I am curious about something....

[Doc]

Ashock:
For a view of how folks can handle situations in very different ways: Malcom X and Martin Luther King Jr.  "By any means neccesary" vs. "Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal."

Both men were working for a much needed change, just from different angles.  I feel both men and their views were neccesary to the civil rights movement.  Some folks will only respect the need to change when you give 'em a good smack upside the head.  Also, if everyone that wanted change was militant about it I doubt that there would have been a positive outcome.  Sort of like the difference between having a bus boycott and firebombing all the busses.

Gekko:
They may not deserve to be shot but, if it's a choice between them blowing themselves up in an open-air market and shooting them if the opportunity presents itself, I will pull the trigger myself.  (And odds are good that next year I will be in that situation.)  I would much rather go after the leaders of the groups that enable this type of behavior and shut them down but their minions need to be taken care of too.  And by "taken care of" I don't neccesarily mean liquidating them.
[right][snapback]80473[/snapback][/right]

May God be with you and be a lamp unto your feet where ever you may go. Do what you must when you must. Have mercy when you can, and conviction to do the right thing when it's needed. Good luck.

[jahcs]

May God be with you and be a lamp unto your feet where ever you may go. Do what you must when you must. Have mercy when you can, and conviction to do the right thing when it's needed. Good luck.
[right][snapback]80474[/snapback][/right]

Thanks Doc. It means a lot to me. I will share your wise words as I can.

[Occhidiangela]

MLK and Malcom X comparison you made.
[right][snapback]80474[/snapback][/right]

Doc, we agree. Without the implied threat of the less moderate factions, MLK's message may not have gotten across as well as it did. I regret to observe that it has been forgotten by far too many as of this writing.

Occhi

[Ashock]

Ashock:
For a view of how folks can handle situations in very different ways: Malcom X and Martin Luther King Jr.  "By any means neccesary" vs. "Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal."

Both men were working for a much needed change, just from different angles.  I feel both men and their views were neccesary to the civil rights movement.  Some folks will only respect the need to change when you give 'em a good smack upside the head.  Also, if everyone that wanted change was militant about it I doubt that there would have been a positive outcome.  Sort of like the difference between having a bus boycott and firebombing all the busses.

[right][snapback]80473[/snapback][/right]

MLK and MX lived under very difficult circumstances, no doubt. However, comparing the government that they lived under and the current and pretty much historical regimes under Islam, is apples and oranges. Upon uttering their first discontented voices, MLK and MX would have been killed. Period. Don't compare.



-A

[Doc]

Thanks Doc.  It means a lot to me.  I will share your wise words as I can.
[right][snapback]80476[/snapback][/right]

If you go off to where ever it is you are going and don't come back, I am going to track you down in whatever afterlife there is and give you a STERN lecture...

People remember the hero, but survivors get to come home. If you can do both at the same time, so be it.

God, just what I need, another worry.

Worrying about Occhi over there put gray hairs in my beard.

DON'T GO DOING ANYTHING BONE HEADED!

[Minionman]

What I wonder is: is it necessary for the "rights" of women in Islamic societies to change? 

Does anyone blame the leadership of Islamic societies for being violentlly bitter about what they see as coercive attempts to upset their social order?  I won't say I agree with their cultural set up, I don't, but I do understand their emotional reaction to what they see as outsiders messing with their way of life.

I note that we had a vicious civil war over something along those lines.  The culture war between "modernism" and "traditional Islam" and even "traditional Hindu" culture is hardly over.  And it is very much a war.
[right][snapback]80427[/snapback][/right]

There's a difference between keeping a culture because its useful for something, and keeping it just to be spiteful. These countries, and people in them, seems to be loosing out long term from parts of its culture. These reactions are more along the lines of keeping a thousand or so year old grudge and holding on to traditions because they're there, rather than keeping cultural traditions because they are useful for something. In my view, neither of those reasons gets respect.

