quote:

---

Originally posted by Vision Artist:
Well I think it's a big step when 'white', 'secular' sisters are willing to admit that they are under 'operant conditioning' themselves. My operant conditioning trained me to believe that i was only valuable if I was sexy, attractive in the eyes of men, and my power was measured by how much I was able to get men to drool over me (=thus weakening them). My operant conditioning taught me that being a bit overweight reduced my worth. My conditioning taught me to believe I had to play into the mysterious/exotic role that the media cut out for women of my race. I was never happy in relationships, because I never found a man who wanted to engage with my mind instead of my body. I lived freely unveiled, 'uncovered', and due to the messed up society I live in, I could not go about without men being attracted to me, touching me, smelling me, making comments about my body or hair, making advances at me- and yes it bothered me. I used to dance in a circle with my girl friends, and as I was walking out this creepy guy tells me he was watching me all night and loved how my body moved. And I wore long dresses back then (but no covering arms, neck, cleavage, hair)! Why can't guys just leave me alone! I asked...

I lived my free and secular life, without God, without faith, and even without rules. I've been there, done that. And I still was not happy. I started studying all belief systems, philosophies, and ideologies. And in the end, Islam made sense.

Unionist, I would love to give excerpts and proofs from our books that prove Islam gives all of those rights, and more (rights to animals and plant life), but I don't know if that should be a seperate thread.... it's up to you guys if you want to challenge me

And so as not to go into religiousity, I can say my experience after wearing a jacket and placing a piece of fabric that normally went around my neck in winter, over my head/hair full time totally changed the way primarily men, and women dealt with me. And so as to take it into a sociology discussion: I brought up in the beginning how I interviewed women for a documentary I was working on, who felt the need to shave their heads, and felt liberated doing so (not only because it feels good to not have all of that heavy hair on your head!). Why should these women have to do that to be left alone and respected my men? Yes, Why can't men just control themselves? What can we do in society to change that?
And why, when a woman shaves her head, especially as a feminist stance, why does a change in dress- pants, baggy clothing usually accompany this move? Why does removing the overtness of her sexuality feel liberating to her? And why on society do women, who decide to cover up, or shave their head, or dress more manly have to feel alienated if they reject looking like barbie dolls and flaunting their sexuality?
Both hijabi women and shaved head women told me that men started respecting them and their ideas more once they removed the overt sexual components of their dress or appearance. ["Ok, i'm following you, but how is hair 'overtly sexual'? I agree! But go asked the women who shaved their heads...] Why? Are men better able to focus on our minds when they are not distracted by the other things? That sucks! Men have to change themselves, not us.

But do they? So far, no. In the Quran it tells MEN to lower their gaze in the same sentence it tells women to. Ladies if a Muslim man flirts with you, you can flat out tell him he's out of bounds in his religion. Men are prohibited from flirting and making sexual advances at women outside of marriage. They have to cover most of their bodies, too. Men in the middle east actually cover from head to toe- in modesty. Wierd, you say. Some ppl think if women all dressed modest, then men would have to behave themselves. I know in Muslim communities, that's what I see. I'd like to hear from Amish women or women in puritan/covered communities, and see what they think.

I'm not making a statement that everyone should cover; but bringing up mine and other women's experiences, just pretend I'm a woman who shaved her head, and have proclaimed I will keep it so, even though I truly desire to let my hair flow ...and yes, the discussion about why do we have to cover up? Why don't guys just back off!? And what, really, are societal solutions we can come up with? Does walking naked in 'take back the night' marches on campuses work? (some groups do that...) What do you think?

---

I've struggled on babble many times, overwhelmingly unsuccessfully, with some white feminists here and the issue of the veil or headscarf as a symbol of "the most oppressive way to oppress women ever" and I think I'm done with those fights.

Your voice has been missing here, and reflects levels of complexity that are hard to achieve on a discussion board, and that reflect the conversations I've had with my Muslim feminist friends and colleagues.

While mulling this over, in compare to my life experience, garment wearing and being sexually objectified, I found that, for me, clothes wearing is much like changing a mental hat for different situations arising.

While a teenager, I wore halter tops, short shorts, no bra, as did all my girl friends. But then, as opposed to now, where those items of clothing are sexualized, such clothing was liberating and showed freedom and confidence to stand apart from the norm of society as my enculturation was protestant, rural religiousity, but of the Tommy Douglas - socialist- type.

And throughout the ensuing years I have worn whatever styles and types of clothes that I felt suited where I was at taste and circumstance wise and never felt pulled to express myself according to societal partriarchial objectification needs. Having said that, that does not mean that I never dressed sexy, but I did so because that is where MY mood was, and how I wanted the evening/time period to flow.

Yes, of course I have encountered events like you detailed of being harassed by males, intent upon touching, smelling and unwanted coming onto, but I have handled it, or at least tried, with what the situation warranted to give myself maximum empowerment at that time based upon, those circumstances, and chose not to carry it forward as baggage, where I would be forced to take actions that may at first appear empowering, but then become a cage.

As I became older, how I conducted myself, as opposed to what I wore, was the tool that I used the most. Having said that, there were some extreme occassions where harsher conduct was needed. For example, one time, a very insistant male would not leave a group of us girls alone, who were out and about as a breakk from studying and he was sure 1 of us wanted him. Finally, I told him he had to leave us alone, he said; "what are you going to do if I don't", and I told him that I would take him outside and give him a shot in the head if he didn't. The end result was, he got a shot in the head outside the bar and landed on his ass in the parking lot.

I am sure he did not believe a 5'7" "pretty" grrrrrl, weighing 126lbs, would be much of a threat. He learned a lesson that night, and so I am sure did a lot of his friends. Now I am aware that the good majority of women, young nor old, feel they have the capability of doing that.
However, I ask why not?

Just as I ask, why do we women accept that clothes define us, when it is we who should be defining ourselves and what we wear, at any given point in time.

Unfortunately I feel that most women in Canada are pressured to wear it by their family members, and the ones who wear it freely that's great- I have no qualms with that.

You say, you think some people feel forced to wear certain types of cloths. Solution: Force them to wear other clothes.

[ 29 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Just as I ask, why do we women accept that clothes define us, when it is we who should be defining ourselves and what we wear, at any given point in time.

---

I teach my daughter to be tough, assertive, independent, and intelligent. At age 4, I taught her that her body is her own and no one has the right to mess with it-- and what to do if anyone tries to violate her space or body (“I punch them, like this”, she says). I try to keep her away from pink and princesses, but I give her the freedom to choose (not wanting to impose my personal beliefs on her). I will not force her to wear hijab. I’ve encourage my son from a young age to cook and do housework with me. I will not let him date or do anything my daughter cannot do. I gave my son (8) and daughter (4.5) a lecture today about how the toy stores are trying to brainwash them and force them into believing what colors and toys they must like and play with (in response to his statement that transformers are for boys only)... “Wow, she must be a ‘progressive’ Muslim” you may say- but no, I am part of the status quo.

