# Women's Rights



## Cobra (May 1, 2004)

*Women's Rights* 

[font=verdana, arial, helvetica]I live in a very diverse place. You can find just about every type of person that is in the world. Including Arabs with their vieled up women. I feel bad for those women, but it makes no sense why women are treated as seconds. Even in the Ku'ran, women are equals. So it must go beyond religion. If you think about also, it has nothing to do with politics either. Some extreme conservatives want women to be in the house and be banned from the workplace. While some extreme liberals think women are men's sex toys and that is all they are good for. So why are women considered lower than men? 

Some people say it is because they are weaker and built to be controlled by men. But if being weak was the case, humans wouldn't have never become the dominant species considering they are much stronger animals than us in the world. Not only that, but women seam to submit many times. Why is that? Are women created to be controlled by men? I don't think so, but many people in the world think so.[/font]


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 1, 2004)

Cobra said:
			
		

> *Women's Rights*
> 
> [font=verdana, arial, helvetica]I live in a very diverse place. You can find just about every type of person that is in the world. Including Arabs with their vieled up women. I feel bad for those women, but it makes no sense why women are treated as seconds. Even in the Ku'ran, women are equals. So it must go beyond religion. If you think about also, it has nothing to do with politics either. Some extreme conservatives want women to be in the house and be banned from the workplace. While some extreme liberals think women are men's sex toys and that is all they are good for. So why are women considered lower than men?
> 
> Some people say it is because they are weaker and built to be controlled by men. But if being weak was the case, humans wouldn't have never become the dominant species considering they are much stronger animals than us in the world. Not only that, but women seam to submit many times. Why is that? Are women created to be controlled by men? I don't think so, but many people in the world think so.[/font]


Arab culture is more about protecting women than suppressing them. The five paces behind thing was meant to give women a safe distance from whatever troubles their huband encountered. Also an Araab women who has not yet succom to cirumscision generaly feels dirty and out of place. So, Stop feeling bad for them. They are not under the impression they are oppressed. The attempt to keep their daughters from being westernized is a whole new ball of wax for them, but then again isn't the Eve, the forbidden fruit, and the garden of Eden what this is really all about?
Sean


----------



## Cobra (May 2, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Arab culture is more about protecting women than suppressing them. The five paces behind thing was meant to give women a safe distance from whatever troubles their huband encountered. Also an Araab women who has not yet succom to cirumscision generaly feels dirty and out of place. So, Stop feeling bad for them. They are not under the impression they are oppressed. The attempt to keep their daughters from being westernized is a whole new ball of wax for them, but then again isn't the Eve, the forbidden fruit, and the garden of Eden what this is really all about?
> Sean


The Garden of Eden is in Christianity, not Islam.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 2, 2004)

Oh, wow. I just learned that a) all "Arab," women, "succom {sic} to cirumscision;" b) women have only two choices, repression or sexual slavery.

To answer the question, "why are women considered lower than men?" It's because of the goofy ideas that men come up with.


----------



## MisterMike (May 2, 2004)

And as for the idea that "women are superior than men," that usually comes from leftist lesbian feminists.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 2, 2004)

Ya know, Mike, it's funny. I studied what you're pleased to call, "leftist lesbian feminist," criticism reasonably extensively, and I have never run across the notion of women being superior. Could you give details of EXACTLY what book, discussion, or person you're getting that from? Preferably without the invective?

Or is it just all the women who make the guy walk five steps behind them for their own protection, make 'em wear veils, and push the religious doctrines which say that men are inferior to women? Or wait--I know--it's all those women rapists and child molesters I keep hearing about on Montel Williams' show. That must be it.

What are guys so afraid of, anyway?

Betcha you can't give references about this lesbian feminist stuff.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 2, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Ya know, Mike, it's funny. I studied what you're pleased to call, "leftist lesbian feminist," criticism reasonably extensively, and I have never run across the notion of women being superior. Could you give details of EXACTLY what book, discussion, or person you're getting that from? Preferably without the invective?
> 
> Or is it just all the women who make the guy walk five steps behind them for their own protection, make 'em wear veils, and push the religious doctrines which say that men are inferior to women? Or wait--I know--it's all those women rapists and child molesters I keep hearing about on Montel Williams' show. That must be it.
> 
> ...




Ya dont watch too much TV do you? 

Im not talking pure trash entertainment either.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 2, 2004)

Cobra said:
			
		

> The Garden of Eden is in Christianity, not Islam.


That should be news to the jews. I was implying that its the oldest problem in the Book; however you bring up an interesting point. Hows that islamic creation story go again?
Sean


----------



## Cobra (May 2, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> That should be news to the jews. I was implying that its the oldest problem in the Book; however you bring up an interesting point. Hows that islamic creation story go again?
> Sean


Not sure, what islam's God created Earth. I'm do believe though that Christianity, Islam, and Judism are linked. There is know way to prove either of those religions are false, and they teach similar morals (pork for some reason is banned in Judism and Islam, how is that coincident happen?).


----------



## Cobra (May 2, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Oh, wow. I just learned that a) all "Arab," women, "succom {sic} to cirumscision;" b) women have only two choices, repression or sexual slavery.
> 
> To answer the question, "why are women considered lower than men?" It's because of the goofy ideas that men come up with.


That is true that it was an idea of men, but why didn't the women protest. Why is it only 200 years ago they started to instead of 9,000 years ago?


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 2, 2004)

Cobra said:
			
		

> Not sure, what islam's God created Earth. I'm do believe though that Christianity, Islam, and Judism are linked. There is know way to prove either of those religions are false, and they teach similar morals (pork for some reason is banned in Judism and Islam, how is that coincident happen?).


