclusion that God's creation, or evolved creation, reflects His/Her nature, being, and will, but on the assumption that S/He is perfectly fair and just.
Think, how can a perfect being be so partial towards one gender? Patriarchy, to me, is ungodliness, oppressiveness. Additionally, scientific discoveries of the designs of nature show God's FAIRNESS (males boxer stronger, but female is the default sex, etc., etc.).
Christianity teaches that (hu)man was made according to the image and likeness of God. Well, through the lens of science I see more of female, the human DEFAULT sex (some creatures have male as the default).
YusufMarey, it is science that tells that female is the default sex.
My "religion" is not really that in the organized sense of the word. It is more a spirituality unbounded by the patriarchy and prejudices of the leaders (which happen to be dominated by men, among other things) of organized religions. I say I'm eclectic, but perhaps my belief is closest to the Hindu/Buddhist concepts of the universe.
What I know, my God, the universal God is perfectly just and fair and favors not the men (who have been historically oppressive of women, mainly because they resent what God has designed--that they were never sure they're the fathers of the women's children, while the mothers are. That is, up until the dawn of DNA testing).
My "religion" is not really that in the organized sense of the word. It is more a spirituality unbounded by the patriarchy and prejudices of the leaders (which happen to be dominated by men, among other things) of organized religions. I say I'm eclectic, but perhaps my belief is closest to the Hindu/Buddhist concepts of the universe.
What I know, my God, the universal God is perfectly just and fair and favors not the men (who have been historically oppressive of women, mainly because they resent what God has designed--that they were never sure they're the fathers of the women's children, while the mothers are. That is, up until the dawn of DNA testing).
YusufMarey, it is science that tells that female is the default sex.
My "religion" is not really that in the organized sense of the word. It is more a spirituality unbounded by the patriarchy and prejudices of the leaders (which happen to be dominated by men, among other things) of organized religions. I say I'm eclectic, but perhaps my belief is closest to the Hindu/Buddhist concepts of the universe.
What I know, my God, the universal God is perfectly just and fair and favors not the men (who have been historically oppressive of women, mainly because they resent what God has designed--that they were never sure is they're the fathers of the women's children. That is, up until the dawn of DNA testing).
My "religion" is not really that in the organized sense of the word. It is more a spirituality unbounded by the patriarchy and prejudices of the leaders (which happen to be dominated by men, among other things) of organized religions. I say I'm eclectic, but perhaps my belief is closest to the Hindu/Buddhist concepts of the universe.
What I know, my God, the universal God is perfectly just and fair and favors not the men (who have been historically oppressive of women, mainly because they resent what God has designed--that they were never sure is they're the fathers of the women's children. That is, up until the dawn of DNA testing).
just tell me plz ur religion says who is default ?
As to men beating women, remember that even weaker men can kill (I'm only using an extreme example to show my point) stronger men. It's all a matter of strategy. Women can do that to wife-beaters as well, in more ways than one, during unguarded moments or whenever.
The lion is stronger than humans. Does that mean that the lion species is higher than us? Women being supposedly inferior to men--all a matter of conditioning. Why, we'll never know how in the future the reverse might happen--humans thinking women are inferior to men. Meditate on the power of miseducation and cultural conditioning.
The lion is stronger than humans. Does that mean that the lion species is higher than us? Women being supposedly inferior to men--all a matter of conditioning. Why, we'll never know how in the future the reverse might happen--humans thinking women are inferior to men. Meditate on the power of miseducation and cultural conditioning.
the human control the lions cause we are more smart and have brain to think with .
and according to ur example this mean that the man is more smart than the woman .
however im talking about the general rule of the strength who is the stronger ?
and according to ur example this mean that the man is more smart than the woman .
however im talking about the general rule of the strength who is the stronger ?
Why men have been able to control women is through the ungodly use of religion. "God"--with names that seem to differ according what religion is being invoked--says that women should do this, should submit to men, etc., etc. That's control by means of fear (of eternal damnation or loss of God's love, or punishment on earth). Take away the religious cloak and women will longer allow male domination.
I mean: Take away the religious cloak and women will NO longer allow male domination.
As to who is stronger, I think I've already explained that there are different manifestations of strength. In a boxing match, men generally (there are female exceptions) will win. But male fetuses survive less than females in the womb; females live longer because they seem to be more resistant/less susceptible to certain diseases, etc. Who sets the rule that physical strength will be based only on a boxing match?
In short, as a general rule, no one gender has the definite advantage.
In short, as a general rule, no one gender has the definite advantage.
it is OK
I'm in the middle of writing a paper of the the Renaissance gender wars, and it is striking how little development has been made in terms of thinking about gender equality.
The argument that is being made about strength is one that has been made for centuries, men claim that their physical superiority is evidence for mental, or moral superiority. while the defenders of women counter that women can be strong too and in addition they demonstrate that usually the most intelligent men /or noble (if we are talking royalty ) are not as physically fit as say -a brawny sailor- but they are more learned and noble thus strength is not a signifier of anything but strength.
YusufMarey- it is true men are usually stronger-male bodies are usually bigger and can hold more muscle mass. This means that women must be extra careful when trying escape violence when a man is asserting his strength. It is tragic that this is the case -I wish wish wish women could defend themselves, because it is not easy to do so especially when as you said they are conditioned to believe that they are inferior and that no one will care that they are abused.
The reasons men feel as though they can take out their aggression on women still remains mysterious to me- and I don't see how it can be stopped in places that view women as inferior.
Where does this inferiority originate? there was some discussion about religion-And actually in the text of the Jewish bible and the old testament it does say that women are to be subjected to their men.- And while I am a religious Jew I remain critical of the text.- The Bible was written by someone, some say moses. (I'm not sure what the Quran says about the Adam and eve story and about female positions- I think it is something I should learn) So if moses wrote the bible-and I believe it was divinely inspired does it have to mean that it is perfect? The bible tells a history of a nation- and it is just that his story - not her story. It is important to recognize that history and even holy text may have been the result of a patriarchal society where women were subordinate. As a religious woman I think that it is possible to be critical of the texts and still believe. One of the important things to remember is that there should be room for positive development. thankfully in many parts of the world women are seen as equals but that does not mean that this is true everywhere. Hopefully one day it will be true around the world but it can only happen through vocal intolerance of abuse and violence.
The argument that is being made about strength is one that has been made for centuries, men claim that their physical superiority is evidence for mental, or moral superiority. while the defenders of women counter that women can be strong too and in addition they demonstrate that usually the most intelligent men /or noble (if we are talking royalty ) are not as physically fit as say -a brawny sailor- but they are more learned and noble thus strength is not a signifier of anything but strength.
YusufMarey- it is true men are usually stronger-male bodies are usually bigger and can hold more muscle mass. This means that women must be extra careful when trying escape violence when a man is asserting his strength. It is tragic that this is the case -I wish wish wish women could defend themselves, because it is not easy to do so especially when as you said they are conditioned to believe that they are inferior and that no one will care that they are abused.
The reasons men feel as though they can take out their aggression on women still remains mysterious to me- and I don't see how it can be stopped in places that view women as inferior.