I believe my strength, my education, my respect as a woman, my rights, my courage are given to me by a merciful God, exemplified to me by women in my history, and is indeed part of my religion. The women in the time of the prophet were merchants, warriors, scholars; brave, outspoken, and honorable. That’s what Islam tells us, but many nowadays have tried to deform it to suit their needs. Yet the actual text is unchanged, the majority knows the truth; and if you want to fight oppression in Islamic societies, I suggest you use the original texts to wipe it out, the way it did when it was first sent down. Muslims don’t need reform. They need revival.

To think that our liberal, secular ways is THE way, and that the world would be better off living the way we do is one thing; but to put others’ customs down as ‘disgusting’ and to try to impose our beliefs on them (through war or activism) is imperialistic and supremacist to say the least. Again: Islam, according to the majority and classic scholars, gives countless rights and protections to women (and all other commonly exploited groups like children) and is against all oppression. And even still, there exists marital abuse, female circumcision, forced marriages, and honor killings*. But these are cultural and misogynistic traditions (most of which happen under all belief systems) sustained by false understandings of the religion and lack of education. They did not exist in Islamic societies before, and that’s why Muslims are saying their religion has been hijacked, by small factions like the Wahabists backed with a lot of money. But there is hope. There has recently been much positive Islamic revival and education, with amazing improvement (even with those mocking and fighting it). There is a new Islamic satellite channel called IQRA. Besides the wealth of programming led by women, young scholars, scientists, and much criticism of societal ills and social injustice; world renowned ‘traditional’ scholars have been going on air and re-educating Muslims against oppressive practices like I mentioned above*. So I say to my feminist activist sisters, if you hate these things going on, instead of attacking Islam, please educate yourself about the religion and use it to combat misogyny. We need to use the Muslim vehicles already out there trying to eliminate these things.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
As I became older, how I conducted myself, as opposed to what I wore, was the tool that I used the most.

---

You know, I am an activist, and the end question after everything I read or see continues to swell in my head, “What can we actually do to change our social and world conditions?”

So you asked an important question: what methods can we use to command respect from men and make them approach us respectfully? What can we do about Male harassment, aggressiveness, and unwanted touching, advances, gaze, physicality?

A lot is already being done, but I think more aggressive work and funding should go into solving this problem.

1. Education, education, education. Girls and women have to learn that they do not need a man’s flirtation, advance, or gaze to be of value. Once they have achieved that they must know how to be assertive, and if need be, aggressive.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Now I am aware that the good majority of women, young nor old, feel they have the capability of doing that.
However, I ask why not?

---

I would have popped that guy, too. Thus, you and I are indeed fortunate to have that inner and physical strength. But many women do not. Solution:

2. Acquiring funding to launch nationwide, if not worldwide, campaigns to give free assertiveness and ‘self defense’ (or combat training/karate) to every girl and woman in every city, state, country; maybe at least start with the youth and making it part of school and college curriculums.

3. Similarly making it part of school and college curriculums to teach boys and young men to respect women and their space. Discussions on masculinity and its falsehoods can ensue.

4. EPutting pressure on filmmakers and TV shows to promote this assertiveness in women and denounce the aggressiveness of men. Many men think that we want this kind of behavior from them & are trapped in what they think it means to be masculine. What are we doing to change the way pop culture, music, and the media tells guys how to behave with women? Not enough.

5. Money talks. Running networks and campaigns to protest products, films, shows, and artists that promote male aggressiveness and female passivity, and teaching women how doing so indirectly affects them.

I've heard a couple of projects in the inner city going in this direction; and at my college there was a lot of assertiveness training targeting incoming freshman. But I'd like to see more. Does Canada support programs similar to what I mentioned above?

A lot of people here have stated that the occurring misogyny in Islamic states is due to culture rather than religion. I disagree with this. Islam itself, based on Bedouin culture (the 'original' Arabs), is not just a religion, but also a way of life and society under a set of strict laws (sharia) to be followed.

The Qur'an and Hadiths are full of misogynistic passages, indicated how Muhammad himself, who is the central prophet of Islam, treats women.

I have no problems with liberal Muslims like Vision Artist or Irshad Manji, however even 'moderate' Muslims like Qaradawi call their beliefs heretical. Islamic misogyny isn't limited to the extreme Salafists. Islamists such as the late Sayyid Qutb considered the reviver of modern islamism are disturbingly revered by the MSA at my university.

In fact anyone who does not wear something on their head when outdoors in Arabia likely has psychological issues.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elysium:
*sigh*

A lot of people here have stated that the occurring misogyny in Islamic states is due to culture rather than religion. I disagree with this. Islam itself, based on Bedouin culture (the 'original' Arabs), is not just a religion, but also a way of life and society under a set of strict laws (sharia) to be followed.

---

Yeah that is why the same creation myth that appears in the Judaism and Christianity appears in the Qur'an, and Jesus is a central prophet. I had no idea that Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David were all nomadic Bedouin Arabs, and here I thought Jesus was an urban Jew. It is also fascinating to hear that Sharia law is the primary tradition that informs Islam.

Thanks for bringing us all enlightenment from our ignorant beliefs.

[ 31 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Lots of men in Arabia wear scarves around their faces. One of the reasons that veil becomes popular in desert cultures is because it keep the frikkin dust out of your mouth. In fact its hard to find pictures of traditionally dressed Arab men, not wearing Hijab, specifically for this reason.

In fact anyone who does not wear something on their head when outdoors in Arabia likely has psychological issues.

---

You mean the turban wearing male with a scarf covering his face while in a desert storm? They're wearing it for utilitarian purposes, a not religious one. That's apples and oranges compared to women required by Islam to wear the veil, especially those wearing black polyester during summer (now that's insane!).

I'll give you one credit though; the only Islamic derived culture I can think of that have males wearing wear scarves over their face for religious purposes (as well as utilitarian ones) are the Tuaregs, but the religious aspect for wearing them is for protection against spirits, not modesty.

quote:

---

Yeah that is why the same creation myth that appears in the Judaism and Christianity appears in the Qur'an, and Jesus is a central prophet. I had no idea that Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David were all nomadic Bedouin Arabs, and here I thought Jesus was an urban Jew. It is also fascinating to hear that Sharia law is the primary tradition that informs Islam.

---

Muhammad borrowed a lot from the Jews, Christians, and the religious practices of the Quraish (meteorite animism, moon veneration, stoning of devil idols), including their creation myths. And Sharia is a major component of Muhammad's Islam.

quote:

---

Thanks for bringing us all enlightenment from our ignorant beliefs.

---

You're quite welcome.

[ 04 November 2007: Message edited by: Elysium ]

[ 04 November 2007: Message edited by: Elysium ]

Its called kaffiyeh, and it is not a Turban:

quote:

---

The kaffiyeh is not technically a turban. It is really a rectangular piece of cloth, folded diagonally and then draped over the head — not wound like a turban. Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader, has made the kaffiyeh famous in recent times. However, the kaffiyeh is not solely Palestinian. Men in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Arab Persian Gulf states wear kaffiyehs in colors and styles that are particular to their region. Jordanians, for example, wear a red and white kaffiyeh, while Palestinians wear a black and white one. And a man from Saudi Arabia would likely drape his kaffiyeh differently than a man from Jordan. The black cord that holds the kaffiyeh on one's head is called an ekal.

