Women's Rights

[someguy]

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

 

[MisterMike]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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. Americans used FC to control unruly teenagers until the forties; so, I know its is not Aarab specific. You inductivly decided how Aarab women feel, because you know a few Aarab women, 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. This is why they call us the Great Satan, our way of thinking undermines their way of thinking.
Sean

 

[Cobra]

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.

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]

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.

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.'

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?