Its no coicidence they were the same people until Abraham (or Abrahim) had two sons that went their seperate ways. One of those sons are illistrated in the Koran as being the "father" of the Islamic people.
Sean


----------



## MisterMike (May 2, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Ya know, Mike, it's funny. I studied what you're pleased to call, "leftist lesbian feminist," criticism reasonably extensively, and I have never run across the notion of women being superior. Could you give details of EXACTLY what book, discussion, or person you're getting that from? Preferably without the invective?
> 
> Or is it just all the women who make the guy walk five steps behind them for their own protection, make 'em wear veils, and push the religious doctrines which say that men are inferior to women? Or wait--I know--it's all those women rapists and child molesters I keep hearing about on Montel Williams' show. That must be it.
> 
> ...



Well Robert, actually it was the polar opposite of what you wrote. If "women considered lower than men" came from the goofy ideas of men (and I assume they were conservative heterosexuals whom you can also quote for us) then I think it stands that leftist lesbian feminists are certainly behind an idea that goes beyond equality for women.


I'll post my examples shortly after yours.

Thanx!


----------



## MGM (May 2, 2004)

I have to say there is a great deal of irony in a thread about women argued over only by men.


Cobra,
I disagree that how and why women are treated a certain way has nothing to do with religion and politics. Both play a role, societies are largely formed based on the religion of the majority (or those in power) and the laws or civil ethics of the people in power.

 



			
				Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Arab culture is more about protecting women than suppressing them. The five paces behind thing was meant to give women a safe distance from whatever troubles their huband encountered. Also an Araab women who has not yet succom to cirumscision generaly feels dirty and out of place.
> Sean


TOD Sean,

Using the term Arab culture is an oversimplification. Is there really an "Arab culture"? There are a wide variety of social, political and religious views found within people and countries that can be labeled as Arab. Grouping them as only one singular minded society is wrong.

" Also an Araab women who has not yet succom to cirumscision generaly feels dirty and out of place."

I would like you to clarify your use of circumcision and the above statement in general. Officially only a man can be circumcised, are you referring to female genital mutilation? 


*If it is true that men are better than women because they are stronger, why aren't our sumo wrestlers in the government? *
*Kishida Toshiko*


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 2, 2004)

!. Well, yes, it is ironic.

2. Hey, Mike--I wasn't the one who made a claim that I couldn't support. But gee, Mike, if ya want examples of goofy remarks about women by men...are you reading this thread? As for the femninist theory, I recommend that you get a copy of Elaine Marks and Isabelle de Courtivron, "New French Feminisms," (New York: Shocken Books, 1981), an anthology that would give you a place to start. But you won't, will you? You'll just launch some remark about my character, or faggy intellectuals, or America/male-bashers...I don't mind that you don't know the ideas you're trashing. I do, however, object to your refusal to learn anything about them.

3. As for the other posters on this thread...I am rather enjoying the constellation of women/islam/"the jews" and the rest. Always good to see that those folks who wrote about the structure of male paranoia--and homophobia--didn't waste their time.


----------



## Cobra (May 3, 2004)

MGM said:
			
		

> I have to say there is a great deal of irony in a thread about women argued over only by men.
> 
> 
> Cobra,
> ...


Now calm down. No one believes that strenght determines who is in control. I said that in my making of this thread. If that was the case, elephants would be rulers of the world and humans would be near the bottom. It definatley has to do with mentality. Before 200 years ago, women viewed themselves too as lower than men. Only receant has the idea been chalenged and overrun, and only in developed countries.


----------



## MisterMike (May 3, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> !. Well, yes, it is ironic.





			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 2. Hey, Mike--I wasn't the one who made a claim that I couldn't support. But gee, Mike, if ya want examples of goofy remarks about women by men...are you reading this thread? As for the femninist theory, I recommend that you get a copy of Elaine Marks and Isabelle de Courtivron, "New French Feminisms," (New York: Shocken Books, 1981), an anthology that would give you a place to start. But you won't, will you? You'll just launch some remark about my character, or faggy intellectuals, or America/male-bashers...I don't mind that you don't know the ideas you're trashing. I do, however, object to your refusal to learn anything about them.



Nor was I. But it's clear that when people like yourself assume others imply things like "All", "None", "Always" and "Never" it's easy to get into disagreement. I didn't say that's what these "theories" represent, but rather these ideas of superiority certainly are born from some of it's representatives.

Isn't it funny that your assumtion of my next answer is in itself a remark on character and a tactic you frequently use yourself.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 3. As for the other posters on this thread...I am rather enjoying the constellation of women/islam/"the jews" and the rest. Always good to see that those folks who wrote about the structure of male paranoia--and homophobia--didn't waste their time.



I love it when the -phobia terms start flying...gotta chuckle at that.


----------



## someguy (May 3, 2004)

Why don't we kill peopel?  Everythin comes from religion.  Well alot does anyway.  Think about this for a second.  Then you will  realize that so many of your actions come from a religion.  Why do you not kill might have something to do with religion influencing society to not kill to often.  The roots of not killing probably go back to prehistoric times so it may be a bad example but I just finished anearly 3 hour final so go think of a better one for yourself.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 3, 2004)

MGM said:
			
		

> I have to say there is a great deal of irony in a thread about women argued over only by men.
> 
> 
> Cobra,
> ...


I'm going to go out on a limb here and proclaim that Aarabs do not call clitoral augmentation a mutilation; so, I think I was as clear as I needed to be. Last Months issue of Jane Magazine had a huge article about quasi medical proffessionals touring the US and accepting money to "mutilate" people's daughters. Interestingly enough some western women are now having the proceedure done to themselves. Go figure.
Sean


----------



## Nightingale (May 3, 2004)

I had an interesting conversationwith a college pal about why she chose to wear a head scarf... she said that wearing it was HER choice. Her family left it up to her as to how "western" she wished to be.  Her compromise was western clothes, but covered up wrist to ankle (jeans and a sweater), and the headscarf.  She said that covering one's head is what her religion believed was proper, and that it was her choice to accept that or not.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 3, 2004)

Oh, wow. 

