Re: Case in Point...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also I'm suprised people think that the roots of this belief/practice are particularly religous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Likely the root cause has something to do with which sex had to guard the eggs in the tidal waters while the other dodges sharks out in the kelp beds. Just as there are root causes of inner city violence derived from juvenile male sexual selection pressures on the savanna and prior to that in Kelp City.
The perpetuating cause is religion in these cases and just as jobs and education help the inner city cases yet don't address the root cause ( castration may ), so does modernizing a religion or secularizing a society lessen the impact of our Siwashian heritage.

luckyme

Re: Case in Point...
 

[ QUOTE ]
yep. most people think they're criminals and deserve it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is about as far from the truth as it can get. I want you to show me reported cases of rape in prison that go uninvestigated and prosecuted if found credible. You believe what you see in the movies. Not a good place for the truth.

pokervintage

Re: Case in Point...
 

You're right that the roots of women being oppressed by men is probably not religious. Religion is just what scares people into keeping this custom alive and make it still seem justifiable in the year 2007.

Re: Case in Point...
 

[ QUOTE ]
honestly I don't care.

I mean here in US thousands of people are raped every day in prison and nobody cares. hell, most people think it's great.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Re: Case in Point...
 

[ QUOTE ]
You're right that the roots of women being oppressed by men is probably not religious. Religion is just what scares people into keeping this custom alive and make it still seem justifiable in the year 2007.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe. I can't convince myself that the first bit is true. Many seem perfectly happy to keep this custom alive.

I think nasty people behave this way because it kinda makes sense, our main objection stems from our niceness. Its obscene far more than ridiculous.

chez

Re: Case in Point...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're right that the roots of women being oppressed by men is probably not religious. Religion is just what scares people into keeping this custom alive and make it still seem justifiable in the year 2007.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe. I can't convince myself that the first bit is true. Many seem perfectly happy to keep this custom alive.

I think nasty people behave this way because it kinda makes sense, our main objection stems from our niceness. Its obscene far more than ridiculous.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I must really be missing something in these last couple of threads. Are you saying that women LIKE being oppressed? Granted, many of them know of no other life. But I can't believe that if they had a choice, they wouldn't want to be treated as someone else's property.

I really can't believe what I'm hearing in these threads. Of course, it's religious! Men use the bible or Koran to sexually mutilate little girls and keep them in line. It's sick! This isn't happening because everyone "thought" about it and decided it should be that way.

Re: Case in Point...
 

[ QUOTE ]
I must really be missing something in these last couple of threads. Are you saying that women LIKE being oppressed? Granted, many of them know of no other life. But I can't believe that if they had a choice, they wouldn't want to be treated as someone else's property.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've heard a few testimonials from westerners that lived in Saudi Arabia (or some comparably religious Muslim society) who, on the subject of Islamic treatment of women, insist that the vast majority of these women are living how they want to live -- i.e, they're just as religious and conservative as the men, and think the strict laws pertaining to women are just. I'm open to evidence to the contrary but, assuming that's true, it would be wrong to call these women "oppressed."

Re: Case in Point...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're right that the roots of women being oppressed by men is probably not religious. Religion is just what scares people into keeping this custom alive and make it still seem justifiable in the year 2007.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe. I can't convince myself that the first bit is true. Many seem perfectly happy to keep this custom alive.

I think nasty people behave this way because it kinda makes sense, our main objection stems from our niceness. Its obscene far more than ridiculous.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I must really be missing something in these last couple of threads. Are you saying that women LIKE being oppressed? Granted, many of them know of no other life. But I can't believe that if they had a choice, they wouldn't want to be treated as someone else's property.



[/ QUOTE ]
No of course not, I'm not suggesting the oppressed like it. Consider slavery, slavery isn't ridiculous its obscene. The societies slaves lives within don't require religon to justify or support their existence. The reason to oppose slavery is that its obscene.

Sure people who benefit from slavery will use religous arguments if it helps them but religon is not the cause of slavery.

chez

Re: Case in Point...
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've heard a few testimonials from westerners that lived in Saudi Arabia (or some comparably religious Muslim society) who, on the subject of Islamic treatment of women, insist that the vast majority of these women are living how they want to live -- i.e, they're just as religious and conservative as the men, and think the strict laws pertaining to women are just. I'm open to evidence to the contrary but, assuming that's true, it would be wrong to call these women "oppressed."