Where does this inferiority originate? there was some discussion about religion-And actually in the text of the Jewish bible and the old testament it does say that women are to be subjected to their men.- And while I am a religious Jew I remain critical of the text.- The Bible was written by someone, some say moses. (I'm not sure what the Quran says about the Adam and eve story and about female positions- I think it is something I should learn) So if moses wrote the bible-and I believe it was divinely inspired does it have to mean that it is perfect? The bible tells a history of a nation- and it is just that his story - not her story. It is important to recognize that history and even holy text may have been the result of a patriarchal society where women were subordinate. As a religious woman I think that it is possible to be critical of the texts and still believe. One of the important things to remember is that there should be room for positive development. thankfully in many parts of the world women are seen as equals but that does not mean that this is true everywhere. Hopefully one day it will be true around the world but it can only happen through vocal intolerance of abuse and violence.
OK yoam you like to learn about what quran says about the woman the quran says that men must make the women a queen and never abuse her and give her all the rights that she must has and the respect for the woman is a must .this is a point other point moreover one of the last things that my prophet Mohammad has recommended is to keep praying and the men must be gentle with women and never hurt for no significant reason . i think now Islam is clear that the woman is equal to the man .
so i like to know what did the bible said about the woman also .
so i like to know what did the bible said about the woman also .
In regards to what the Bible says about women, it states that God created males and females in His image; therefore, men and women both have equal authority in the spiritual realm. However, some men equate physical authority with spiritual authority; thus, misusing their authority towards women, which brings about gender oppression: the reason why you wrote this article.
"while the defenders of women counter that women can be strong too"@yoamy, read again my posts. The physical strength of women and men manifests differently.
FYI, male fetuses' survivability in the womb is LOWER, and females generally live longer. In boxing or impact situations, however, males generally win handily. But doesn't mean women are helpless--women are simply submissive, no thanks to patriarchy.
Think, when a smaller man faces a big man, how does he fight him? How does the smaller man assure his safety, survival, or victory? Something similar can apply to women-male comparison (I'm using the fight scenario to illustrate my point only).
Jesusa, I think that in the big picture you are right-male and female strength manifest themselves in different ways and that women must learn to defend themselves (using smaller male tactics for example) BUT What do these tactics help if a women is first abused by her her father, then husband then sons? women may live longer but they will not always be able to defend themselves against this abuse which is why the metaphor of a boxing ring is slightly flawed because it assumes a fair game what if your entire life as a female is in a boxing ring -and you have no way out. I am privileged to belong to a society where it is possible for me to voice my opinions - but how can women escape when for example in Afghanistan A new law states wives must have sex with their husbands every four days (or else!). There should never be a MUST when it comes to sex. Women there who were protesting the law had stones thrown at them! I think that there should exist programs that support women in these ways because we cannot talk about equal strength when the 'playing field' is not equal
Yoamy, you have a very good point. Basically, you're saying that when the oppression of women is institutionalized, there's not much women can do. You're so right, which is why I think a revolution in thinking (re gender relations/roles) is needed in those societies.
Did you hear of the news last year that happened in a village in Pakistan wherein the fathers/uncles/village elders killed a couple of teenagers who wanted to elope? Buried alive, but not before the mother/aunts who tried to protect the girls were killed themselves. Horrible. Hugged the international news for a while.
I recognize how women are practically helpless there. But a woman simply need to muster inner individual strength to improve their situation, or the society in general.
If I were the mother of one of the girls, what I'll do is pretend that I have to follow the "tradition" because those evil men were gonna kill the girls anyhow. THEN, at night, or some nights later, when everyone's asleep, then I'll exact my just revenge and kill the murderers, including the village elder. I would serve a heroine, or an inspiration for women to begin standing up.
As what actually happened, the mother and the aunts wasted their lives without achieving justice, nor inspiring the other women.
Did you hear of the news last year that happened in a village in Pakistan wherein the fathers/uncles/village elders killed a couple of teenagers who wanted to elope? Buried alive, but not before the mother/aunts who tried to protect the girls were killed themselves. Horrible. Hugged the international news for a while.
I recognize how women are practically helpless there. But a woman simply need to muster inner individual strength to improve their situation, or the society in general.
If I were the mother of one of the girls, what I'll do is pretend that I have to follow the "tradition" because those evil men were gonna kill the girls anyhow. THEN, at night, or some nights later, when everyone's asleep, then I'll exact my just revenge and kill the murderers, including the village elder. I would serve a heroine, or an inspiration for women to begin standing up.
As what actually happened, the mother and the aunts wasted their lives without achieving justice, nor inspiring the other women.
Well one of the basic things to do in a thinking revolution would be for women to see that assuming mens' roles in society is not really emancipation, just another for of expressing themselves in terms of men. And you see, thing is, tribal society is the basic structure for most societies even nation states. Where religious and ancient legal practices borrowed from Roman or Greek or Arabic tribal societies exist, the basic trend is towards tribal thinking, even if the tribe is Green Bay Packers fans.
Your story about the law in Afghanistan, while I am not sure of the accuracy, is symbolically relevant to many women's issues in this and most other regions. The abuse, degradation or relegation of women to secondary roles in society is, in this case particularly (and most others), a tribal phenomena that continues for years and is covered in the guise of religion. Islam as a religion does some favours to women, if not enough, but is perverted and misconstrued to fit in with Tribal law; e.g. laws controlling women and about arbitrating land disputes are the basic theme of Taliban Sharia. This is nothing more than Tribal custom interposed into a religious framework to give it legitimacy. It is a tool, for the oppression of women by men, and worse, the oppression of women by themselves and other women in order to fit the stereotype put forward.
Changez, the tribal people are a complicated case, so let us pls. ignore them for the moment.
Muslims--even in non-tribal setting--have been pretty oppressive of women. Just look at the repulsive-to-non-Muslim burka. The Quran only tells BOTH women and men to dress modestly. How come in most Islam societies, only the women are covered, almost like ghosts or something? To my mind, the burka is as much a symbolic as an actual tool of sexist oppression (hello, the M.E. is a hot region, so pls let women's skins breathe).
You're right how Islam has been misinterpreted--by men who are far from good. Then again, oppression of women in any religion or organization is bound to happen if only the men get to assume leadership roles. Everybody, it seems, is covered by the principle that 'absolute power corrupts absolutely.'
Muslims--even in non-tribal setting--have been pretty oppressive of women. Just look at the repulsive-to-non-Muslim burka. The Quran only tells BOTH women and men to dress modestly. How come in most Islam societies, only the women are covered, almost like ghosts or something? To my mind, the burka is as much a symbolic as an actual tool of sexist oppression (hello, the M.E. is a hot region, so pls let women's skins breathe).
You're right how Islam has been misinterpreted--by men who are far from good. Then again, oppression of women in any religion or organization is bound to happen if only the men get to assume leadership roles. Everybody, it seems, is covered by the principle that 'absolute power corrupts absolutely.'
is to see man smaller than awoman u have to know it is not the general rule this is what i see that all the time man is bigger but he isnt better this is the issue
i know some one his wife is sooooooo wise and he is just ......
excuse me i don't like to hurt him cause i respect him
i know some one his wife is sooooooo wise and he is just ......
excuse me i don't like to hurt him cause i respect him
You're right, YusufMarey. Individual differences, features/traits respect no gender, race, or status. No ONE group, tribe, or nation has the monopoly on the good--intelligence, wit, strength, riches, oil, resources, even luck, or whatever. What makes life colorful.
if ur husband hits u for the first time in his life will u hit him back in the same moment ?
You're making big assumptions there. Tribal society is what? Different tribes, different beliefs. Did you know that in one tribe (read this in the Reader's Digest way back), a young man is partnered to an older woman and the reverse for males. See, you cannot stereotype. When Islam and tribal met, I think, is when women became more oppressed.