Beautiful example of what Neil hertz identified as, "male anxiety under political pressure." (See his, "Medusa's Head," in a volume of "Representations" about  ten years  back...like  anybody's going to look this up and learn anything.)

Roughly in reverse order:

1. Sean--talking about what, "Arabs," do is pretty much the same as talking about what, "all white  people," do. It's a generalization. See Edward Said, "Orientalism."

2. Mike: I see that a) you haven't read the first two posts on this silly  thread, which generalized like crazy; b)  I see you haven't lived up to your own claim that you would offer precise references right after I did; c) all you need to do is avoid talking about women/jews/gay people together, and my remarks don't apply, but if you do, well, look up DeBeauvoir's concept of, "the Other;" d) I feel sure that rather than your reading what's actually being written and offering specifics, you'll duck out on both in favor of personal attack.

3. "Cobra," (perfect pseudonym for this topic; and yet people laugh at Freud), you are proceeding from a number of completely-false assumptions, the most salient of which at the moment are a) the assumption that women only started kvetching 200 years ago (try Christine de Pisan; try "Lysistrata," dude), and b) the assumption that women invented patriarchy.

This is, of course, an utterly-hopeless discussion. I couldn't begin to disentangle the spaghetti of racist, culturally-biased, and patriarchal theories off which some of you guys are operating (no, I didn't just call you all "racists," just the folks who lump all, "Arabs," together and make ridiculous claims about  what They All do)--but I have a minor interest in seeing just how whacky some of you will get.

So--keep a-goin.'


----------



## someguy (May 3, 2004)

I watched a movie where Said was talking about Orientalism.  Intresting stuff.  Can't remember much about it though.


----------



## MisterMike (May 3, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Oh, wow.
> 
> 
> 2. Mike: I see that a) you haven't read the first two posts on this silly  thread, which generalized like crazy; b)  I see you haven't lived up to your own claim that you would offer precise references right after I did; c) all you need to do is avoid talking about women/jews/gay people together, and my remarks don't apply, but if you do, well, look up DeBeauvoir's concept of, "the Other;" d) I feel sure that rather than your reading what's actually being written and offering specifics, you'll duck out on both in favor of personal attack.



a) So you offer these 2 threads in your defense. Some quote.
b) Ed Parker - "Everything has an opposite and reverse."
c) As soon as you stop talking about white men
d) I'm sure you'll continue to criticize but not offer anything substantive as usuall. I think you shut your head in one of those books.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 3, 2004)

Mike:

Yep, what I thought. Did you look back at the generalizations in the first two posts on THIS thread? Do  you agree with 'em?

Still waiting for you to give the promised references to these "lesbian feminist," arguments of the superiority of women.

I don't think you'll believe this--but I couldn't care less about disagreement. I do care about wild statements made without the slightest supporting proof or documentation. 

I realize will not go back and check, but the only reference I've made to, "white men," here was to point out that generalizing about them is just as silly as the other gross generalizations here.

But then, the folks who make these claims never do document, or support. basically--they can't.

Could  be wrong, of course. So show us all that I'm wrong...give your references, your facts. That's all it takes. Kinda like kenpo.


----------



## MGM (May 3, 2004)

Cobra,

I am calm dear; a little thread on the Internet is not something that will upset me.

I never said that you thought that physical strength was reasoning behind whom is in control. To say "no one believes that" is ridiculous, you can find someone some where that believes anything. 

I really do not know where to begin in your proclamation that "before 200 years ago, women viewed themselves too as lower than men. Only receant has the idea been chalenged and overrun, and only in developed countries.". First I think you need to study a bit more history, you will find that you are mistaken to make such a blanket statement. If you would like to discus the hows and why's you will need to narrow your discussion to a specific country or culture. Women have held widely different places and statures in societies and the discussion cant be simplified.

TOD,

I suggest you come in from your limb, you appear to be speaking on a subject you know little about.

Female genital mutilation is neither a traditional Arab practice nor an Islamic one; it started in Sub Saharan Africa and is still practiced by about 30 countries in Africa. It has been adopted by only a few countries that can be considered Arab Egypt, Oman, Yemen and the U.A.E.. The Quran does not call for female mutilation and the practice predates the religion. About 2 million girls are forced to undergo this form of torture each year many live in Christian countries. The majority of Arab women are not exposed to the expectation that they should undergo such a thing so I doubt they are left to "feel dirty and out of place". None of the Arabic women I have known felt that way.


----------



## MisterMike (May 3, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Mike:
> 
> Yep, what I thought. Did you look back at the generalizations in the first two posts on THIS thread? Do  you agree with 'em?
> 
> ...



Here's what YOU put:

To answer the question, "why are women considered lower than men?" It's because of the goofy ideas that men come up with.

..from which I presumed could include conservative heterosexuals, so my statement was the complete opposite:

That ideas of feminine superiority must come from leftist lesbian feminists. Just to show another example of a blanket statement like yours.

Some people need to relax....


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 3, 2004)

Um, Mike, you wrote about me always pickin' on them helpless, put-upon, "white men..." your words, not mine. 

Still waitin' on those, "lesbian feminist leftists," quotes, notes and references. The ones you claimed you'd post, remember? Or are we just relying on those "binary oppositions," I seem to recall you insuting me for mentioning on at least two other threads?

As for relaxing, well, I ain't the one who gets into a '57 Huffmobile every time these subjects come up. 

It's easy to discuss things, dude. Just say what you think, back it up with some sort of facts/references/citations, try to be polite and logical.

When people can't do that--and why people can't do that--well, I'd recommend reading the Hertz piece I already mentioned. It beautifully accounts for all this talk about, "cobras," all the worry of, "ciricuscision," and needing to, "relax," and the fantasy of, "shutting your head in one of those books." Yeez, and yet people laugh at Freud.

it's not that big a deal, you know. Just woofin' on the Internet.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 3, 2004)

MGM said:
			
		

> TOD,
> 
> I suggest you come in from your limb, you appear to be speaking on a subject you know little about.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cobra (May 3, 2004)

MGM said:
			
		

> Cobra,
> 
> I am calm dear; a little thread on the Internet is not something that will upset me.
> 
> ...