---

But whats a little inaccuracy when you are ignorant on a grand scale? Just a drop in the bucket of the sea of misinformation you are promoting.

Many utlitarian practices become enshrined as socially enforced cultural practices. It is obvious where veiling comes from, as a utilitarian cultural practice, and lets not forget that you are talking about Hijab, not only veiling, and clearly in Arabic culture men also wear head coverings as part of normal daily practice.

Stoning appears in the Torah, not in the Qur'an, for lighting a candle on Saturday, for example. In fact the only time stoning does appear in the Qur'an is when Mohammed applies the law of the Torah to an adulterous couple because they are Jewish. He applies the Judaic law, for Jews you see.

But lets get back to the Turbans. Why no outcry from you about the evils of men being obliged to wear Turbans in Sikh culture?

PS: None of your links work.

[ 31 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by leahwis:
I think we should follow Frances leader and ban ALL religious garments from public institutions to format equality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Max Bialystock:
So why do you support the JDL?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Remind, I agree with the spirit of your remarks, but try to keep on this side of offensive please.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Unionist the day you can start telling what to do, will be never. And I was not being offensive.

---

Remind, listen to me. We agree on all important issues (in my perception anyway). I read your posts with interest because you always have an important perspective to bear. But you know what? You seem totally incapable of recognizing, far less admitting, or far far less apologizing, when you make a mistake.

So let me say it more clearly. It's ok to revile, ridicule and scorn the JDL, who are a bunch of neo-fascist scum. But you can't associate them with the Jewish people or the Jewish religion, and especially not by tossing off an ancient anti-Semitic canard (which I know you do not mean or intend) about the Jews thinking they are "chosen". It's very hurtful, it's totally unwarranted, and you're a lot better than that.

But of course, what you say is definitely up to you. So I'll leave it in your hands.

ETA: ohara, remind is a "she" not a "he", and I'm more interested in her just thinking about what she said and how it might affect people than in an apology.

[ 01 November 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ohara:
He should apologize.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Remind, listen to me. So let me say it more clearly. It's ok to revile, ridicule and scorn the JDL, who are a bunch of neo-fascist scum. But you can't associate them with the Jewish people or the Jewish religion, and especially not by tossing off an ancient anti-Semitic canard (which I know you do not mean or intend) about the Jews thinking they are "chosen". It's very hurtful, it's totally unwarranted, and you're a lot better than that.

---

Look unionist, I would use exactly the same wording if was in respect to the little net caps Mennonite women wear around here, or indeed any other religion that wears garb and who would think they should be exempt for religion centric reasons, if such a ridiculous ban was put forth.

And I do not asociate the JDL with other ALL Jewish persons, and though I have never had a Bat Mitzvah, nor indeed been raised "Jewish", as my father and his family rejected it for secularism, I still am very aware of what my ancestors went through fleeing and living with pogroms for generations.

Contary to what you and Ohara seem to believe, the Jewish religion was/is not the only religion holding the copyright on thinking they were/are the "Chosen" ones.

Let's see to date we have:

1. Mormans
2. Jehovah Witness
3. Catholics
4. Jews
5. Muslims
6. Scientology
7. All the Protestant offshoot cults

Edited to add: And actually I did think about using the word and disregarded not using it, as every damn religion out there thinks they are the "chosen" one, and that is the point I was making.

Edited again to add this that I was not going to respond to as I just rolled my eyes.

quote:

---

But you know what? You seem totally incapable of recognizing, far less admitting, or far far less apologizing, when you make a mistake.

---

But you know unionist, you seem totally incapable of recognizing, far less admitting, or far far less apologizing, when you make a mistake. In fact, I have never once saw ya do it here, not even when you have posted too many times in the feminist forum, when men were asked to step back. So frankly, IMV your comment is hypocrisy.

In fact, very very few men here ever do, but yet they are constantly demanding apologies, or retractions, in particular from women, if they feel they have been slighted for being called sexist.

So maybe when men start apologizing around here when they are wrong, or over the line, I will too, eh, until then not a chance!

[ 01 November 2007: Message edited by: remind ]

"Jews as Chosen people" is a biblical concept that has been used by anti-Semites as a canard against Jews. I accept Uninoist's view that you did not mean it as stated but your refusal to acknowledge your error in judgement is far more disconcerting now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

But you know unionist, you seem totally incapable of recognizing, far less admitting, or far far less apologizing, when you make a mistake.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I apologize for raising this issue with you. It was a mistake.

---

Yes it was, you never see woman, or even POC, here demanding apologies for every damn sexist, racist, patriarchial canard that comes past us, nor even for over posting in the feminist forum and highjacking threads.

How you can fail to realize that for woman, those type of remarks, and disregarding our requests, are just as anti-female to us, as apparently using the word "chosen", in respect to ALL religious centrism is to some people from Jewish origins. And that fact makes me angry yes.

You knew darn well that I did not mean it in an anti-semetic way, and you admitted so, but yet you still decided to single it out as if it was. And yes, that too has made me angry.

2 facts:

ALL religious people feel they are the "chosen", and the time is long since gone that was/is used to apply to only 1 group of religious persuassion.

Most men, apparently believe they have a right to make demands and disregard the very real plight today of billions of women who suffer from anti-femalepatriarchial oppression, real and current abuse, every nano-second of everyday. So, excuse me, if I have a hard time feeling like I should apologize for a slight, or retract something, where you know it was in non-existance in the first place!

[ 01 November 2007: Message edited by: remind ]

But.

Only the Jews have been referred to in the popular North American and European vernacular as "the chosen ones" or "the chosen people".

Your comment, then, is calling up this collective knowledge in a way that invokes, however unintended, anti-Semitism.

You and I both know that intent is often/mostly irrelevant when it comes to using words or phrases that are hurtful and/or offensive, and that all of us, none of us are exempt, occasionally make a mistake.

None of us here think you're anti-Semitic of course (now I'm speaking for all babblers, jeez the ego on me, eh? ).

quote:

---

remind: ALL religious people feel they are the "chosen", and the time is long since gone that was/is used to apply to only 1 group of religious persuassion.

---

Although I somewhat agree, we can't bring about change by simply stating that it must be so. I could argue that the time has long gone to end violence against women as a way to assert masculine domination, but the words are meaningless in the world that we all must inhabit. It is action (and words and many other things) that will change the world, not merely words on their own.

I also echo bcg's sentiments:

quote:

---

None of us here think you're anti-Semitic of course
...
I hope that you hear this in the manner in which I intend, with respect for your contributions on babble and in the spirit of conciliation.

---

[ 02 November 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Thanks for that, bcg. I agree with you. remind, just I'm sure you would appreciate it if a person who has unintentionally said something sexist acknowledges it when it's brought to their attention, perhaps you should also be willing to rethink it if you've unintentionally said something offensive about a traditionally persecuted group.