And did you know that before the patriarchal religions came, there was matriarchal religion? Defeated, of course, because the society with patriarchal religion used violence. Now, you still want to stereotype tribal. And human civilization has come a long way from the tribal "I get this from you by force so this is now mine" attitude.
And what are women's roles? Says who? Men's? Says who? Emancipation is freedom from thinking dictated by some men of olden days. Think more efficiently. Say, a girl is excels in the sciences. The tribal-thinking father sends the dumb brother instead to school. Every family in that tribal-thinking society does. What happens to that society? Scientifically inept. Like letting fruits rot without serving a purpose, and eating dumb, rotting fruits instead.
And did you know that before the patriarchal religions came, there was matriarchal religion? Defeated, of course, because the society with patriarchal religion used violence. Now, you still want to stereotype tribal. And human civilization has come a long way from the tribal "I get this from you by force so this is now mine" attitude.
And what are women's roles? Says who? Men's? Says who? Emancipation is freedom from thinking dictated by some men of olden days. Think more efficiently. Say, a girl is excels in the sciences. The tribal-thinking father sends the dumb brother instead to school. Every family in that tribal-thinking society does. What happens to that society? Scientifically inept. Like letting fruits rot without serving a purpose, and eating dumb, rotting fruits instead.
lol u dont answer my question jesusa u just like to argue tell me answer yes or no plz
I don't like to argue, Yusuf. I'm just the type who wants to contextualize things and present many facets, many possibilities. I'm "objective," just that. Besides, situations are never so simple.
The answer is there: "if he does as in really hit me (to differentiate from playful hurting because I also do that), I'll hit him back--with a bottle on his head when he's asleep."
This is qualified by a post I made earlier:
"Then again, if "it's for the first time in his life," it depends. As much as I am a feminist, I'm a very understanding fellow. Depends on whether I was badly hurt, but if not, depends on his circumstances. Sometimes, when people are so stressed, they do things they regret."
In simple language:
"No," BUT I will HURT him WHEN he's vulnerable (asleep), IF I got badly hurt.
IF I didn't get so hurt, AND he simply lost it, OR he was simply under very extreme stress/pressure, PERHAPS NO.
The answer is there: "if he does as in really hit me (to differentiate from playful hurting because I also do that), I'll hit him back--with a bottle on his head when he's asleep."
This is qualified by a post I made earlier:
"Then again, if "it's for the first time in his life," it depends. As much as I am a feminist, I'm a very understanding fellow. Depends on whether I was badly hurt, but if not, depends on his circumstances. Sometimes, when people are so stressed, they do things they regret."
In simple language:
"No," BUT I will HURT him WHEN he's vulnerable (asleep), IF I got badly hurt.
IF I didn't get so hurt, AND he simply lost it, OR he was simply under very extreme stress/pressure, PERHAPS NO.
u still didnt answer my question just i need yes or no plz
if ur husband hits u for the first time in his life will u hit him back in the same moment ?
if ur husband hits u for the first time in his life will u hit him back in the same moment ?
I'm sorry Yusuf. I thought you were not addressing me--your query was under Changez' post.
Hit me under what circumstances? Accidentally? He went looney for a while? Restrained, not really hurting hit in a fit of uncontrolled anger? Or just hit me because he wants to.
I'll assume the last. You know, I'm sort of a freak with regards the integrity of my body (translation: I don't want to get hurt by accident or otherwise). I don't know if it factors in, but I've warned my husband not to hit me. I warned him that if he does as in really hit me (to differentiate from playful hurting because I also do that), I'll hit him back--with a bottle on his head when he's asleep.
That answers your question? Why, even soldiers are not suicidal because they don't attack unarmed or at a disadvantage, unless they have no choice, of course.
Hit me under what circumstances? Accidentally? He went looney for a while? Restrained, not really hurting hit in a fit of uncontrolled anger? Or just hit me because he wants to.
I'll assume the last. You know, I'm sort of a freak with regards the integrity of my body (translation: I don't want to get hurt by accident or otherwise). I don't know if it factors in, but I've warned my husband not to hit me. I warned him that if he does as in really hit me (to differentiate from playful hurting because I also do that), I'll hit him back--with a bottle on his head when he's asleep.
That answers your question? Why, even soldiers are not suicidal because they don't attack unarmed or at a disadvantage, unless they have no choice, of course.
@ Changez again, what is essential for a thinking revolution is to think and not just accept what's been handed down for the sake of pleasing the fathers or what.
When one really thinks, s/he becomes more efficient, more respectful of the capabilities of others, females included, of course. Men's role is to work, and women to stay at home? What if, by the nature of his genes the man is barely able to provide food on the table, but the woman is smart and can well help feed the family, if not on her own? Heck with the woman and the kids because patriarchy/tradition is god?
I don't think you want to "emancipate" women. What you want is to shackle females to a patriarchal delusion that women belong exclusively at home. Are female brains and anatomy only for the home? Males' only for the outside environment?
When one really thinks, s/he becomes more efficient, more respectful of the capabilities of others, females included, of course. Men's role is to work, and women to stay at home? What if, by the nature of his genes the man is barely able to provide food on the table, but the woman is smart and can well help feed the family, if not on her own? Heck with the woman and the kids because patriarchy/tradition is god?
I don't think you want to "emancipate" women. What you want is to shackle females to a patriarchal delusion that women belong exclusively at home. Are female brains and anatomy only for the home? Males' only for the outside environment?
lol u dont answer my question jesusa u just like to argue tell me answer yes or no plz
Then again, if "it's for the first time in his life," it depends. As much as I am a feminist, I'm a very understanding fellow. Depends on whether I was badly hurt, but if not, depends on his circumstances. Sometimes, when people are so stressed, they do things they regret.
so i can say u r wise woman
but if he is complitlly wrong and if u hit him back this will destroy the family and make the children sad
what are u going to do don't forget it is the first time and he did apologize
will u forgive or hit him back sacrificing ur children happiness
but if he is complitlly wrong and if u hit him back this will destroy the family and make the children sad
what are u going to do don't forget it is the first time and he did apologize
will u forgive or hit him back sacrificing ur children happiness
Individuals with families, mothers in particular, always think of children first, and also of the spouse. IF it is NOT SO bad, and he apologized AND it's the last time, I most probably will forgive him. Why, all of us commit mistakes. If he's forgiven a great sin of mine in the past, in particular, I must surely reciprocate and forgive him for the sake of the family and respect for each other.
Now, in an EXTREME situation wherein, say, my face really got deformed, or he broke my arm/back big time, I'll probably gonna kill him. I'm gonna need the insurance money for my operation, LOL. But I don't think this is what you mean. :)
Now, in an EXTREME situation wherein, say, my face really got deformed, or he broke my arm/back big time, I'll probably gonna kill him. I'm gonna need the insurance money for my operation, LOL. But I don't think this is what you mean. :)
While I agree with you that my basic interpretation of society as a still tribal entity, or more specifically, that humans have not socially evolved past tribal thinking, requires a rethink or research, I disagree with what you say about the gender roles adopted as part of emancipation.
Feminist thinking is confined by a discourse dominated by male stereotypes i.e. if men can do it so can women. The question I would ask is, if men do it, why would I want to? Emancipation as you said requires moving beyond the strictures of what the past lays down as stereotypes. In this case there are several at work. The first is that men do certain things.