[/ QUOTE ]

Or to call abused wives in america that return to their husband abused because they obviously like it. Or children that want their abusive parents back. Or hostages that find 'good' in their abducters, etc.

It's like the brainwashing of children situation. you can't respect somebodies choice/opinion until they've been able to appreciate the options, then if they make a free choice, go fer it.

There's a nagging at the back of my mind that there were a fair amount of slaves who thought they were 'supposed to be' slaves. I wonder about caste systems .. do the untouchables not think they are supposed to be in that caste? Or serfs in feudal days? were/are they right?

What about women from other countries that marry in or work and live in one of these cultures. Do they generally say, " yep, this is much better for us women".?

If it's true that that's what women want, by all means do it, but until they have a free run at making the choice their opinion is Stockholmed.

luckyme

Re: Case in Point...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've heard a few testimonials from westerners that lived in Saudi Arabia (or some comparably religious Muslim society) who, on the subject of Islamic treatment of women, insist that the vast majority of these women are living how they want to live -- i.e, they're just as religious and conservative as the men, and think the strict laws pertaining to women are just. I'm open to evidence to the contrary but, assuming that's true, it would be wrong to call these women "oppressed."

[/ QUOTE ]

Or to call abused wives in america that return to their husband abused because they obviously like it. Or children that want their abusive parents back. Or hostages that find 'good' in their abducters, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, you know those aren't apt analogies. The abused wife doesn't think it's good that she and other wives are beaten, even if she does stick around in spite of it, and she certainly doesn't think that wife-beating should be institutionalized.

[ QUOTE ]
It's like the brainwashing of children situation. you can't respect somebodies choice/opinion until they've been able to appreciate the options, then if they make a free choice, go fer it. . .

. . . If it's true that that's what women want, by all means do it, but until they have a free run at making the choice their opinion is Stockholmed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sympathetic to this problem, but how do you determine what constitutes "brainwashing," and how do you differentiate it from mere culturally shared beliefs? These women presumably watch TV at home and have an idea about what their life would be like in western countries. How much can you discount their rejection of a western lifestyle based on the fact that almost every one else around them shares the same belief? And to what extent are you willing to apply the same standards to your own culture?

Example: I've heard that a common Muslim rebuttal to the "how can you treat your women that way?" complaint is "how can you treat your elderly that way?" That is, how can you send them off to die in nursing homes instead of doing whatever it takes to take care of them yourselves, as a family.

If you can say that Islamic women who prefer to live under strict Sharia law are brainwashed, could not a Muslim say the same about American elders who agree to spend their last years in a hospital ward surrounded by strangers?

[ QUOTE ]
What about women from other countries that marry in or work and live in one of these cultures. Do they generally say, " yep, this is much better for us women".?

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt it, but that works both ways.

Re: Case in Point...
 

Addendum: Finally, even if you make a good faith effort to apply the same standards to your culture and you conclude that it is nobler in this regard than the other culture, how can you have any confidence in that conclusion given that you are a member of your preferred culture and therefore naturally biased in favor of it? Many (most?) of your core values come from growing up in the West, so of course you should be expected to conclude that its norms are morally preferable to another's.

Re: Case in Point...
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've heard a few testimonials from westerners that lived in Saudi Arabia (or some comparably religious Muslim society) who, on the subject of Islamic treatment of women, insist that the vast majority of these women are living how they want to live -- i.e, they're just as religious and conservative as the men, and think the strict laws pertaining to women are just. I'm open to evidence to the contrary but, assuming that's true, it would be wrong to call these women "oppressed."

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the women choose to live under those conditions. Fine and dandy. But the women who choose not to are killed for it. That's oppression. Also, anecdotal opinion is suspect in an area where dissent is a punishable offense.

Re: Case in Point...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the women choose to live under those conditions. Fine and dandy. But the women who choose not to are killed for it. That's oppression.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed; it's a brutal oppression of a minority. I just think we tend to overestimate the extent to which Muslim women are forced to into a lifestyle they hate.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, anecdotal opinion is suspect in an area where dissent is a punishable offense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm talking about the anecdotal accounts of Westerners who are free to say whatever they want.

Re: Case in Point...
 

<font color="blue"> I just think we tend to overestimate the extent to which Muslim women are forced to into a lifestyle they hate. </font>

They have no choice! You do understand that, right? To speak out means punishment or death! If it weren't for religion, do you honestly think a woman would choose to have her own clitoris cut off?

Again, I can't believe what I'm reading in these threads.

Re: Case in Point...
 