---

Actually, I have thought about all last evening and this morning. And admit that I should have made an extended comment instead of lumping ALL religions under the guise of a word that has been used towards a persecuted group.

quote:

---

I mean, this isn't the usual group on babble crying anti-semitism when you say something bad about Israel. It's unionist, who always takes a strong stand on the side of anti-oppression and never cries wolf. If we want our allies to listen to and respect us, we have to listen to and respect them too.

---

[ 05 November 2007: Message edited by: Max Bialystock ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Max Bialystock:
Ohara how come I never see you denouncing anti-Muslim bigotry or sexism on this board? I guess you don't take what Alan Borovoy said to heed - fighting for justice for Jews means fighting for justice for all people.

---

Max, well seriously, I am denouncing your action in baiting ohara as sexism, unconscious, or otherwise, as you just don't have a right to bait and troll in the feminist forum, and that you think you do, says much.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Arabs males wear "Turbans" now. Even more enlightenment served up by you.

---

I was referring to the Tuaregs when I meant turban. The men there wear it for a religious reason (but apparently the women do not). Besides, some religious Arabs actually do wear turbans.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Its called kaffiyeh, and it is not a Turban:

---

Dude, I know what a kaffiyeh is, and guess what? You can use it as a turban! But getting back at the topic, unlike the hijab, it's not headgear mandated by religion. It's a political symbol representing Palestinian solidarity at most.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
But whats a little inaccuracy when you are ignorant on a grand scale? Just a drop in the bucket of the sea of misinformation you are promoting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Many utlitarian practices become enshrined as socially enforced cultural practices. It is obvious where veiling comes from, as a utilitarian cultural practice, and lets not forget that you are talking about Hijab, not only veiling, and clearly in Arabic culture men also wear head coverings as part of normal daily practice.

---

If veiling does come from a utilitarian practice, then how come men didn't adopt it in the same religious mandate to women? Do you even know the history of the hijab and the Islamic justifications for it? Besides, a cumbersome black abaya or chador, and niqab are hardly utilitarian, unless you consider it as a tool for misogynists to keep women isolated.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Stoning appears in the Torah, not in the Qur'an, for lighting a candle on Saturday, for example. In fact the only time stoning does appear in the Qur'an is when Mohammed applies the law of the Torah to an adulterous couple because they are Jewish. He applies the Judaic law, for Jews you see.

---

For Jews only? Not only is this a red herring but it's also bullshit. The more credible hadiths say otherwise; that rajm was a punishment used for specific crimes in Islam, which are still in use in Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Iran. And the fact that Muhammad actually condoned the stoning, regardless if he was following Islamic or Jewish law, is a good indicator that he was far from a saint.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
But lets get back to the Turbans. Why no outcry from you about the evils of men being obliged to wear Turbans in Sikh culture?

---

A good proportion of Sikh men actually do cut their hair, and therefore have no need to wear turbans. I haven't heard any backlash from the Sikh community about this subject, so it's safe to assume that their religion is chosen freely, compared to a great deal of women living the Islamic world.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
PS: None of your links work.

---

quote:

---

Dude, I know what a kaffiyeh is, and guess what? You can use it as a turban! But getting back at the topic, unlike the hijab, it's not headgear mandated by religion. It's a political symbol representing Palestinian solidarity at most.

---

Any piece of cloth, including Kaffiyeh can be worn as a Turban. But Arabs do not use it as such. Kaffiyeh is common headress worn by most Arabs, of the Levant, Syria, Iraq, and the Gulf Arabs. There is nothing particularly Palestinian about it. Its symbolic value as an symbol of resistance among Palestinians, is precisely because it is an emblem of traditional Arab culture.

What is unique about the Palestinian Kaffiyeh, as a symbol of Palestinian resitance is not the fact that it is a Kaffiyeh, but that it is a black Kaffiyeh. Presumably it is "black" because of its association as the colour of the Arab revolt that appears on most Arab flags, as the colour of war, and resistance, in traditional Arab society. Black headress is the traditional colour going back before the time of Mohammed for armies marching to war.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Elysium:

If veiling does come from a utilitarian practice, then how come men didn't adopt it in the same religious mandate to women? Do you even know the history of the hijab and the Islamic justifications for it? Besides, a cumbersome black abaya or chador, and niqab are hardly utilitarian, unless you consider it as a tool for misogynists to keep women isolated.

---

In fact the same religious authorties demand that men wear beards, and in the countries where such edicts are enforced by the law, it is also a legal compucntion. So in fact dress code is enforced for men as well as women.

quote:

---

For Jews only? Not only is this a red herring but it's also bullshit. The more credible hadiths say otherwise; that rajm was a punishment used for specific crimes in Islam, which are still in use in Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Iran. And the fact that Muhammad actually condoned the stoning, regardless if he was following Islamic or Jewish law, is a good indicator that he was far from a saint.

---

I am not arguing that Mohammed was a saint. What I am arguing is that there is nothing particularlly "Islamic" about stoning. One can see this by studying the Qur'an in comparison to the Torah. Fact is that stoning is not a very Islamic practice, except in that some Sunni religious doctrines apply it, while in fact it is an article of the law in the Torah. It is a very Middle Eastern punishment, that appear variously.

In fact the only time that Mohammed calls for it is specifically in order to enforce the Torah among Jews, as he is their governor at the time.

quote:

---

A good proportion of Sikh men actually do cut their hair, and therefore have no need to wear turbans. I haven't heard any backlash from the Sikh community about this subject, so it's safe to assume that their religion is chosen freely, compared to a great deal of women living the Islamic world.

---

In fact in 99.9 percent of all cases the only people I hear complaining about Hijab as and example of misogyny are non-Muslim people. I never hear Muslim women complain about it. In fact 99.9 percent of the comment favourably upon it. There is no great hue and cry coming from that quarter.

Cite please the general outcry from Muslim women complaining about being forced to wear Hijab, and that their religion is not "freely chosen", as in "a great deal of women living the Islamic world."

On the other hand, unlike your statement, which seems entirely made out of thin air. It is not safe to assume anything. You will find plenty of Sikh traditionalist who consider cutting ones hair sacraligious, it just so happens that there is no big media scare about the clash of civilizations and Sikh culture, except perhaps in India.

Sikh men wearing Turbans to keep their long hair tidy is fine, while Muslim women feeling compelled to wear Hijab in keeping with their religion, and keep their hair tidy, is the very height of misogyny according to you.

[ 04 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Both hijabi women and shaved head women told me that men started respecting them and their ideas more once they removed the overt sexual components of their dress or appearance.

---

I sense a deep prudishness in this point of view. If (straight) men are distracted by the beauty of women, isn't that a basic part of their humanity?

quote:

---

Fact is that stoning is not a very Islamic practice, except in that some Sunni religious doctrines apply it, while in fact it is an article of the law in the Torah.

---

quote:

---

A lot of people here have stated that the occurring misogyny in Islamic states is due to culture rather than religion. I disagree with this. Islam itself, based on Bedouin culture (the 'original' Arabs), is not just a religion, but also a way of life and society under a set of strict laws (sharia) to be followed.