The second is e.g. about strength, i.e. that strength in this case is the ability to hit back. However, I would say that strength is the ability to come to a rational conclusion/judgment about whether or not to hit back, as you have delineated. This also assumes that strength is a good thing.
A true revolution in thinking would come about by redefining those values and hence the value of the different roles. If thinking efficiently, then each member of society would consign themselves to the role for which they are best suited. If a boy is a troglodyte and a girl a science whiz, then the choice of who to send to college should be obvious to the father or mother; however, thinking that the girl is only free or emancipated if she herself chooses to go to college is not emancipated. That is a matter for her to decide. As an example I will posit an unconfirmed fact that now there is as much pressure on a lot of girls to succeed in a career as there is on a lot of boys (just as an example mind).
I am not saying that all feminist thinking and writing has focused solely on the ability of women to 'get in to the work place' or 'leave the home' or to adopt traditionally male roles. Just that the home and the workplace till now were defined by men and a true revolution would be a reevaluation of those basics.
While I agree with yo that my basic interpretation of society as a still tribal entity, or more specifically, that humans have not socially evolved past tribal thinking, requires a rethink or research, I disagree with what you say about the gender roles adopted as part of emancipation.
Feminist thinking is confined by a discourse dominated by male stereotypes i.e. if men can do it so can women. The question I would ask is, if men do it, why would I want to? Emancipation as you said requires moving beyond the strictures of what the past lays down as stereotypes. In this case there are several at work. The first is that men do certain things.
The second is e.g. about strength, i.e. that strength in this case is the ability to hit back. However, I would say that strength is the ability to come to a rational conclusion/judgment about whether or not to hit back, as you have delineated. This also assumes that strength is a good thing.
A true revolution in thinking would come about by redefining those values and hence the value of the different roles. If thinking efficiently, then each member of society would then consign themselves to the role for which they best suited. If a boy is a troglodyte and a girl a science whiz, then the choice of who to send to college should be obvious to the father; however, thinking that the girl is only free or emancipated if she herself chooses to go to college is not emancipated. That is a matter for her to decide. As an example I will posit an unconfirmed fact that now there is as much pressure on a lot of girls to succeed in a career as there is on a lot of boys (just as an example mind).
I am not saying that all feminist thinking and writing has focused solely on the ability of women to 'get in to the work place' or 'leave the home'. Just that the home and the workplace till now were defined by men and a true revolution would be a reevaluation of those basics.
Feminist thinking is confined by a discourse dominated by male stereotypes i.e. if men can do it so can women. The question I would ask is, if men do it, why would I want to? Emancipation as you said requires moving beyond the strictures of what the past lays down as stereotypes. In this case there are several at work. The first is that men do certain things.
The second is e.g. about strength, i.e. that strength in this case is the ability to hit back. However, I would say that strength is the ability to come to a rational conclusion/judgment about whether or not to hit back, as you have delineated. This also assumes that strength is a good thing.
A true revolution in thinking would come about by redefining those values and hence the value of the different roles. If thinking efficiently, then each member of society would then consign themselves to the role for which they best suited. If a boy is a troglodyte and a girl a science whiz, then the choice of who to send to college should be obvious to the father; however, thinking that the girl is only free or emancipated if she herself chooses to go to college is not emancipated. That is a matter for her to decide. As an example I will posit an unconfirmed fact that now there is as much pressure on a lot of girls to succeed in a career as there is on a lot of boys (just as an example mind).
I am not saying that all feminist thinking and writing has focused solely on the ability of women to 'get in to the work place' or 'leave the home'. Just that the home and the workplace till now were defined by men and a true revolution would be a reevaluation of those basics.
And that from its inception feminist thinking was dominated by this logic and often still is. And that in an ideal society the girl would decide to go to college if she felt, determined, that her own best aptitude lay in that direction, for that time, however that may not always be the case.
@ Changez
Barring personal circumstances, I don't see why a girl predisposed by genes, by God if you may, to be good at science shouldn't pursue that direction. Unless, of course, the society she is in restricts her future growth. Then she better consider moving to another place.
As to feminist thinking being dominated by logic, that's what thinking involves, isn't it? Of course, we could always daydream, but too much of that will bring women nowhere.
Great aticle,I agree with you 100% on gender oppression. Once girl is used to opression, it is very hard or her to break this cycle.
thanks mary
@Changez
"Just that the home and the workplace till now were defined by men and a true revolution would be a reevaluation of those basics"
True. To achieve that revolution, however, would require surmounting the limits given by patriarchal religions and cultures.
Then again, different societies have different roles defined for women and men. Most of the time, it's just tradition carried over from some functional need. To cite, did you know that in the Mangyan tribe, if I'm not mistaken, in the Philippines, it's the women who work? Yes, the women are the ones who till the soil and produce food for the family? Why? It's a tradition carried over from the old tribal days when the men had to work full time in defending their tribe against other tribes. In today's peaceful times, they should have discarded the "traditional" gender roles but they didn't. Say, let the wife and husband decide among themselves who should do this and that.
As to why feminist thinking tend (not really confined because feminism is broad, my friend) to operate on the "discourse dominated by male stereotypes," it's because women has long been restricted that they just want to prove a point, which is that they need to be liberated.
"Just that the home and the workplace till now were defined by men and a true revolution would be a reevaluation of those basics"
True. To achieve that revolution, however, would require surmounting the limits given by patriarchal religions and cultures.
Then again, different societies have different roles defined for women and men. Most of the time, it's just tradition carried over from some functional need. To cite, did you know that in the Mangyan tribe, if I'm not mistaken, in the Philippines, it's the women who work? Yes, the women are the ones who till the soil and produce food for the family? Why? It's a tradition carried over from the old tribal days when the men had to work full time in defending their tribe against other tribes. In today's peaceful times, they should have discarded the "traditional" gender roles but they didn't. Say, let the wife and husband decide among themselves who should do this and that.
As to why feminist thinking tend (not really confined because feminism is broad, my friend) to operate on the "discourse dominated by male stereotypes," it's because women has long been restricted that they just want to prove a point, which is that they need to be liberated.
"Changez Barring personal circumstances, I don't see why a girl predisposed by genes, by God if you may, to be good at science shouldn't pursue that direction. Unless, of course, the society she is in restricts her future growth" - I think you missed my point here. What if she has the aptitude but doesn't want to pursue that path? Would the same pressure put on boys before her to be career oriented etc. be applicable and is that a good thing? Is that liberation or merely expanding the old stereotype to oppress someone in a new way?
"As to feminist thinking being dominated by logic, that's what thinking involves, isn't it?" - thank you. I meant application of logic in limited ways.
"True. To achieve that revolution, however, would require surmounting the limits given by patriarchal religions and cultures." - precisely. The culture was dominated by men so why define a new culture in terms of the old, whether even by opposition. The culture has to find a new terminology.
"it's because women has long been restricted that they just want to prove a point, which is that they need to be liberated." - that is not a point - the point is why do you want to prove a point to the people who are oppressing you (and by you i mean all oppressed people everywhere regardless of sex). Forget proving the point and be liberated instead of asking your oppressors to liberate you.
"As to feminist thinking being dominated by logic, that's what thinking involves, isn't it?" - thank you. I meant application of logic in limited ways.
The point of my post previously was to say that a) assuming that women need to be liberated is assuming that men are liberated. b) that trading one form of oppression for the other is not liberation. c) the problem of liberation is not restricted to women but applies to all humanity. It is a matter of language. If women want to be liberated, and to lead others to liberation, then forget about men, what they have etc. and define a new path in terms that are not borrowed.