Most of the major civilizations (Europe, Middle East, Asia) have all had that idea. And it wasn't really chaleneged until Mary Wolfenscrat (I forgot her last name) in England started to start the idea in the mid 1700's. Basicly, Europe got the idea that "men are closer to God" and some parts in the Qu'ran say women are lower than men (I found that out recently), and Asia, well I don't even need to explain that place. The idea was universal and women even never chalenged that. The Middle East today strongly does it (especially Saudi Arabia) Does it mean women have never been in control? Now way. Many Muharajas in India were women.

Again, I don't have anything against women's rights, however, it seems strange that why women never rebelled a long time ago. It is probably because women are much more easily decieved, but that doesn't make them lower, because men have even more worse problems. If women want to gain equality in the world, they need to start bloody revolutions and stand up for themselves (like in the Middle east). Not that submissive. That is my oponion atleast.


----------



## Cobra (May 3, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Oh, wow.
> 
> "Cobra," (perfect pseudonym for this topic; and yet people laugh at Freud), you are proceeding from a number of completely-false assumptions, the most salient of which at the moment are a) the assumption that women only started kvetching 200 years ago (try Christine de Pisan; try "Lysistrata," dude), and b) the assumption that women invented patriarchy.
> 
> ...


There where women protesters before, but they never got that high in power because they never protested enough like how they startred to do in the 1800's. Women didn't invent patriarchy, they never opposed it is what I am saying. Men said "We are higher." Then women right away should of said "No, we are equal."


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 3, 2004)

Cobra said:
			
		

> There where women protesters before, but they never got that high in power because they never protested enough like how they startred to do in the 1800's. Women didn't invent patriarchy, they never opposed it is what I am saying. Men said "We are higher." Then women right away should of said "No, we are equal."


Have you ever heard the term gender role? The changes women made were more passive aggressive, however I see you believe womens equality is the ideal, but wages, sufferage, and the right to wear long pants were never an issue through out the centuries. Even menstral huts were considered a place of refuge, not exile. You're really being ethnocentric here.
Sean


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 3, 2004)

Nonsense. 

It's "Mary Wollestonecraft," who wrote, "A Vindicication of the Rights of Women," in 1798. I suggest that you take the good advice already given, and actually learn something--take a class, fer cripes' sake--on women's history, before you start yelling about it. Among other things, such a class might show you that these "bloody revolutions," you espouse aren't the only way to go. As well as pointing out that Wollestonecraft was far from the first woman to make these arguments.

As for the ridiculous remarks about, "Arabs," well, thank ahura-mazda that there is no violence, sexual violence, or physical mutilation of women in OUR advanced society.

Gettin' wackier, gentlemen. Thanks.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 3, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Nonsense.
> 
> It's "Mary Wollestonecraft," who wrote, "A Vindicication of the Rights of Women," in 1798. I suggest that you take the good advice already given, and actually learn something--take a class, fer cripes' sake--on women's history, before you start yelling about it. Among other things, such a class might show you that these "bloody revolutions," you espouse aren't the only way to go. As well as pointing out that Wollestonecraft was far from the first woman to make these arguments.
> 
> ...


What remarks are those, as I'm told on this thread I know prescious little about the topic. What do you consider riculous and wacky about what has been said about the Arabs?
I'm willing to learn :asian: 
Sean


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 3, 2004)

Well, as has several times been mentioned, the generalizations of saying, "Arab culture is more about protecting women than suppressing them. The five paces behind thing was meant to give women a safe distance from whatever troubles their huband encountered. Also an Araab women who has not yet succom to cirumscision generaly feels dirty and out of place. So, Stop feeling bad for them. They are not under the impression they are oppressed," strike me as pretty wacky.

You might want to read up on the situation--and the responses--of, "Arab," women under the Taliban.

But this doesn't have anything to do with reason and learning something, do it?


----------



## Cobra (May 4, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Have you ever heard the term gender role? The changes women made were more passive aggressive, however I see you believe womens equality is the ideal, but wages, sufferage, and the right to wear long pants were never an issue through out the centuries. Even menstral huts were considered a place of refuge, not exile. You're really being ethnocentric here.
> Sean


I said before that the real protest only hapenned in the last 200 years! About the time they declared all that stuff. 250 years to be a little more exact.


----------



## Cobra (May 4, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Nonsense.
> 
> It's "Mary Wollestonecraft," who wrote, "A Vindicication of the Rights of Women," in 1798. I suggest that you take the good advice already given, and actually learn something--take a class, fer cripes' sake--on women's history, before you start yelling about it. Among other things, such a class might show you that these "bloody revolutions," you espouse aren't the only way to go. As well as pointing out that Wollestonecraft was far from the first woman to make these arguments.
> 
> ...


Think of this. Men, like from the country of Saudi Arabia, are they just going to let women have rights if they ask them? Unlike America in the 1800's and 1900's, Arabs will probably shoot those women. When rights like that are abused, there is no choice but to start a war. If US never had a war, they would of never got their independance. When the opressors are exterme, war is the only way to get freedom. 

rmcrobertson, how is that wacky and dumb? You think that just because this thread is entitled "Women's Rights", that it is a thread written against women's rights. But it is NOT! Don't be so ignorant. If you can see that, then I take back what I said of you be ignorant. So, what is so wacky about talking about this issue?