---

I have pointed out that the Qur'an is actually a metamorphisis of existing monotheastic religions, such as Judaism and Christianity, imported and applied to pre-Islamice culture, as can be shown by the fact that it contains almost all of the traditional Christian and Jewish mythology. It is more or less a Readers Digest version of Christian and Jewish text, updated and disambiguated. Even the single example of Mohammed's use of stoning as punishment, where he is applying the law of the Torah, amongst his Jewish subjects, is a direct import from the Torah.

In fact, if one was going to assert a moral judgement based on the prevalence of barabric legal practices, it would seem that the Qur'an is a substantial advance from the Torah, which is rife with stoning as punishment, for everything from lighting a candle on Saturday, to committing adultery, whereas it does not appear as a punishment among Muslims at all.

[ 04 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Even the single example of Mohammed's use of stoning as punishment, where he is applying the law of the Torah, amongst his Jewish subjects, is a direct import from Judaism. [...]

In fact, if one was going to assert a moral judgement based on the prevalence of barabric legal practices, it would seem that the Qur'an is a substantial advance from the Torah, which is rife with stoning as punishment, for everything from lighting a candle on Saturday, to committing adultery, whereas it does not appear as a punishment among Muslims at all.

---

quote:

---

Is there some point to proving the moral superiority of ancient Islam over ancient Judaism

---

I don't personally like the underlying concept that women should feel they need to cover their faces because of how "men" are supposed to react, but like everything a people believe is "traditional" I think it should be up to them to decide what they will or won't follow. It only becomes a concern for other Canadians if its enforced by outside coercion or threat of violence; then civil authorities have a right to step in. It's really not that complicated.

The focus on this by Canadian conservatives however is IMV nothing more than ethnic chauvinism hiding behind the idea that only "Western" (Christian) nations are truly "free" and "equal". (or can be) (and therefore justified in invading those who aren't) This kind of two faced rhetoric is used all the time by the American right, nothing new either but not much justification for it in the sexist New Testament either.

[ 04 November 2007: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

Getting stoned, yes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Is there some point to proving the moral superiority of ancient Islam over ancient Judaism - now that you've made this point about half a dozen times?

---

Yes, considering that in the first instance Elysium was straying from his original point, which was that Islam is an extension of Bedouin tribal practices, and not a recasting of Jewish and Christian theology, and in the second, the train of logic was confused at the point that CMOT asked his question. Lets get this straight, Elysium was making the point that Jewish religious practices, and Christian religious practices were more civilized than Islamic practices. Islamic practices, he asserted did not have their origins in Judaic and Christian practice, but in Bedouin cultural traditions.

This is false.

I see not reason not to directly refute this comparison made by him, in particular in regard to the practice of stoning which is often wrongly associated with Islam specifically, when in fact, it hardly appears at all, in comparison to other religions of the same general origin, and which share the same liniage.

Lets get this straight, "stoning" as a punishment is no more an Islamic practic, than wearing turbans, is an Islamic practice.

Or perhaps you are making this point generally about my posting here on Babble? If that is the case, I wonder why you rehash continuously the same points reagarding the war in Afghanista, again and again and again.

[ 04 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

[ 04 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Lets get this straight, Elysium was making the point that Jewish religious practices, and Christian religious practices were more civilized than Islamic practices.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Is there some point to attacking me and supporting Elysium's view that Islam is inately more barbaric than Judaism and Christianity, and that it is not in fact a religion which directly shares a common ancestry, but is actually derived from Bedouin tribal practices, and that "stoning" is part of that practice?

---

[ 04 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Essentially, he is saying that Sharia is the inspiration for Islam.

If that is the case, then why is stoning hardly ever mentioned in the Qur'an, but appears frequently in the Torah? In fact, it appears as a specific reference to the Torah, and this in and of itself, yet again indicates that the Mohammed drew heavily upon the other two popular monotheastic religions for inspiration.

In fact, "stoning" is not practiced among the vast majority of Muslims, even among those who purport to be observing Sharia, and this is because there is very little basis for it in Hadith or the Qur'an itself.

Furthermore, he is completely ignoring the fact that the practice of Sharia in Saudi Arabia, and the other countries he mentions, where "stoning" is practiced, is actually the expression of modern Salafist/Whahabbist Islam which is basicly a 20th century invention based on the works of a single 19th century Islamic scholar.

In fact Salifism is as traditionally Islamic, as Zinoism is traditionally Jewish. Both of course claim they are true expressions of their religion in practice, but such claims are theologically tenuous.

[ 04 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Well it seems that you Erik, are in agreement with me, that Elysium is arguing that Islam is ontologically an outcropping of Bedouin culture, and Unionist is saying that he is not saying that. Why don't you guys sort it out.

---

Do you actually believe this is clever?

[ 04 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Why don't you guys sort it out.

---

It seems to me that Stalin was from the vein of European thinking. Secular humanist socialism, in other words. It seems to me that "humanism" as if it is naturally a good thing, gets bandied about quite a lot lately, despite is rather horrendous track record. To me, it appears to be not much more than Christian evangelical morality applied without the need for a god.

Actually we can discuss that here, if you like: Religion poisons everything - Hitchens

[ 04 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

I thought it was completely pointless needling, since he damned well knows where I stand on this issue, and knows that I am really talking about theological comparisons, and liniage of certain theolgical ideas-- not talking about how backward theological literalism is reified today, either in Judaism or Islam. In fact I think I have said as much as that IMO Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are for all intents and purposes the same religion, no matter how the adherents of the various sects like to bicker about their differences.

Frankly they are more the same than different. They certainly have more in common with each other than any of them do to Budhist or Hindu teachings.

But then again, if people like Elysium want to use "stoning" as some kind of meter of what makes a religion inately moral or not, the fact remains that there is a whole hell of a lot more stoning in the Torah than in the Qur'an, so people should think twice, dare I say, before casting the first stone, so to speak, particularly when demanding literalist interpretations be applied to ancient religious texts.

Or is that we are only allowed to apply these absolutist literalist interpretation in the case of Islam, and not Judaism? Is that the point being made. Frankly, I find this whole train of arguement regarding the literalist interpretation of Islam, and Islams real intent, its real meaning, its latent barbarism, its inate "bedouin" tribalist-primativist anti-modernist backwardness (as if the people who wrote the Bible and the Torah where not a few steps away from being pritive animists themselves, and instead some kind of "modernist" enlightenment philosophers) to be just as ignorant and distasteful as any of the so called "Chosen People" theological deconstructions made about Jews. Same thing, just a different target, albiet a socially acceptable one.

To me its just bigotry dressed up as anthropology and comparative theology.

But no I don't want to argue. I am actually interested in this subject of Humanism. I said if you want to go further into this discussion, and post repeatedly on it, then we could do it on another thread since it really has nothing to do with this topic at all.

[ 04 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

So it could be an interesting discussion to have sometime, comparing the two spectrums and where they might overlap as well as most definitely differ, but again, I could only describe what I myself consider as "humanist", and maybe to some extent what I see it arising from. It all began to me with the Renaissance breakthrough that we are the judge of our own world in practice, not some unknowable God. Not so different from post-modernism there. Right now though I still owe a couple other replies.