About the U.S. civil war, I have a pretty similar opinion. The powerful southern guys had been loosing out in a number of ways over a number of years, and could tell for awhile that they were, but didn't use the power they had to make useful changes to the economy, slavery, and such, and instead stuck on to traditions just to stick to traditions. Either of those situations I see also as one group of people not adapting when they needed too, and trying to drag other groups down with them.

[Minionman]

Yes, this is not something new. However, it is something that happens relatively regularly in that type of culture and I was just using it as an example. My original post asked about non-Muslim females. It did not ask about violence in Islam. That is beyond arguing about anyway, and I do not want to argue about this, since that is pointless. What is competely irrefutable, is that females in Islam are treated worse, much worse than second class citizens. The comparisons between the west of 50-60 years ago and Islam of today are complete garbage, as women in muslim societies don't just have less rights, they have no rights, and it does not look like things are going to change without intervention.

I've read arguments about why Islam is or is not ..... [insert whatever]. I still have not heard arguments as to why any sane Western female would support that culture, considering that if they were a part of it, they would be on par with a cow.... maybe. Not that I was expecting any.
[right][snapback]80422[/snapback][/right]

You are confuaing the religious part of the culture with other parts of the culture, whcih is what peopel are coming down on you for. Whatever any religious book says or not, if a society has developed so that these things are allowed ,they will be allowed, if not, than not. Similar things, as I've said before, happen in non-nuslim areas nearby, with the chinese baby girl killings for instance, not based on religion but based on older traditions. Muslim law may say what it does, but it still takes a leader/tradition to get people to follow through on that.

About western females defending it, its a symbolic issue in a lot of cases it seems. Again, if one of these people were asked to live in Pakistan, they would probably saw no.

[jahcs]

MLK and MX lived under very difficult circumstances, no doubt. However, comparing the government that they lived under and the current and pretty much historical regimes under Islam, is apples and oranges. Upon uttering their first discontented voices, MLK and MX would have been killed. Period. Don't compare.
-A
[right][snapback]80480[/snapback][/right]

I wasn't comparing the government they lived under with the original news story, but an example of 2 different people dealing with similar situations in very different ways. It was an attempt to discuss the point Gekko and you brought up about "what would you do in their shoes." If you don't like The MalcomX and the MLK example look at Ghandi, the Hebrews under the Egyptians, the Jews and Christians under the Romans, the French under the Nazis... History is full of the repressed and suppressed. Choose whatever examples you wish. Mine was chosen to show that non-violent and violent viewpoints can arise from the same scenario.

Upon uttering their first discontented voices, MLK and MX would have been killed. Period. Don't compare.

Even a whisper, if uttered often enough can create change. It may take more time, it may involve more risk, but it can be done. Or you can attempt to flee and enlist outside help.

[Ashock]

Even a whisper, if uttered often enough can create change.  It may take more time, it may involve more risk, but it can be done.  Or you can attempt to flee and enlist outside help.
[right][snapback]80486[/snapback][/right]

C'mon now, you don't really believe that, do you? Yeh, a whisper in the US or Europe (well, still in Europe), but there? Bah, you just can't imagine that things can be that different somewhere else. They are, you know. But no, you don't know.



-A

[gekko]

C'mon now, you don't really believe that, do you? Yeh, a whisper in the US or Europe (well, still in Europe), but there? Bah, you just can't imagine that things can be that different somewhere else. They are, you know. But no, you don't know.
-A
[right][snapback]80492[/snapback][/right]

Well, let's think on this for a second. Martin Luther King has been mentioned in this thread, so let's start with him. I'm certain that when he began his crusade for equality and justice, there were a whole lot of people, from many different perspectives, who were quite certain that he was just a whisper, and couldn't make even the tinniest difference.