----------



## someguy (May 4, 2004)

Freedom always has a cost.  Eventually if there is no freedom then it would come.  This is unless the people don't really want the freedom OR the don't see they aren't free.  There is more than one level of freedom.  How free are you really?  Can you go marry 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 women? No and thank heavens for that man think about how harsh that would be man.  (Just trying to lighten the mood don't kill me.)
Are we really free though? Nope not really.  If I go out there and run around naked then peopel will run away but eventually some one will get brave enough to arrest men.  They may want to be blinded first but still.
My point is this simply put We are as free as we think we are.  If we don't think we are free then we won't really be. Think about that before we go  around saying that person isn't free.  Poor them. 
Peace :asian:


----------



## someguy (May 4, 2004)

someguy said:
			
		

> Why don't we kill peopel?  Everythin comes from religion.  Well alot does anyway.  Think about this for a second.  Then you will  realize that so many of your actions come from a religion.  Why do you not kill might have something to do with religion influencing society to not kill to often.  The roots of not killing probably go back to prehistoric times so it may be a bad example but I just finished anearly 3 hour final so go think of a better one for yourself.


I'm quoting myself as some one gave me bad rep points because it diddn't make much sense.  Lemme try again but the way my minds working today I don't know if it will help.
Alot of our view are from religion. If religion say to do something we do it alot of the time if we belive strongly enough.  My point is mainly that these people are all oh no my freedom boohoo.  If you belive you will do.  If society is based on religion(all societies are even if they don't belive they are (I can go deeper into that if you want proof) then it is ten fold.  Your religion tells you so your society tells you so your society tells you your religion is right so you belive more storngly in your faith.
Ok that was a bunch of generalizations.  I doubt that made much sense.  If so sue me I'm done thinking for the week.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 4, 2004)

Uh...hate to mention reality, but our country supported what rapidly became the Taliban against the Russians, and supports the Saudis now. And, we did so/are doing so knowing their--attitude--towards women.


----------



## MisterMike (May 4, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Uh...hate to mention reality, but our country supported what rapidly became the Taliban against the Russians, and supports the Saudis now. And, we did so/are doing so knowing their--attitude--towards women.



Doesn't mean we support their --attitude--

Using the Afghan's as a pawn against Russia has little to do withhow they treat women and whether we support it.


----------



## MGM (May 4, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> I'll conceed that just under forty nations subscribe to FC(no skin off my nose). If you haven't noticed we call Iraquis and Iranians Aarabs as well; however they are not Aarab they are Persian. This is why Saddaam and The Iahtola Kohmeni( or whomever) have such a hard time uniting the Islamic world against the west in a Pan Aarab Aliance.


Exactly my point how do you define Arab? 



By countries strictly located in the Arabian Peninsula Kuwait, Yemen, Oman, UAE, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. 

By countries that speak Arabic as there official language Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Egypt, Kuwait, Somali, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Jordan, Oman, Sudan, Morocco, UAE, Tunisia, Libya, Saudi Arabia

There were many countries that were part of the Persian Empire at its height including parts of India, Egypt and Grease. Does that make all decedents in those areas Persian? Rome once controlled England; do you think the average Londoner considers her/himself to be Italian?

Ethnicity is complicated, wide swept generalizations and stereotypes give the effect of someone that knows little and wishes to learn nothing. How about self-identification, maybe it is just best to leave people to decide for themselves what they are.




			
				Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Americans used FC to control unruly teenagers until the forties; so, I know its is not Aarab specific.


Americans used Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) to control women in the USA right through the 70s along with forced sterilization of course that was just for the "insane" and Native Americans so the rest of the country seemed not to mind so much. 




			
				Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> You inductivly decided how Aarab women feel, because you know a few Aarab women,


Inductively means to come to a conclusion using logical reasoning or facts.

What you said

"Also an Araab women who has not yet succom to cirumscision generaly feels dirty and out of place."

What I said

"The majority of Arab women are not exposed to the expectation that they should undergo such a thing so I doubt they are left to "feel dirty and out of place". None of the Arabic women I have known felt that way. "

Since FGM is practiced by a very small minority of Arab peoples (use any just about any definition for the term) the majority of women are not expected to under go such a procedure there for I induced that it was unlikely they felt as you suggested especially since you referred to all Arab women everywhere.






			
				Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> The truth is peer, pressure is at play here. Imagine your mother, sister, aunts, geat aunts and grandmothers all are "defined" at least in part by this proceedure. It only makes sense that they would want to fit in, and be like your freinds and family. Regret comes from exposure to the west and how thing could have been had they not been born into the situation.


I absolutely agree that peer pressure and a sense of history play a huge role in the continuation of FGM. It is why it is so hard to stop, dozens of myths and superstitions abound in cultures that practice it. In some a women will be an outcast if she refuses or she will not be allowed to marry.

Exposure to the "West" is hardly the only reason some women may feel regret. How about death, chronic infections, infertility, increased risk of HIV infection, painful intercourse (for life), death of children during childbirth and fistulas to name a few.




			
				Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> This is why they call us the Great Satan, our way of thinking undermines their way of thinking.
> Sean


Here go the mass generalizations again. 

Who are they? Who is our? What way of thinking?

As far as Satan the Judaic  Christian Satan is not anything like the Islamic Satan.

 On a side note, isnt Jane a magazine for teenage girls?


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 4, 2004)

I'm wit' MGM.

And silly me. I thought we had a moral responsibility for the things we support as a nation, including idiocies like training the Taliban (in view of their treatment of women, which we knew about), supporting the Saudis, etc.

Among other things, looks like we'd do a helluva lot better--just practically speaking--if we actually imposed some more grounds on our foreign affairs. Because in the long run, our, "using Afghanistan as a pawn," has worked out so very, very well for us, hasn't it?

But hey, WE have no problems in the area of national attitude towards women. Why, if we did, we'd have symptomatic problems with weird stuff, like our military guards engaging in the sexual torture of prisoners. 

No chance you guys will, at any point, stop these goofy stereotypes and start looking at reality, eh?


----------



## Cobra (May 4, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I'm wit' MGM.
> 
> And silly me. I thought we had a moral responsibility for the things we support as a nation, including idiocies like training the Taliban (in view of their treatment of women, which we knew about), supporting the Saudis, etc.
> 
> ...