"Forget proving the point and be liberated instead of asking your oppressors to liberate you."
Wanted to elaborate earlier but I wanted it short. So here: that proving a point happened in the early days of feminism. That's always the case--question first a convention, then go beyond. Now, women are getting more liberated (exclude, of course, the Islam world, in GENERAL).
Why forget about the men and what they have? Men have freedom, we'll forget about freedom? Isn't that the goal--liberation? If you mean point of reference, well my point of reference is science, the physical body of women and what nature has intended them to carry out--childbearing, yes, AND THINKING, working and everything else (of course, our strengths and weaknesses are different from men's but it's really more of levels).
As to the science girl, of course it's her choice. I believe in individual freedom/choice. Same applies if a boy is good at math but would rather pursue politics instead. The problem is when it is merely society's repressive traditions that account for the girl's refusal to pursue a science career. You know, the "you're only a girl so better just be a wife and stay at home" pressure from a community. In other words, gender is no ground to dissuade or prevent anyone's career plans.
Wanted to elaborate earlier but I wanted it short. So here: that proving a point happened in the early days of feminism. That's always the case--question first a convention, then go beyond. Now, women are getting more liberated (exclude, of course, the Islam world, in GENERAL).
Why forget about the men and what they have? Men have freedom, we'll forget about freedom? Isn't that the goal--liberation? If you mean point of reference, well my point of reference is science, the physical body of women and what nature has intended them to carry out--childbearing, yes, AND THINKING, working and everything else (of course, our strengths and weaknesses are different from men's but it's really more of levels).
As to the science girl, of course it's her choice. I believe in individual freedom/choice. Same applies if a boy is good at math but would rather pursue politics instead. The problem is when it is merely society's repressive traditions that account for the girl's refusal to pursue a science career. You know, the "you're only a girl so better just be a wife and stay at home" pressure from a community. In other words, gender is no ground to dissuade or prevent anyone's career plans.
"In other words, gender is no ground to dissuade or prevent anyone's career plans. " - obviously. Just like race or any other such accident of birth.
"Why forget about the men and what they have? Men have freedom, we'll forget about freedom?" - This is precisely my point. The revolution has to be in not defining freedom by what men have or don't have. That is also assuming men have freedom, in which case I would say freedom and liberation are problems for humanity, not just women. If you want to elevate the feminist discourse, then consider elevating it beyond women and expanding it to include all humanity. Even that is just an option. If feminists want to liberate women, then they should not be trapped by their own sex.
"Now, women are getting more liberated (exclude, of course, the Islam world, in GENERAL)." - I question how women can be liberated in a society where nearly everyone is oppressed as a matter of institutional behaviour. That is just saying your a first class slave instead of a second class slave.
"Why forget about the men and what they have? Men have freedom, we'll forget about freedom?" - This is precisely my point. The revolution has to be in not defining freedom by what men have or don't have. That is also assuming men have freedom, in which case I would say freedom and liberation are problems for humanity, not just women. If you want to elevate the feminist discourse, then consider elevating it beyond women and expanding it to include all humanity. Even that is just an option. If feminists want to liberate women, then they should not be trapped by their own sex.
"Now, women are getting more liberated (exclude, of course, the Islam world, in GENERAL)." - I question how women can be liberated in a society where nearly everyone is oppressed as a matter of institutional behaviour. That is just saying your a first class slave instead of a second class slave.
"If you want to elevate the feminist discourse, then consider elevating it beyond women and expanding it to include all humanity."
I perfectly agree with you that oppression occurs in this world in many ways--racism, social classes, neo-imperialism, etc. I also speak for humanity's other issues; however, we're discussing gender oppression here. There's a time and place for everything, a time to zero in and a time to be broad. A time to attack the Bush War on Iraq and a time to chastise US neo-imperialist designs on all concerned countries. To go off topic is to dilute the feminist cause, in this instance and others that require specific articulation of women's issues. To confound feminist issues inappropriately is NOT elevating feminist discourse.
I perfectly agree with you that oppression occurs in this world in many ways--racism, social classes, neo-imperialism, etc. I also speak for humanity's other issues; however, we're discussing gender oppression here. There's a time and place for everything, a time to zero in and a time to be broad. A time to attack the Bush War on Iraq and a time to chastise US neo-imperialist designs on all concerned countries. To go off topic is to dilute the feminist cause, in this instance and others that require specific articulation of women's issues. To confound feminist issues inappropriately is NOT elevating feminist discourse.
As for new terminology, just because men got to dominate first doesn't mean they own it. You mean establish new religions? Why not? Actually, matriarchal religion came first (at least in ancient Greece), so we should perhaps study the most ancient religion in the Greece/Mediterranean area for a guide/terminology that's all women.
In the first place, the oppression of women occurs worldwide and has been for a long time, perhaps since the beginning of this world--goes beyond race, social status, and time. Feminism deserves particular emphasis.
While it is true that some classes of men (and women) have been and continue to be oppressed, the oppression of women that occurs is much greater. Especially in most Islam countries, at least the men can go almost anywhere at will; women, however, must secure the approval of their husbands. Just that specific out of countless examples and one realizes the greater shackles women are bound to in this world.
@ Changez
"If feminists want to liberate women, then they should not be trapped by their own sex."
This is one of those statements that seem so good to hear. There's actually a feminist retort to that: "the liberation of women is the liberation of humanity." My take: the liberation of women entails the full expression of their gender and all capabilities that come with it.
Let me put it this way. The only valid reason why men and what they have are mentioned in the feminist cause is because it is common to ALL humanity to seek freedom, fairness and equality. Other than that, women just want to do what their bodies allow them do--as designed by nature or God--which is just about everything.
"If feminists want to liberate women, then they should not be trapped by their own sex."
This is one of those statements that seem so good to hear. There's actually a feminist retort to that: "the liberation of women is the liberation of humanity." My take: the liberation of women entails the full expression of their gender and all capabilities that come with it.
Let me put it this way. The only valid reason why men and what they have are mentioned in the feminist cause is because it is common to ALL humanity to seek freedom, fairness and equality. Other than that, women just want to do what their bodies allow them do--as designed by nature or God--which is just about everything.
"To go off topic is to dilute the feminist cause, in this instance and others that require specific articulation of women's issues. To confound feminist issues inappropriately is NOT elevating feminist discourse." - There's actually a feminist retort to that: "the liberation of women is the liberation of humanity."
So you agree with what I say. Now what is liberation?
If it is simply being allowed to do as you please with your body then you need no permission. If you take flack for it that is part of the process of liberation. If you ask for protection or permission from the very people who were oppressing all these years, then you simply perpetuate the cycle of oppression. If you want help then it is there. But that requires accepting that help will come because that system is already in place.
Your only real argument is with the women who accept their social derogation as legitimate and right. That is not going to happen from a feminist perspective, but from a human perspective. Your argument is not with me, it is with the woman who forces her daughter into servitude as a way of releasing her own frustrations.
Otherwise what you are basically saying is sexist; i.e. that women would run the world better, so keep all the same systems in place, just replace the people. I disagree and say it is the systems that are oppressive and retaining those systems will lead to oppression no matter who is in charge.
"Especially in most Islam countries, at least the men can go almost anywhere at will; women, however, must secure the approval of their husbands" - very untrue. I challenge you to come here and see for yourself.
So you agree with what I say. Now what is liberation?