I will say this for now, I wouldn't blame "humanism" for modern hierarchal views, as they've always been central to settled cultures to some degree or another, with roots going all the way back to the apes, and I wouldn't take the word of Stalin on anything, except as another convenient justification for his crimes. The guy was a psychopathic liar after all.

[ 05 November 2007: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vision Artist:
I am an activist, and the end question after everything I read or see continues to swell in my head, “What can we actually do to change our social and world conditions?”

So you asked an important question: what methods can we use to command respect from men and make them approach us respectfully? What can we do about Male harassment, aggressiveness, and unwanted touching, advances, gaze, physicality?

---

For the last week, I have been mulling your comments over, and society in general, in regards to feminism, clothing, and female empowerment, or lack thereof.

So, I will start with the question:

quote:

---

“What can we actually do to change our social and world conditions?”

---

For me, the first step get ALL women to see, and thus to understand, woman's equality and attaining it, is the primary responsibility, and need. All to often "women's rights/plights" are shunted aside as being of lesser importance than any other plight, that faces, or was faced by, any given other segment of humanity. There is no greater injustice, socially, than the current, or past, plight of women.

Secondly, what I was driving at, in respect to clothing, and covering, being used as a tool to combat unwanted male attention, of any sort, or even being used gain male attention for that matter, is IMV, a passive aggressive response, as opposed to inner assertiveness manifesting itself. IMV, once a female truly understands that she is of equal value, it matters not the clothing/covering that is worn, she will be recognized as being able to conduct her own affairs, no matter what they are at any given moment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Or is that we are only allowed to apply these absolutist literalist interpretation in the case of Islam, and not Judaism? Is that the point being made.

---

Yup, that's it all right. Jewish bible: nice. Muslim bible: nasty. Good detective work, Cueball. I've pored over the thread without finding any hint of this, but you have apparently ferreted it out.

You appear to have forgotten that I (personally) have utter contempt for all three divisive, anti-human, anti-women, xenophobic anti-scientific superstitions known as Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, and find it hard to understand that modern human beings would divide themselves up based on "believing" one or another of these doctrines based on no evidence.

quote:

---

A lot of people here have stated that the occurring misogyny in Islamic states is due to culture rather than religion. I disagree with this. Islam itself, based on Bedouin culture (the 'original' Arabs), is not just a religion, but also a way of life and society under a set of strict laws (sharia) to be followed.

---

This is entirely in line with the "Islamist" writings of such as Daniel Pipes, Christopher Hitchens, Huntington, et al, and is the neo-conservative line, when promoted as anthropology and comparative theology: in a nutshell, it is pseudo scientific basket weaving designed to serve a political end.

Clearly the speaker is asserting that there is something unqiuely tyrranical about Islam, as opposed to other religions, especially in the context of women. Its not, yet another manifestation of Judaeo/Christian theology, but instead uniquely Bedouin Arab primitvist anti-modernist. This line directly removes Islam from that tradition, and makes it clearly "other." This is then couched in pseudo-anthropolgial comparative theology, of the kind we see when Wahida C.Valiante of the CIC does her number about recism is a Jewish invention based in the concept of the "Chosen People," which as I mentioned in the previous thread I think is essentially racist.

Lets keep in mind the speakers first reaction to "pink Hijab" day is that it is "disgusting that they (CIC) would encourage non-muslim women to wear hijabs."

Hijab: disgusting?

You seemed sensitive enough to come after Remind for her casual and general off-the-cuff mentioning of "choseness" in another thread, but do not seem so senstive to these same kinds of reductionist/literalist meta-interpretations of Islam even when pressed agressively.

[ 05 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Religion, in ALL of it's differing types, and it's artificial constructs has been a tool, throughout history, and still is today, of causing/sustaining the partriarchial model.

---

quote:

---

Any external wearing of "religious" symbology, does not empower, it sets one apart and says: "I am different and you must treat me so".

---

And just why would women be out of place in Riyadh wearign a pant suit? Aman certainly wouldn't be out of place wearing a business suit, now would he?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
You seemed sensitive enough to come after Remind for her casual and general off-the-cuff mentioning of "choseness" in another thread, but do not seem so senstive to these same kinds of reductionist/literalist meta-interpretations of Islam even when pressed agressively.

---

You are confused. I defend Muslims. I loathe Islam. I defend Jews. I abhor the Jewish religion. I stand up for the right of Christians to practise their faith. I consider their faith to be equivalent to a bad hangover.

If someone says that Al-Qaeda's actions are explainable in terms of the Qur'an, I condemn them.

If someone says that believers in Islam are more sexist than believers in Catholicism or Judaism, I call them liars and racists.

But I disagree, I think we can make judgements about religious texts, in terms of good things and bad things we can find within them. I just think that this has very little to do with how they are practiced, and that they are practiced in terms of the reigning social and cultrual norms of the society within which they operate, not based on the texts themselves. They are the source of justifications for authority, not the basis of the authority -- the texts serve the power, they are not the source of it. So therefore, trying to discern actual practice, based in the textual source, is as much charlantry, as that practiced by the authors of the texts themselves.

It is being argued here, more or less, that Islam is anti-modernist and backward. I disagree, the Qur'an is possibly the first modernist ideological text, combining an idealist theological ideology founded in Judeao-Christian tradition linked to a comprehensive poltical analysis, and direct call for society wide reform.

The seeds of this can be found both in the Torah and in the Bible, most notably Jesus Christ's revolt against the Roman Empire, and its puppet government, and the local elite, but the Qur'an, as I said before, clarifies this message, and disambiguates much of the mythology. This is one of the reasons, Jesus is such an important figure in the Qur'an.

[ 05 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

I, frankly, do not give a shit about any religious texts, nor any meta debate about them.

The ONLY thing that needs to be said, and realized, is that they all are used, by men, to control women, and prevent women from being empowered. Whether or not they explicite and say men should control women, or not, does not matter one iota, they are being used as a tool to do it anyway.

It all depends on circumstance.

And as for the whole idea that I am trying to control this thread, etc. I suggested that we continue this discussion somewhere else, so that you can do whatever it is you think you are doing in peace. Personally I am not sure that you are not simply hazing muslim women for being "prudes". But unfortunately no one seemed to want to oblige me in that offer.

See above. I even provided a link.

[ 05 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
I disagree. Certainly religions act to enforce male privilage, but they also act variously to enforce all kinds of social opression. Religions to not purely exist for the repression of women.

---

The most serious and continuous kind of social oppression has been, and is, that against women. And that it oppresses others is a by product IMV.

quote:

---

And as for the whole idea that I am trying to control this thread, etc. I suggested that we continue this discussion somewhere else, so that you can properly do your hazing of muslim women in peace.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

The most serious and continuous kind of social oppression has been, and is, that against women. And that it oppresses others is a by product IMV.

---

According to you. I disagree. For instance, it could easily be argued that the most serious and continous social opression has been, and is, that against gay people.

But again, I think that is social norms authorized by religious ideology.

[ 05 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
According to you.