Why do you nitpick? You know what we mean when we say West. When you say latino for example it means South Americans Spanish Speaking World, it could well mean Brazilian too. But you know what they are talking about. Wether you like it or not the discriminate against Arab women. What does Arab mean? It means you are from Suadi Arabia. So quite getting so upset about the so called "stereotypes".


----------



## MGM (May 4, 2004)

Cobra said:
			
		

> Why do you nitpick? You know what we mean when we say West. When you say latino for example it means South Americans Spanish Speaking World, it could well mean Brazilian too.


What about Central America? How about Mexico? What about Belize and Guyana, English is the most spoken for both and in Guyana the second most spoken languages are Hindi based. How about people in the US that identify themselves as Latino?




			
				Cobra said:
			
		

> But you know what they are talking about. Wether you like it or not the discriminate against Arab women. What does Arab mean? It means you are from Suadi Arabia. So quite getting so upset about the so called "stereotypes".


 
"Wether you like it or not the discriminate against Arab women."
This sentence makes no sense. Please define exactly what or who "the" is.



The actor Keanu Reeves was born in Lebanon. Is he Lebanese? Is he Arab? 

The stunt man Greg Campbell was born in Saudi Arabia. According to your reasoning he is Arab, is he?

The actress Lisa Eilbacher and her sister but her name escapes me were both born in Saudi Arabia. Are they Arabs?

The problem with stereotypes is they are almost always wrong.


----------



## MGM (May 4, 2004)

_



			Most of the major civilizations (Europe, Middle East, Asia) have all had that idea. And it wasn't really chaleneged until Mary Wolfenscrat (I forgot her last name) in England started to start the idea in the mid 1700's. Basicly, Europe got the idea that "men are closer to God" and some parts in the Qu'ran say women are lower than men (I found that out recently), and Asia, well I don't even need to explain that place. The idea was universal and women even never chalenged that. The Middle East today strongly does it (especially Saudi Arabia) Does it mean women have never been in control? Now way. Many Muharajas in India were women.

Again, I don't have anything against women's rights, however, it seems strange that why women never rebelled a long time ago. It is probably because women are much more easily decieved, but that doesn't make them lower, because men have even more worse problems. If women want to gain equality in the world, they need to start bloody revolutions and stand up for themselves (like in the Middle east). Not that submissive. That is my oponion atleast. There where women protesters before, but they never got that high in power because they never protested enough like how they startred to do in the 1800's. Women didn't invent patriarchy, they never opposed it is what I am saying. Men said "We are higher." Then women right away should of said "No, we are equal."
		
Click to expand...

_


> _I said before that the real protest only hapenned in the last 200 years! About the time they declared all that stuff. 250 years to be a little more exact.Think of this. Men, like from the country of Saudi Arabia, are they just going to let women have rights if they ask them? Unlike America in the 1800's and 1900's, Arabs will probably shoot those women. When rights like that are abused, there is no choice but to start a war. If US never had a war, they would of never got their independance. When the opressors are exterme, war is the only way to get freedom.
> 
> rmcrobertson, how is that wacky and dumb? You think that just because this thread is entitled "Women's Rights", that it is a thread written against women's rights. But it is NOT! Don't be so ignorant. If you can see that, then I take back what I said of you be ignorant. So, what is so wacky about talking about this issue?_


 

 


It is very hard to follow any of your posts your sentences are often totally lacking form, reason and are often incomplete. A small bit of proof reading on your part before you post may help. My sentence structure and grammar tend to be horrible also, I am dyslexic so writing is difficult. But I make an attempt to be clear.
Your statements for the most part are so far fetched it is really impossible to respond to them. You seem to be lacking a great deal of basic knowledge of history of each country or culture you bring up.

If you would like to pick a country or culture to discuss womens rights we may actually be able to have a conversation.  

"Yes, I am fond of history."
"I wish I were too. I read it a little as a duty, but it tells me nothing that does not either vex or weary me. The quarrels of popes and kings, with wars or pestilences, in every page; the men all so good for nothing, and hardly any women at all -- it is very tiresome:"

by Jane Austen c1800_ 



__ 

_


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 4, 2004)

MGM said:
			
		

> Exactly my point how do you define Arab?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


First of all Jane Magazine is sent to my home for free every month due to a law suit we won against a Magazine distribution company and yes I look at the semi nude photos and read the occassional article. After all I get it for free, its part of my life now; deal with it.
I haven't generalized that the US and the west are considered infidels and even get the nickname Great Satan (great deciever) to the islamic world. I was using the term arab as I hear the news use the term arab, very broad and very general? yes. would non western people whom aren't chinese, Bushman, or Indian suffice or do I need forty different names to make you happy? how about "them". :uhyeah: 
Sean


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 4, 2004)

The remarkable thing about stereotypes is that people don't seem to mind them, as long as they're applied to someone else. For example, one of the interesting things about, "external," vs. "internal," martial  arts, according to Donn Draeger, is that it started out as a way of defininf "non-Chinese," vs. "Chinese," arts.

Forty different names or more would be excellent. That way, we'd know what we're talking about, white man.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 4, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> The remarkable thing about stereotypes is that people don't seem to mind them, as long as they're applied to someone else. For example, one of the interesting things about, "external," vs. "internal," martial  arts, according to Donn Draeger, is that it started out as a way of defininf "non-Chinese," vs. "Chinese," arts.
> 
> Forty different names or more would be excellent. That way, we'd know what we're talking about, white man.


Who you callin' white man?... Oh, never mind.