If it is simply being allowed to do as you please with your body then you need no permission. If you take flack for it that is part of the process of liberation. If you ask for protection or permission from the very people who were oppressing all these years, then you simply perpetuate the cycle of oppression. If you want help then it is there. But that requires accepting that help will come because that system is already in place.
Your only real argument is with the women who accept their social derogation as legitimate and right. That is not going to happen from a feminist perspective, but from a human perspective. Your argument is not with me, it is with the woman who forces her daughter into servitude as a way of releasing her own frustrations.
Otherwise what you are basically saying is sexist; i.e. that women would run the world better, so keep all the same systems in place, just replace the people. I disagree and say it is the systems that are oppressive and retaining those systems will lead to oppression no matter who is in charge.
"Especially in most Islam countries, at least the men can go almost anywhere at will; women, however, must secure the approval of their husbands" - very untrue. I challenge you to come here and see for yourself.
@Changez
Distorting what you say that women can do what they please with their bodies without permission. 1st, that ain't true in much of the world--women need the permission of their husbands and fathers (See last 2 paragraphs). 2nd, that's a delimited interpretation of what I said, which is "the liberation of women entails the full expression of their gender and ALL CAPABILITIES that come with it."
"So you agree with what I say."
I'm not--that's not what you said. You're confounding.
"Otherwise what you are basically saying is sexist; i.e. that women would run the world better, so keep all the same systems in place, just replace the people."
What are you saying I said? Those are your thoughts? You're really putting words into my mouth. I think you are confused, or worse, deliberately distorting.
Hey, did you realize that by adding to those words, you're the one who's sexist because you are making the assumption that men run the world better and anyone who claims the opposite is sexist. You claimed I use the terminology set up by men but it is you who use them--only you misinterpret (or lie?) and say it is me who does.
"very untrue. I challenge you to come here and see for yourself."
I don't have to. Didn't you bother to read all of YusufMarey's article? He writes: "Or it may be in the form of a husband, father, or boyfriend that does not allow the woman to have a cell phone, inter net chatting, or in the worst scenario it may be in the form of abuse from a man." Operative word: "ALLOW."
And don't claim you have the monopoly of knowledge on Islam. We have Muslims here, you know. And I know that Muslim women IN GENERAL (I believe in Turkey that is not the case; perhaps others) need to consult with the husbands even in issues like voting. Please.
Distorting what you say that women can do what they please with their bodies without permission. 1st, that ain't true in much of the world--women need the permission of their husbands and fathers (See last 2 paragraphs). 2nd, that's a delimited interpretation of what I said, which is "the liberation of women entails the full expression of their gender and ALL CAPABILITIES that come with it."
"So you agree with what I say."
I'm not--that's not what you said. You're confounding.
"Otherwise what you are basically saying is sexist; i.e. that women would run the world better, so keep all the same systems in place, just replace the people."
What are you saying I said? Those are your thoughts? You're really putting words into my mouth. I think you are confused, or worse, deliberately distorting.
Hey, did you realize that by adding to those words, you're the one who's sexist because you are making the assumption that men run the world better and anyone who claims the opposite is sexist. You claimed I use the terminology set up by men but it is you who use them--only you misinterpret (or lie?) and say it is me who does.
"very untrue. I challenge you to come here and see for yourself."
I don't have to. Didn't you bother to read all of YusufMarey's article? He writes: "Or it may be in the form of a husband, father, or boyfriend that does not allow the woman to have a cell phone, inter net chatting, or in the worst scenario it may be in the form of abuse from a man." Operative word: "ALLOW."
And don't claim you have the monopoly of knowledge on Islam. We have Muslims here, you know. And I know that Muslim women IN GENERAL (I believe in Turkey that is not the case; perhaps others) need to consult with the husbands even in issues like voting. Please.
@ Changez
"Your only real argument is with the women who accept their social derogation as legitimate and right..."
What I see is that you attempt to exonerate the role of men in gender oppression, and in the process you simplify and delimit the issue. The issue is "with the woman who forces her daughter into servitude as a way of releasing her own frustrations." What about the cause of frustrations? The husbands, the men, the men leaders who define women's role and their limited rights?
Human perspective? Feminist perspective is also humanist perspective, essentially because women comprise half of humanity. To fight for race equality is also humanist perspective, one race is part of humanity, etc. Did I really have to spell that out?
Let me put it this way: when an oppressed race where gender oppression exist attains equality with another race, the women of the race are elevated, naturally. But that doesn't mean that that gender oppression goes away with it. Gender equality involves a specific campaign/fight.
"Your only real argument is with the women who accept their social derogation as legitimate and right..."
What I see is that you attempt to exonerate the role of men in gender oppression, and in the process you simplify and delimit the issue. The issue is "with the woman who forces her daughter into servitude as a way of releasing her own frustrations." What about the cause of frustrations? The husbands, the men, the men leaders who define women's role and their limited rights?
Human perspective? Feminist perspective is also humanist perspective, essentially because women comprise half of humanity. To fight for race equality is also humanist perspective, one race is part of humanity, etc. Did I really have to spell that out?
Let me put it this way: when an oppressed race where gender oppression exist attains equality with another race, the women of the race are elevated, naturally. But that doesn't mean that that gender oppression goes away with it. Gender equality involves a specific campaign/fight.
Again my point here is I agree with you on the more superficial aspects of what you're saying. Women should vote as they want, dress as they want, study what they want and receive benefits the same as men do - but then for me that is just something that applies to all people, male or female.
Where women are not allowed to vote, they should be...duh...and etc. etc. So what are you trying to convince me of? That I'm basically misogynist? Probably. But if I'm misogynist then you are adding to a negative stereotype and patronising other women by claiming that as a feminist you are liberated where other women are not. Those same women will claim that as a feminist you are not making the full use of your faculties and so are un-liberated.
See, I my basic problem lies in that you have yet to define Gender Equality. What is that? Again, if you say it is the right of women to use their bodies as they please, then you can start campaigning in Saudi Arabia for women to have the right to wear bikinis in public and good luck. However your greatest opposition will come from many women themselves, who feel their culture does not merit that behaviour. They will see you as an outsider. You can tell them they're oppressed and they will tell you that you are in fact oppressed. You can tell them their culture is wrong and they will tell you the same.
The only theme of gender equality that comes through in what you say is that women all over the world should have access to the same facilities and privileges that men do without discrimination. However, my point is that a) those facilities ain't that great because they feed a larger system of oppression to which men are subject too and b) what makes you assume that you are liberated?
"And don't claim you have the monopoly of knowledge on Islam. We have Muslims here, you know. And I know that Muslim women IN GENERAL (I believe in Turkey that is not the case; perhaps others) need to consult " - well you patently know nothing at all so in this case I have the advantage.
"Human perspective? Feminist perspective is also humanist perspective, essentially because women comprise half of humanity. To fight for race equality is also humanist perspective, one race is part of humanity, etc. Did I really have to spell that out?" - A feminist perspective is something that applies specifically to women; a human perspective is something that can be applied across the board. Did I have to spell that out.
"Hey, did you realize that by adding to those words, you're the one who's sexist because you are making the assumption that men run the world better and anyone who claims the opposite is sexist." - I think the world is run like shit, but not simply because men run it. It is a matter of institutionalised thinking that affects women as much as men and will continue unless the institutions are amended.
I'd like you to come meet my aunt someday and tell her you think she's oppressed. Her basic view on life is that men are stupid and weak and need to be run. She knows how to run them. You want to talk about using the full range of your body, well women can use sex as a weapon, without letting themselves feel that they are doing something wrong or demeaning themselves in some way. Men do it too after all. The liberation you are so keen on begins with yourself and then others.