And speaking of crusades, let's talk about the crusades. You know, there was a time where it was expected that as a good christian, you went to war to slaughter the infidels and recapture the holy land - or you could look forward to an eternity in hell. Now, I've got no plans on heading to Jerusalem to slaughter anyone, and yet I don't see the new Pope calling for another crusade, nor do I hear any priests condeming me to hell. And we're talking about a religion that still keeps women from advancing or taking any role high enough to determine church doctrine; a church that blatantly refuses half of its members from ever becoming priests just because they're women; a church that has always been extremely patriarchal. Explain to me how this overarching culture of Islam you speak of - but haven't defined - is different in any meaningly way (meaningful to this discussion, of course, not in terms of general doctrine or beliefs).

I still have not seen a shred of evidence that all Islamic or Muslim people fit into this category of brutality and sexism you've set up. I still have not even seen what exactly you find offensive in the Muslim culture - besides, of course, the obvious. While I agree with your disgust at the actions of the rapists, I have not yet seen direct links between those men and all muslims. All I've seen is your allegations that if I choose to disbelieve, then I'm simply wrong. Well, I happen to know a little about Muslim culture and Islamic beliefs, and I happen to know several Muslims who don't believe in gang-rape as a judicial tool. And frankly, that's all I need to know to prove you entirely wrong.

I believe in forming your own beliefs. That applies to everything - government, justice, morality, and religion, among others. That means that the answer to your initial question is, as I've already stated, very simple: I, or anyone else, can support Muslim culture while not supporting the oppression of women's rights or the brutal crimes which you've attempted to use as your "proof."

gekko

[jahcs]

C'mon now, you don't really believe that, do you? Yeh, a whisper in the US or Europe (well, still in Europe), but there? Bah, you just can't imagine that things can be that different somewhere else. They are, you know. But no, you don't know.
-A
[right][snapback]80492[/snapback][/right]

Do you? Honestly? How much time have you spent in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Iran? I know things are different there. How much change has been created in Iraq and Afghanistan since we've been there? What about the changes in Libya recently. Look at Syria and some of the events that happened there recently. Pakistan has been friendlier toward us too. I have been paying close attention to that part of the world for the last few years. I've been watching the news, reading print articles, reading the information our Military has given me, and I've talked with many people who have been there, both soldiers that served there and immigrants that left some of those countries. Please try to avoid insulting me in the future.

When you started this thread you said "Jahcs, believe me I know why. I just want to hear it from their own mouths, but maybe I'm asking for too much." Based on many other answers you've given in the thread I don't really think you've wanted to have a discussion on the issues you've raised. You're waiting for the non-Muslim Western Women to show up and say "Oh my gosh, how could we have been so silly. There's no way we can support Islam now!" Whenever the discussion begins to expand into an area where additional insight can shed new light on the subject you shoot it down. An internet forum is a dynamic environment. Let the discussion evolve.

BTW: For an example of a place where whispers could not be silenced by the jackboot of the Government look to the rise and decline of the Soviet Empire. It took a long time, they passed through bleak times, but internal pressures were as much a factor as international pressures on that one.

[Occhidiangela]

Do you?  Honestly?  How much time have you spent in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Iran?  I know things are different there.  How much change has been created in Iraq and Afghanistan since we've been there?  What about the changes in Libya recently.  Look at Syria and some of the events that happened there recently.  Pakistan has been friendlier toward us too.  I have been paying close attention to that part of the world for the last few years.  I've been watching the news, reading print articles, reading the information our Military has given me, and I've talked with many people who have been there, both soldiers that served there and immigrants that left some of those countries.  Please try to avoid insulting me in the future.

When you started this thread you said "Jahcs, believe me I know why. I just want to hear it from their own mouths, but maybe I'm asking for too much."  Based on many other answers you've given in the thread I don't really think you've wanted to have a discussion on the issues you've raised.  You're waiting for the non-Muslim Western Women to show up and say "Oh my gosh, how could we have been so silly.  There's no way we can support Islam now!"  Whenever the discussion begins to expand into an area where additional insight can shed new light on the subject you shoot it down.  An internet forum is a dynamic environment.  Let the discussion evolve.