----------



## Cruentus (May 5, 2004)

MGM said:
			
		

> It is very hard to follow any of your posts your sentences are often totally lacking form, reason and are often incomplete. A small bit of proof reading on your part before you post may help. My sentence structure and grammar tend to be horrible also, I am dyslexic so writing is difficult. But I make an attempt to be clear.
> Your statements for the most part are so far fetched it is really impossible to respond to them. You seem to be lacking a great deal of basic knowledge of history of each country or culture you bring up.
> 
> If you would like to pick a country or culture to discuss womens rights we may actually be able to have a conversation.
> ...



I wouldn't hammer him too badly. The problem is that "Cobra" is about 13 or 14 years old, has a tendency to get caught up and fantasy, and is trying to have a conversation with adults while posing as an adult. That's the real problem. Eh...what-R-U-Gonna DO?  :idunno:


----------



## Cryozombie (May 5, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> The remarkable thing about stereotypes is that people don't seem to mind them, as long as they're applied to someone else. For example, one of the interesting things about, "external," vs. "internal," martial  arts, according to Donn Draeger, is that it started out as a way of defininf "non-Chinese," vs. "Chinese," arts.
> 
> Forty different names or more would be excellent. That way, we'd know what we're talking about, white man.



RIIIIIIIGHT...

Heaven forbid someone would call "us" westerners... or North Americans... 

I am confused tho.  Just like people use the term "Asian" to describe Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, etc etc etc... No one seems to get upset about that, so why be so up in arms about the broad use of "Arab" or "Arabic" to describe the countries of the middle east?


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 5, 2004)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> RIIIIIIIGHT...
> 
> Heaven forbid someone would call "us" westerners... or North Americans...
> 
> I am confused tho.  Just like people use the term "Asian" to describe Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, etc etc etc... No one seems to get upset about that, so why be so up in arms about the broad use of "Arab" or "Arabic" to describe the countries of the middle east?


Didn't you read the books Robert suggested? They outline those reasons perfectly, but perhaps he will enlighten us illiteratti.
Sean


----------



## Cobra (May 5, 2004)

MGM said:
			
		

> It is very hard to follow any of your posts your sentences are often totally lacking form, reason and are often incomplete. A small bit of proof reading on your part before you post may help. My sentence structure and grammar tend to be horrible also, I am dyslexic so writing is difficult. But I make an attempt to be clear.
> Your statements for the most part are so far fetched it is really impossible to respond to them. You seem to be lacking a great deal of basic knowledge of history of each country or culture you bring up.
> 
> If you would like to pick a country or culture to discuss womens rights we may actually be able to have a conversation.
> ...


I know my history, probably better than you. It is true that in the past before 1700's there were women's rights activists, but they were never organized like they were in the last 200 years.

You can't understand me? Well I apologize, I type very fast and mispell words. Surely you can still understand, can't you? I've never had a problem before with people understanding what I am saying, it doesn't take rocket science to understand either. Maybe it is your understaning skills that might need work and not my grammer skills. In anycase I can understand why nitpick my grammer, you like to nitpick about stereotypes too. When someone says south, they arn't going to mean Magastopiline, a star south of our planet, there going to mean south in our planet. South can many meanings too right?


----------



## Cobra (May 5, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> I wouldn't hammer him too badly. The problem is that "Cobra" is about 13 or 14 years old, has a tendency to get caught up and fantasy, and is trying to have a conversation with adults while posing as an adult. That's the real problem. Eh...what-R-U-Gonna DO? :idunno:


What is your problem. First of all you don't know my age. Second, I thought you were going to go all over where I am posting an hound me of your oponion of me? I thought you had a.......life.What do you have against me? Even MJS stopped, why don't you? I thought that was all over with? What is wrong with you? You must have a lot of enemies in your life, and keep a lot of grudges.


----------



## Cruentus (May 5, 2004)

Cobra said:
			
		

> What is your problem. First of all you don't know my age. Second, I thought you were going to go all over where I am posting an hound me of your oponion of me? I thought you had a.......life.What do you have against me? Even MJS stopped, why don't you? I thought that was all over with? What is wrong with you? You must have a lot of enemies in your life, and keep a lot of grudges.



This has nothing to do with the "animal" threads, I am not chasing you. You create problems for yourself in just about every thread. I stated what I think the problem is. I don't consider you an enemy, I am just stating what I believe to be true. Can you prove me wrong?

How about this, Cobra...how old are you?

This outta get even more interesting then it already has been...


----------



## Cobra (May 5, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> This has nothing to do with the "animal" threads, I am not chasing you. You create problems for yourself in just about every thread. I stated what I think the problem is. I don't consider you an enemy, I am just stating what I believe to be true. Can you prove me wrong?
> 
> How about this, Cobra...how old are you?
> 
> This outta get even more interesting then it already has been...


Really, I do? Of every thread I particapated in, which ones I created so called made trouble for myself? Some trouble came from the animal threads and the groin and eyes one, but what besides that? I have written a lot of threads, and none of those other ones I have problems with yet, unless you come in. Me and MGM has a disagreement on something. How is that trouble anyways? I think it well has to do with the animal threads. I typed really fast in that post, she misunderstood me, how do you call that trouble?

My age, why do you want to know that? You assume just because I type fast and messed up on a few posts on this thread that I am some preteen? Anyway, I think that seems a little too personal question for me, but I am under 30 and that is all I'm saying.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 6, 2004)

My goodness, it'd sure be horrible if we all read and learned more.

The problem with labelling radically different people, with different languages and histories and religious beliefs, "Arabs," is that it's ridiculously inaccurate. 

And LOTS of people--as well as critics--have pointed out that lumping "Asians," together is equally ridiculous.

At least "Cobra's," moving his dates back. He started with claiming that there were no women activists before 1800--we're already back to 1700, which is progress.


----------



## Cobra (May 6, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> My goodness, it'd sure be horrible if we all read and learned more.
> At least "Cobra's," moving his dates back. He started with claiming that there were no women activists before 1800--we're already back to 1700, which is progress.



No, I said before that there was women activist before even the 1700's in one of my threads, but they weren't as organized as they were in the 1800's.