Where women are not allowed to vote, they should be...duh...and etc. etc. So what are you trying to convince me of? That I'm basically misogynist? Probably. But if I'm misogynist then you are adding to a negative stereotype and patronising other women by claiming that as a feminist you are liberated where other women are not. Those same women will claim that as a feminist you are not making the full use of your faculties and so are un-liberated.
See, I my basic problem lies in that you have yet to define Gender Equality. What is that? Again, if you say it is the right of women to use their bodies as they please, then you can start campaigning in Saudi Arabia for women to have the right to wear bikinis in public and good luck. However your greatest opposition will come from many women themselves, who feel their culture does not merit that behaviour. They will see you as an outsider. You can tell them they're oppressed and they will tell you that you are in fact oppressed. You can tell them their culture is wrong and they will tell you the same.
The only theme of gender equality that comes through in what you say is that women all over the world should have access to the same facilities and privileges that men do without discrimination. However, my point is that a) those facilities ain't that great because they feed a larger system of oppression to which men are subject too and b) what makes you assume that you are liberated?
"And don't claim you have the monopoly of knowledge on Islam. We have Muslims here, you know. And I know that Muslim women IN GENERAL (I believe in Turkey that is not the case; perhaps others) need to consult " - well you patently know nothing at all so in this case I have the advantage.
"Human perspective? Feminist perspective is also humanist perspective, essentially because women comprise half of humanity. To fight for race equality is also humanist perspective, one race is part of humanity, etc. Did I really have to spell that out?" - A feminist perspective is something that applies specifically to women; a human perspective is something that can be applied across the board. Did I have to spell that out.
"Hey, did you realize that by adding to those words, you're the one who's sexist because you are making the assumption that men run the world better and anyone who claims the opposite is sexist." - I think the world is run like shit, but not simply because men run it. It is a matter of institutionalised thinking that affects women as much as men and will continue unless the institutions are amended.
I'd like you to come meet my aunt someday and tell her you think she's oppressed. Her basic view on life is that men are stupid and weak and need to be run. She knows how to run them. You want to talk about using the full range of your body, well women can use sex as a weapon, without letting themselves feel that they are doing something wrong or demeaning themselves in some way. Men do it too after all. The liberation you are so keen on begins with yourself and then others.
#Changez
Paragraph 1: What you believe is not the issue. What much of the world does in delimiting women is. "Women should vote" blah blah. But Islam does not allow it. Are you denying that Islam delimits women's rights and capabilities to some extent, at least?
P3 The bikini thing reveals your narrow perspective. Why, if you're a feminist that's what you'll do? Crazy. I'll settle for pointing out how the Quran does not require the burka. I'd probably do more, but since certain Muslims tend to stone or attack those who question their culture/faith, I'd rather leave that job to others.
I'm sure most Islamic women believe they are not oppressed, in the same manner that certain Islam and other tribal women are themselves the one mutilating the genitalia of young women because "culture" says so. As YusufMarey and other posters here say, when women are used to oppression, hard to get out of it. It's mental conditioning they are even thankful for. In your mind, such women are probably "liberated." Yeah.
P4: As for me, I'm fortunate not to be bound by the imposition of some misinterpreted religion/culture that I should always cover all my body, even if it's hot or what--as if the God who created it finds the sight of my face and legs and arms repulsive. So fortunate am I that I don't have to be stoned by some religious killers if I refuse to wear such long clothing. So fortunate am I that I can turn my back from some religion without getting killed. So fortunate am I that I can demand fidelity from my husband, and not be part of a harem (something we also see in some deer species) that basically serves to fulfill the base desires of probably a much older man. Fortunate am I that I can vote and think independently without having to consult with a male. I'm lucky to be born in a society that have largely not restricted the career potentials of women.
Now, those are basically my birth circumstances. Am I liberated now? I've liberated myself from the restrictions taught me by my former own patriarchal religion. I still believe in God but now I know that S/he is not a male, did not design women to be the lesser vessel, and does not want me restricted by men's demand to control and gain advantage over women. I understand now that patriarchal systems, that include, and are powered by certain religions (at least for a long time), have misused the name of God and religion for their selfish control. I now delight in my sexuality without feeling guilty. I am liberated.
How about you? Are you liberated of stereotypes and expectations of, and religious-inculcated demands/restrictions on women?
P5: So what if you're a Muslim. It has not prevented you from making false arguments. I've proven you wrong just based on YusufMarey's text alone.
P6: Feminist perspective is still humanist perspective. To be feminist is to be humanist. To be humanist is to allow the liberation of women from a standard that confines women to some book and rules written by men. To counter feminism because of some silly issues with who is original and the presence of other problems you wish feminist will address is anti-feminism. You simply don't wish feminism to advance so you attach needless issues inappropriately. Derailing the conversation, your tactic is.
P7: Welcome to the imperfect, material world. Your point in refuting feminism just because everyone is subject to the imperfections of the world is a pathetic attempt to block the feminist cause of liberation. What institutions would you like amended. Islam? Why not? All other patriarchal religions? The capitalist system? What? The world system? Feminist advancement need not be tied to your conditioned approval. I did say that a revolution in thinking is needed, short of saying that a revolution in religions (and yes other patriarchal/oppressive) systems is important. Meantime, any advancement is better than none.
P8: Say hi to your wise aunt for me. Of course, liberation starts with oneself. How can you preach what you don't know and live?
Paragraph 1: What you believe is not the issue. What much of the world does in delimiting women is. "Women should vote" blah blah. But Islam does not allow it. Are you denying that Islam delimits women's rights and capabilities to some extent, at least?
P3 The bikini thing reveals your narrow perspective. Why, if you're a feminist that's what you'll do? Crazy. I'll settle for pointing out how the Quran does not require the burka. I'd probably do more, but since certain Muslims tend to stone or attack those who question their culture/faith, I'd rather leave that job to others.
I'm sure most Islamic women believe they are not oppressed, in the same manner that certain Islam and other tribal women are themselves the one mutilating the genitalia of young women because "culture" says so. As YusufMarey and other posters here say, when women are used to oppression, hard to get out of it. It's mental conditioning they are even thankful for. In your mind, such women are probably "liberated." Yeah.
P4: As for me, I'm fortunate not to be bound by the imposition of some misinterpreted religion/culture that I should always cover all my body, even if it's hot or what--as if the God who created it finds the sight of my face and legs and arms repulsive. So fortunate am I that I don't have to be stoned by some religious killers if I refuse to wear such long clothing. So fortunate am I that I can turn my back from some religion without getting killed. So fortunate am I that I can demand fidelity from my husband, and not be part of a harem (something we also see in some deer species) that basically serves to fulfill the base desires of probably a much older man. Fortunate am I that I can vote and think independently without having to consult with a male. I'm lucky to be born in a society that have largely not restricted the career potentials of women.
Now, those are basically my birth circumstances. Am I liberated now? I've liberated myself from the restrictions taught me by my former own patriarchal religion. I still believe in God but now I know that S/he is not a male, did not design women to be the lesser vessel, and does not want me restricted by men's demand to control and gain advantage over women. I understand now that patriarchal systems, that include, and are powered by certain religions (at least for a long time), have misused the name of God and religion for their selfish control. I now delight in my sexuality without feeling guilty. I am liberated.
How about you? Are you liberated of stereotypes and expectations of, and religious-inculcated demands/restrictions on women?