---

quote:

---

I disagree.

---

quote:

---

For instance, it could easily be argued that the most serious and continous social opression has been, and is, that against gay people.

---

quote:

---

But again, I think that is social norms authorized by religious ideology.

---

Rome however, seems to mean different things to different people. Some say Rome is patriarchy, some say it is racism, some say it is economic opression, other imperialism, the only thing they share in common is their singular fixation on their own plight, and its resolution, which each and everyone of us must recognize as the primary source of all evil, or be part of the problem.

So-so solidarity.

[ 05 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

"gay men share equally the power of a patriarchial society,"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
That is such a dismissive load of pastiche bullshit to say about of a class of people who are routinely executed by their peers, and have been such, throughout most of history, in the name of patriarchal macho pride.

---

Cueball, there have been more women murdered and executed, because they are women, over the amounts of gay men. Say nothing of the numbers constantly living in poverty and suffering abuses.

However, what if I were to say that it could easily be argued that the most serious and continous social opression has been, and is, that against males who are routinely lined up for slaughter in the name of almost any ideology, religious or otherwise, as they fight their ridiculous wars.

I can really see now why wearing a Hijab, pink or otherwise, could be seen as an anti-opression statement.

[ 05 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
If you want to count up fatalities, it is possible that I could see how you could make your case, but going from that to "gay men share equally the power of a patriarchial society," is complete dismissal of the plight of gay people in the name of feminism.

---

No, it is not cueball, it saying that by far and wide the largest segment of society that is, and has been, oppressed and discriminated against is women.

quote:

---

However, what if I were to say that it could easily be argued that the most serious and continous social opression has been, and is, that against males who are routinely lined up for slaughter in the name of almost any ideology, religious or otherwise, as they fight their ridiculous wars.

---

quote:

---

I can really see now why wearing a Hijab, pink or otherwise, could be seen as an anti-opression statement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Really you think that women as a class are more opressed that gay people?

---

quote:

---

I can think of no religious movement that actually calls for the immediate execution of women, simple because they are women.

---

quote:

---

I could just as easily say that Heterosexual women "share equally the power of a hetero-sexist society".

---

But most importantly what is irritating about this discussion is the entire focus on a stupid piece of cloth as being eblematic of some kind of deeper opression of women to be found in Muslim cultures. This is a ridiculous discussion point.

If one wants to talk about oppression of women in muslim countries I think people should be talking about the real facts of that opression, such as arranged marriages (common in many muslim countries) or lack of access to economic independence, or lack of access to corridors of power in the governing structure, or the many areas where Muslim women struggle to assert themselves in a real way on a day to day basis, not this ridiculous issue of what amounts to fashion politics.

Why is this? Why is it that whenever people start talking about womens rights in Muslim societies, we end up talking about what is culurally different, and easily idenfiable as non-western, when if we really did discuss the real concrete issues that Muslim feminist women face in their societies we would end up talking about issues that are almost precisely the same as those that women here face on a day to day basis, in our so-called secular society, which has never, unlike Pakistan, ever elected a female to the highest political office in the country.

Benzier Bhutto, by the way, does wear Hijab, in a slighly cocky fashionable way, it is true, but she still does wear it. So much for the great and glorious superiority of western secularism and its cherrished support of womens rights. Obviously in Pakistan, there are enough men and women, (most of who are certainly Muslim, who are able to elect a woman to the office of Prime Minister) whereas the one example where a woman managed to achieve that office through the back door in this country was hounded out of office on a landslide of regressive sexist backlash. Yes, Bhutto was thrown out of office by military coup, but it is also clear there was enough politcal support to put a woman there in the first place. No such thing has ever been evidenced here, or in the United States.

And who organized and supported this coup in the first place? I know for a fact that the military government was recognized immediatly by the forces of the self-proclaimed champions of progressive secular morality, the United States of America.

Is the reason that we end up talking about this silly piece of cloth, because we would end up talking about exactly the same problems that face women here, and discover, well no, arranged marriage is not strictly a Muslim phenomena, and that much of the day to day symptoms of sexist opression of women faced by Muslim women, are not so far different than what women face here. In other words, would any deeper discussion, actually uncover the fact that if we talked about the reality of women's opression in the Muslim world, we would end up talking about ourselves, by necessity?

But yeah, lets talk about Hijab. It is safe. It is over there. It is someone else.

When I read men piously declaiming on the opression of Muslim women "forced" to wear Hijab, I can never escape the feeling that its an easy way for western men to establish their feminist credentials, while at the same time avoiding any self-examination whatsoever.

[ 05 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Hey Cueball, you do realize women are murdered, raped and beaten EVERY DAY right? Or are you still sticking with the gay males are more oppressed theme?

Gay men certainly do not share equally the power of patriarchal society, they are certainly and specifically opressed by it, while they may in certain aspects profit by it, just as other men do. But to simply dismiss opression of gay people out of hand on the basis that it is some kind of byproduct of patriarchal opression is as false as any marxist claiming that patriarchal opression is a by-product of class relations, and so therefore politically subservient, and even, dare I say irrelevant.

[ 05 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
No you can not count on me as an ally if you are going to assert that Patriarchal opression trumps all opression, as in "the most serious and continuous kind of social oppression has been, and is, that against women.

---

Frankly, you are not an ally, by your words and by your seeming unconcern, that fully half of the world's population is being oppressed, and that millions are being raped daily and thousands murdered, by MEN, day in and day out, and still thousands, if not millions, more women are more being beaten daily and have been for over 2000 years.

How dare you try to minimalize, as being less than, the oppression of gay men, and completely are able to ignore, what women, in the millions, are going through each and everyday. It is the most; numerous, serious and continuous, and there is NO debating it.

quote:

---

And that it oppresses others is a by product IMV," and this leads one to be able to assert that "gay men share equally the power of a patriarchial society," which is patently false.

---

quote:

---

Gay men certainly do not share equally the power of patriarchal society, they are certainly and specifically opressed by it,

---

quote:

---

while they may in certain aspects profit by it, just as other men do.

---

And then you have the unmitigated gall to say the following, when no one used the word "by-product", nor dismissed the opression of gay men, even.

quote:

---

But to simply dismiss opression of gay people out of hand on the basis that it is some kind of byproduct of patriarchal opression is as false

---

and the following is just blah blah blah!

quote:

---

as any marxist claiming that patriarchal opression is a by-product of class relations, and so therefore politically subservient, and even, dare I say irrelevant.

---

[ 05 November 2007: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Frankly, you are not an ally, by your words and by your seeming unconcern, that fully half of the world's population is being oppressed, and that millions are being raped daily and thousands murdered, by MEN, day in and day out, and still thousands, if not millions, more women are more being beaten daily and have been for over 2000 years.

---

And I am more than a little bit concerned that the obsession with Muslim headgear (not necessarily yours) is part and parcel of the construction of an patronizing media image of people who wear funny clothing, and who need to be saved from their backward ways and so can be slaughtered willy nilly in their thousands, men women and children on a weekly basis, right now, today, to totals which by some estimates are in the range of a million in the last four years.