----------



## Cruentus (May 6, 2004)

Cobra said:
			
		

> Really, I do? Of every thread I particapated in, which ones I created so called made trouble for myself? Some trouble came from the animal threads and the groin and eyes one, but what besides that? I have written a lot of threads, and none of those other ones I have problems with yet, unless you come in. Me and MGM has a disagreement on something. How is that trouble anyways? I think it well has to do with the animal threads. I typed really fast in that post, she misunderstood me, how do you call that trouble?
> 
> My age, why do you want to know that? You assume just because I type fast and messed up on a few posts on this thread that I am some preteen? Anyway, I think that seems a little too personal question for me, but I am under 30 and that is all I'm saying.



Alright, Cobra, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. It was a little general of me to say that in "just about every thread" you have caused yourself trouble. It sure seems that way, but I am to lazy to do a search on your name to find out. Let's just say that in more then one thread, you have caused yourself trouble.

Now, how do i know your age? Well, I am not psychic, but I did work in the school system for over 5 years. I worked with kids of every age. If I were to guess your age based on your writing samples here, I'd guess 13 or 14. This isn't an insult, as there is nothing wrong with being of a younger age. I think that you cause yourself a problem, though, when you get on forums with people like Robert (who has a PHd and teaches at a college), attempting to present yourself like an educated adult who knows everything. I am just saying that if you slowed it down a bit, you might be better off. Plus, if you admitted your age, then adults would take that into account and wouldn't drop the hammer on you so readily. Just a suggestion.

I say be a real person and fill out your profile. Also, be a humble person and listen more then you speak. You'll save yourself a lot of embarassment. Take it from me...I have embarrassed myself on more then one occassion by speaking before listening.

Anyways, I apologize for bringing it up. Sorry, dude... I will admit that was a little D**kheadish of me to do so, so I'll drop the subject if you will.

PAUL

P.S. I also can recognize younger people because I have the sense of humor of a 5 year old. If you say "Doodie" I'll probably laugh. But that is a different conversation.  :roflmao:


----------



## Cryozombie (May 6, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> The problem with labelling radically different people, with different languages and histories and religious beliefs, "Arabs," is that it's ridiculously inaccurate.



By that same argument, Cannot the same be said about calling us "Americans"

Many "Americans" speak spanish, polish, etc... Come from varied histories, and many many religious beliefs... So by your argument Lumping us all as "Westerners" or "Americans" is wrong.

From this day forward I demand all reference to me be done as "citizen of Irish-german immagrant decent living in the United states of america, in the state of Illinios." 

Nah, that seems equally ridiculous.  Call me westerner.


----------



## Cobra (May 6, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Alright, Cobra, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. It was a little general of me to say that in "just about every thread" you have caused yourself trouble. It sure seems that way, but I am to lazy to do a search on your name to find out. Let's just say that in more then one thread, you have caused yourself trouble.
> 
> Now, how do i know your age? Well, I am not psychic, but I did work in the school system for over 5 years. I worked with kids of every age. If I were to guess your age based on your writing samples here, I'd guess 13 or 14. This isn't an insult, as there is nothing wrong with being of a younger age. I think that you cause yourself a problem, though, when you get on forums with people like Robert (who has a PHd and teaches at a college), attempting to present yourself like an educated adult who knows everything. I am just saying that if you slowed it down a bit, you might be better off. Plus, if you admitted your age, then adults would take that into account and wouldn't drop the hammer on you so readily. Just a suggestion.
> 
> ...


The only trouble I have really had on these forums, was with the animal forums. No other. MGM couldn't understand my writing, that is it. I type fast, that is the reason.

I think it is a little personal for you to ask, but make sure you don't really think it, my real age is 17. You may thinking, "Oh he has bad grammer," but I type really fast like I said before. I may forget to add re to there instead making the, it happens. You have never made typos? But I started this forum for the reason of seeing what other people had to say. I might have a different view, so there is going to be disagreements or arguments, but that does not mean i created trouble for myself.


----------



## someguy (May 12, 2004)

All of us have been misuderstood at some point I'm sure.  It happens.  
I have it happen more than some people.  Somedays I son't make much sense myself but thats life.  If a person says what I said doesn't make much sense I try to clarify myself.  I'm sure some of my points are taken in a differnt manner than I intended.  
If this doesn't make much sense its probably because I have been helping my brother write a video game.  I study history not Computer Science so my    brain < dirt right now.


----------



## heretic888 (May 13, 2004)

> So why are women considered lower than men?



I'd say its cultural carry-overs from the patriarchal values that the West held for centuries. Remember, just because we more or less 'consensually' hold to gender egalitarianism now doesn't mean sexual discrimination will just vanish overnight (or in 30 years, even). There was slavery in the United States almost 100 years after the principles of human equality and dignity were brought forth in the Constitution. And we still have racism to this very day.

Real progress always takes time. And a lot of it.

As to why these patriarchal values popped up across the world in the first place, well that's a very complex issue. I can't buy into the "men forced it on all the women" angle, as this necessarily implies women _are_ in fact inferior to men --- a conclusion I do not accept. 

The simple historical truth is that there have always been just as many, or slightly more, women than men in history. And, since we don't have any historical proof of the Great Gender War in which men physically forced women into submission, the only way one can buy this "forced oppression" angle is if one accepts that women are somehow inherently less intelligent than men --- a repugnant notion. 

The entire notion portraying women as being collectively "brainwashed" by the patriarchy not only paints men as pigs, but women as sheep. Now, is this very likely?? Of course not. A much more likely scenario was that men and women of all times and places _co-created_ the societal forms of their cultures. And, when a societal form is more or less no longer needed, then it is let go (this was one of the primary reasons why slavery was finally rejected by the United States in the 1800's --- the industrial revolution).

Of course, sometimes, this process of "letting go" requires a revolution of sorts. Sometimes, even war.

Its something to think about, at the very least.


----------

