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