My point Remind about gay men, is simply that if we look at the quality of opression as served out by religious leaders for gay people, it is far more directly opressive, metting out immediate execution for example simply for the fact of being gay. This is not a quantative analyisis. It may be that quantitively religion, and religious institution help authorize patriarchal structures which result in rape and murder of women, they do not directly (in most cases) order the rape and murder of women, just for being women, in fact they condemn it, for the most part.

On the other hand religious authorities, quite often directly sanction vigilante killings of gay men, simply for being gay. It was gay people who were first selected for the death camps, after the physically disabled, and guess what, gay convicts were not released after the war, either by Soviet or US authorities, but remained incarcerated for their crimes. No women were sent to Dachau because they were women.

Being a woman has never been in and of itself a crime, whereas being gay often has been defined as a crime. Again, this is a qualative difference in the nature of the opression. It is may very well be as I said above that quantatively women are more opressed, but the nature of that opression is different.

[ 05 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

[ 05 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
No its no just blah blah blah. Its precisely the form of argument used by Marxist to assert that their particular ideological analysis trumped any other ideological analysis, particularly ones relating the male hegemony and white racial hegemony, just in the manner that you are suggesting that feminist patriarchal analysis trumps all other ideological analysis.

---

We are NOT talking about an arguement here we are talking actual happenings that are of a more serious nature than the opression of gay men.

quote:

---

And I am more than a little bit concerned that the obsession with Muslim headgear is part and parcel of the construction of an patronizing media image of people who wear funny clothing, and who need to be saved from their backward ways and so can be slaughtered willy nilly in their thousands, men women and children on a weekly basis, right now, today, to totals which by some estimates are in the range of a million in the last four years.

---

Stop trying to say that because I do not agree with garmentry defining a woman as being supportive of this latest paternalistic war.

quote:

---

My point Remind about gay men, is simply that if we look at the quality of opression as served out by religious leaders for gay people, it is far more directly opressive, metting out immediate execution for example simply for the fact of being gay.

---

My point cueball about women, is simply that if we look at the quality of oppression as served out by religious leaders for women, it is far more directly oppressive, metting out immediate oppression murder and spousal abuse, for example, simply for the fact of being a woman.

quote:

---

This is not a quantative analyisis. It may be that quantitively religion, and religious institution help authorize patriarchal structures which result in rape and murder of women, they do not directly (in most cases) order the rape and murder of women, just for being women, in fact they condemn it, for the most part.

---

You tell me what churches in the western world order the nmurder of gay men? And if churches in the western world actually, condemned the abuses against women, and stopped saying/teaching that women are inferior, plus the root of evil, just maybe the abuses and sexism would stop.

Less than 100 years ago cueball, women where NOT people, though gay men were. You can give all the examples you want of how the gay men were/are oppressed mistreated and murdered, and you can say what you want about what religious leaders say, they also tell woman they are nothing from the pulpit, and thus tacitly support abuses against us, that we receive in far worse measure daily than what gay men do today.

[ 05 November 2007: Message edited by: remind ]

In fact, it very well could be that this obsessive objectification of Muslim women's funny clothing, is in fact, the patriarchaly motivated expression of imperial culture, which in fact enables the rape and slaughter of Muslim women, in the name of saving them.

And Remind, I edited my previous post to specifically exclude you from those who are obsessing about Muslim women's clothing. I can see that you are making an altogether different point. Sorry if you did not see that before you posted.

[ 05 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

I don't believe all opression begins and ends with patriarchy, and I don't believe that all opression begins and ends with capitalism, and I don't believe that all opression begins and ends with racist imperialist colonialism, in fact I agree with Bell Hooks, who talks about confronting white supremacist capitalist patriarchy:

quote:

---

I think that strategically, we have to start on all fronts. For example, I’m very concerned that there are not more Black women deeply committed to anti-capitalist politics. But one would have to understand the role that gender oppression plays in encouraging young Black females to think that they don’t need to study about capitalism. That they don’t need to read men who were my teachers like Walter Rodney, and Nkrumah, and Amilcar Cabral.

I think that as a girl who grew up in a patriarchal, working-class, Black, southern household there was a convergence of those issues of class and gender. I was acutely aware of my class, and I was acutely aware of the limitations imposed on me by gender. I wouldn’t be the committed worker for freedom that I am today had I not begun to oppose that gendered notion of learning that suggests that politics is the realm of males and that political thinking about anti-racist struggle and colonialism is for men.

I’m very much in favor of the kind of education for critical consciousness that says: Let’s not look at these thing separately. Let’s look at how they converge so that when we begin to take a stand against them, we can take that kind of strategic stance that allows us to be self-determining as a people struggling in a revolutionary way on all fronts.

---

quote:

---

I would disagree that my political standpoint begins with feminism. My political standpoint begins with the notion of Black self-determination. In order for me to engage in a revolutionary struggle for collective Black self-determination, I have to engage feminism because that becomes the vehicle by which I project myself as a female into the heart of the struggle, but the heart of the struggle does not begin with feminism. It begins with an understanding of domination and with a critique of domination in all its forms. I think it is, in fact, a danger to think of the starting point as being feminism.

---

As she says about Marxism:

quote:

---

Absolutely. I think Marxist thought--the work of people like Gramsci--is very crucial to educating ourselves for political consciousness. That doesn’t mean we have to take the sexism or the racism that comes out of those thinkers and disregard it. It means that we extract the resources from their thought that can be useful to us in struggle. A class rooted analysis is where I begin in all my work. The fact is that it was bourgeois white feminism that I was reacting against when I stood in my first women’s studies classes and said, "Black women have always worked." It was a class-biased challenge to the structure of feminism.

---

[ 05 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

And as for the whole idea that I am trying to control this thread, etc. I suggested that we continue this discussion somewhere else, so that you can properly do your hazing of muslim women in peace.

---

The mods will come along in due time. I don't generally send them e-mails unless there is a troll on board. I don't think you are a troll. I just think you are an extremely angry man with some sort of axe to grind.

If people want to think that all opression can be reduced to issues of patriarchy, they can do so, that doesn't mean I have to agree or that diagreeing diminishes the importance of issue relating to patriarchy, or that saying so makes one pro-patriarchy. Lets remember that this all starts because someone has decided religion is primarily about the opression of women, and that any other repression expressed in religions are secondary.

I don't agree. I think society uses many means, relgion is one, to effect many different types of repression, and its not all about non-stop patriarchy all the time.

[ 06 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

There are other lenses besides gender in which to understand women's oppression. Women of colour are not well served by a gender-only lens. I greatly respect Cueball's contributions, here and in other places on babble, and do not feel he's gone over the line.

Stargazer and remind, I also respect your contributions here, but historically this is one place where we often part. We don't always agree on feminism and the "primary-ness" of gender. Understanding patriarchal cultures in which I am an outsider, requires, for me, a deeper level of engagement than may be possible in this medium, as I too have internalized the Western dominance model that all must be measured against.

This thread has run its course and my opinion is that no further good will come of it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DavisMavis:
I just hate seeing arguments like this break out.

---