P5: So what if you're a Muslim. It has not prevented you from making false arguments. I've proven you wrong just based on YusufMarey's text alone.
P6: Feminist perspective is still humanist perspective. To be feminist is to be humanist. To be humanist is to allow the liberation of women from a standard that confines women to some book and rules written by men. To counter feminism because of some silly issues with who is original and the presence of other problems you wish feminist will address is anti-feminism. You simply don't wish feminism to advance so you attach needless issues inappropriately. Derailing the conversation, your tactic is.
P7: Welcome to the imperfect, material world. Your point in refuting feminism just because everyone is subject to the imperfections of the world is a pathetic attempt to block the feminist cause of liberation. What institutions would you like amended. Islam? Why not? All other patriarchal religions? The capitalist system? What? The world system? Feminist advancement need not be tied to your conditioned approval. I did say that a revolution in thinking is needed, short of saying that a revolution in religions (and yes other patriarchal/oppressive) systems is important. Meantime, any advancement is better than none.
P8: Say hi to your wise aunt for me. Of course, liberation starts with oneself. How can you preach what you don't know and live?
Sorry but you assume that I'm Muslim.
I never said as much and am only taking exception to your badly researched and uniformed arguments. I don't see where you have proven me wrong in the least way. You still haven't defined gender equality except by your own narrow cultural perspective on what it means to be liberated and think that your idea of liberation is the only idea of liberation.
How patronising it is for women to hear that their conception of liberation is wrong. Here is where your entire argument is patently faschist and false. You would force others to believe as you believe and think that you are right in doing so. I mention my aunt because she's an independent and liberated woman who would thoroughly disagree with your idea of liberation.
Before you go and start thinking that you have the cure to every ill for every woman, reexamine your idea of liberation and see if it is acceptable to others before you go and start forcing it on them (Like Bush and Democracy) before deciding that their conceptions of liberation are inferior to your own.
My own point is precisely that you have limited to yourself what liberation means and you intend to force others to that idea whether they agree with you or not because you think that you are so right and so liberated.
"As for me, I'm fortunate not to be bound by the imposition of some misinterpreted religion/culture" - You were at one point and are still trying to get beyond those shackles. Essentially what you are is narrow minded and rebellious since you have moved away from the strictures of the religion you were raised with and feel that liberation only means that to every woman. It is a fascist perspective. Before you go start defining what freedom is, perhaps you should ask others if they agree with you and not as a patronising rebel, but as someone with a genuine concern for their opinions and perspectives. Then you may figure out what you are talking about.
Other than that, I really don't give a damn about feminISm or any ideology that forces people to a particular line of thought - it is abhorrent.
"Say hi to your wise aunt for me. Of course, liberation starts with oneself. How can you preach what you don't know and live?" - This is like arguing creationism with a bible-thumper.
I never said as much and am only taking exception to your badly researched and uniformed arguments. I don't see where you have proven me wrong in the least way. You still haven't defined gender equality except by your own narrow cultural perspective on what it means to be liberated and think that your idea of liberation is the only idea of liberation.
How patronising it is for women to hear that their conception of liberation is wrong. Here is where your entire argument is patently faschist and false. You would force others to believe as you believe and think that you are right in doing so. I mention my aunt because she's an independent and liberated woman who would thoroughly disagree with your idea of liberation.
Before you go and start thinking that you have the cure to every ill for every woman, reexamine your idea of liberation and see if it is acceptable to others before you go and start forcing it on them (Like Bush and Democracy) before deciding that their conceptions of liberation are inferior to your own.
My own point is precisely that you have limited to yourself what liberation means and you intend to force others to that idea whether they agree with you or not because you think that you are so right and so liberated.
"As for me, I'm fortunate not to be bound by the imposition of some misinterpreted religion/culture" - You were at one point and are still trying to get beyond those shackles. Essentially what you are is narrow minded and rebellious since you have moved away from the strictures of the religion you were raised with and feel that liberation only means that to every woman. It is a fascist perspective. Before you go start defining what freedom is, perhaps you should ask others if they agree with you and not as a patronising rebel, but as someone with a genuine concern for their opinions and perspectives. Then you may figure out what you are talking about.
Other than that, I really don't give a damn about feminISm or any ideology that forces people to a particular line of thought - it is abhorrent.
"Say hi to your wise aunt for me. Of course, liberation starts with oneself. How can you preach what you don't know and live?" - This is like arguing creationism with a bible-thumper.
P2: "That I'm basically misogynist?"
Your words. I don't care whether you're a misogynist--it's the women around you who will bear with whatever you are. I say your own words probably reveal your self-description.
This is getting to be a waste of time. You really need basic Web courtesy. The want for logical rebuttal is no excuse to put words in my mouth and deliberately confound.
I suggest you play with yourself. I mean, get another ID to argue with yourself by posting your pro and counter arguments alternately because that's what you've been doing when you put words into my mouth. You don't always do that, but it's not nice. Moreover, it lowers the level of discussion, which wastes my time and yours. I'm out of here. You're of course free to put words into my mouth again, only the world will know.
Your words. I don't care whether you're a misogynist--it's the women around you who will bear with whatever you are. I say your own words probably reveal your self-description.
This is getting to be a waste of time. You really need basic Web courtesy. The want for logical rebuttal is no excuse to put words in my mouth and deliberately confound.
I suggest you play with yourself. I mean, get another ID to argue with yourself by posting your pro and counter arguments alternately because that's what you've been doing when you put words into my mouth. You don't always do that, but it's not nice. Moreover, it lowers the level of discussion, which wastes my time and yours. I'm out of here. You're of course free to put words into my mouth again, only the world will know.
You have chosen quite a controversial topic and one that is written from a male's perspective. As a woman, I don't feel a need to cite biological or scientific facts to prove our worthiness. It was proven the moment I was created and is validated everyday when I provide my talents to the world. I heard a man (comedian) on a talk show (Michael Baisden)say that women wanted to be too much like men. He asked a woman could she pee (urinate) standing up? He got a few laughs at her expense but I found him to be very ignornat and limited in his thinking. Only a man would use a method of eliminating waste from the body as a measurement of worthiness and manhood. Woman can't write their name in the snow with urine either but does this mean they are inferior? I could have easily responded to his ignorant comment by asking, "Can you carry a child in your body for nine months?" Even more so, can you deliver that child as a live human being after that term? Giving birth is one of the greatest gifts given to women yet no one is citing that as a means to say women are superior to men.
okidoki.....well lots of opinions which is good, but the essential issue is about a woman's worth and value. Disregard religion all together and look at the heart of the subject. Control has been a forerunner since the beginning of time and the men want all of it for themselves. Greed, pride, and jealousy are the causes. Religion should only focus on God, not where women fit into the picture, but men also wrote and implemented those religious laws. If a woman is stupid enough to believe men's lies, covered with the lambs wool of religion, then thats her decision. As for me, well....I didnt come from a man's rib and I will not be treated anything less than a human being or that person will feel the wrath inside of me. Physical strength means nothing compared to intellect and the ability to think for myself and live as I see fit. Plain and simple. F*** the worlds religions and f*** the men who want control. To hell with all of it!!!!
Reported by YusufMarey
Cell phones use report code: Most Popular Reports
Site Links
Site Topics
Contributions
- Report Your News
- Add your voice and contribute via your cellphone - check out how to Report News via Your Cellphone
- Blog Widget
- Widget for Blog Owner