<font color="blue">Come on, you know those aren't apt analogies. </font>

The anologies are very apt, because they both entail people who fear for their lives if they rebell. They both also entail a false sense of security. The abusive husband has a knack of making the woman feel secure and happy as long as she does what she's told and doesn't get out of line.

Luckyme hit the nail on the head. Until these women actually have a choice, it is wrong to assume this is what they would opt for. Anyone rational person who has faith in in humanity should be vehemently against the oppression of anyone.

Re: Case in Point...
 

[ QUOTE ]
They have no choice! You do understand that, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, but I'm saying they (probably, mostly) prefer not to have the choice. Are you oppressed because you're not allowed to choose whether or not to commit fraud? (Note: I'm not equating anything with fraud here; I'm just using it to illustrate the point.)

[ QUOTE ]
To speak out means punishment or death! If it weren't for religion, do you honestly think a woman would choose to have her own clitoris cut off?

[/ QUOTE ]

Those things seem as awful to me as they do to you, but it's not immaterial that, on balance, they seem a lot less awful to the supposed victims. I'm not saying that's the end of the discussion, but it's at least a relevant, ameliorating factor.

[ QUOTE ]
The anologies are very apt, because they both entail people who fear for their lives if they rebell. They both also entail a false sense of security.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are undeniable similarities, but the analogies were not apt because they did not speak to the point I was making. I said that these women tended to approve of their restrictions and to support their enforcement. The analogies compared this situation to ones in which the opposite was true.

Re: Case in Point...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Come on, you know those aren't apt analogies. The abused wife doesn't think it's good that she and other wives are beaten, even if she does stick around in spite of it, and she certainly doesn't think that wife-beating should be institutionalized.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm of the school that no analogies are apt, we can only do some serious pointing with them, they aren't and can't be congruent.

You've very wrong about abused wives ( and children) that return. They really do think they 'deserve' it or at least it's their fault and if they'd just not cause it...yadda yadda.

You're see to be thinking more of the "live with me or I'll kill ya" type. Reconsider in the vein I'm suggesting.

luckyme

Re: Case in Point...
 

[ QUOTE ]
You're see to be thinking more of the "live with me or I'll kill ya" type.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite. I'm thinking more along the lines of the "he beats on me but I love him anyway" type.

[ QUOTE ]
You've very wrong about abused wives ( and children) that return. They really do think they 'deserve' it or at least it's their fault and if they'd just not cause it...yadda yadda.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's that simple. Nor is it as simple as I implied. I don't have much experience with this sort of thing, but there's got to be a continuum, no?

Even if you're completely right about abused wives in America, how much can that really tell us about Muslim women in Saudi Arabia? With what degree of certainty can you judge the psychology of an entire society which is almost totally alien to you? How certain do you have to be to permit you write off the stated preferences of the victims because you know better?

I honestly don't know the answers to these questions, but I think there's a degree to which we should err on the side of non-judgmentalism. Why? Because that's what we'd want from other cultures who may be judging us harshly for our differences.

Re: Case in Point...
 

I guess I'll just wrap up by saying I don't see how you can assume they "tend" to approve of their restrictions. Again, they don't have a choice. As luckyme suggested when they DO have a choice and opt for the same restrictions I'll buy what you're saying. Until then, I think it's best to assume they are oppressed. Kinda like innocent until proven guilty. Last thing...

If I'm wrong and they're ok with these restriction (and mutilations, and beatings, and death for enjoying the freedom every human being should have a right to enjoy), then the worst that can happen is things remain the same. However, if YOU'RE wrong... It's a complete and utter tragedy to allow human beings to become the property of another and to endure what they do.

Re: Case in Point...
 

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I'll just wrap up by saying I don't see how you can assume they "tend" to approve of their restrictions. Again, they don't have a choice. As luckyme suggested when they DO have a choice and opt for the same restrictions I'll buy what you're saying. Until then, I think it's best to assume they are oppressed. Kinda like innocent until proven guilty. Last thing...

If I'm wrong and they're ok with these restriction (and mutilations, and beatings, and death for enjoying the freedom every human being should have a right to enjoy), then the worst that can happen is things remain the same. However, if YOU'RE wrong... It's a complete and utter tragedy to allow human beings to become the property of another and to endure what they do.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the slavery analogy works here too. Some people defended slavery by arguing the slaves were better off as slaves or preferred being slaves or some such nonsense but they don't. Given any viable choice between freedom or slavery they chose freedom.

chez