BTW:  For an example of a place where whispers could not be silenced by the jackboot of the Government look to the rise and decline of the Soviet Empire.  It took a long time, they passed through bleak times, but internal pressures were as much a factor as international pressures on that one.
[right][snapback]80497[/snapback][/right]

Seeing as to how he grew up on Soviet Russia . . .

Occhi

[Jester]

"You're waiting for the non-Muslim Western Women to show up and say "Oh my gosh, how could we have been so silly. There's no way we can support Islam now!""

No. He's waiting for people to argue against him, so he can dismiss their arguments by claiming his opinions as facts. Just like he always does.

I'm not sure *what* he'd do if he ever convinced someone. Although such a person would have to be quite unusual, since he doesn't offer arguments. Either you agree with him about what the "facts" are, or you'll never agree with him (from the perspective of the argument, that is).

Jester

[Chaerophon]

Check out this article for an example against your point...

[Ashock]

"You're waiting for the non-Muslim Western Women to show up and say "Oh my gosh, how could we have been so silly. There's no way we can support Islam now!""

No. He's waiting for people to argue against him, so he can dismiss their arguments by claiming his opinions as facts. Just like he always does.

I'm not sure *what* he'd do if he ever convinced someone. Although such a person would have to be quite unusual, since he doesn't offer arguments. Either you agree with him about what the "facts" are, or you'll never agree with him (from the perspective of the argument, that is).

Jester
[right][snapback]80501[/snapback][/right]

You see, that is my whole point. I still have not heard a single argument against the point in my original post. The only arguments offered are based on false beliefs about the bulk of Islamic culture of today (not 600 years ago, but today, and compared to progressive or at least semi-progressive societies) and the belief that we can measure them by our own yardstick. Yeh, if you fool yourself about what that culture really represents, that's one thing. However, if you look at things the way they truly are in those parts of the world, you can't possibly side with them, especially if you are a Western non-Muslim woman.

I never intended to prove a point in my original post. I just wanted to see what and especially how other people think.


Anyway, it's been amusing.



-A


ps. Jahcs, you killin' me here, killin' me.

[Occhidiangela]

Check out this article for an example against your point...
[right][snapback]80502[/snapback][/right]

Nice link. Thanks.

Loved this bit:

"Politics should be pure, clean and honest," he says. "Reform is just getting back to what we wanted from the revolution in the first place."

It's almost 25 years since Montazeri and his fellow clerics in Qom, two hours south of Tehran and Shia Islam's theological capital, declared Iran the world's first Islamic republic. Now he contemplates whether they made an error. "No, it wasn't a mistake," he says after a silence. "We had a revolution because people wanted something to change -- it just hasn't happened."

His first line is oxymoronic, or just plain moronic.

The second shows the risks of religion and politics mixing a bit too closely.

[Griselda]

Against my better judgment, I'll bite.

While the example you provide is more extreme, this type of dilemma comes up for me frequently in my professional life. I work extensively with Mexican immigrants, and the position of women in the Mexican culture is well below that of men (and often that of male children). The rate of violence against women in these families is alarmingly high.

This is not state-sanctioned gang rape. I know that. But, when I conduct a home visit and the wife is told to serve drinks and not to speak, that's hard to accept. When a mother has no ability in the home to control her son, and her toddler has the authority to insult her and boss her around, that's hard to accept. When you know the wife is being beaten, regularly, and chooses not do anything to remedy the situation, that's hard to accept.

This isn't a problem that's limited to Mexican-American families. I have seen similar cultural attitudes towards women in other families- immigrants from other countries and non-immigrant families. There are also plenty of Mexican families in which this is not a problem- I am lucky to work with those families, too. But, there is a cultural attitude towards women that is making this experience more common in families with this cultural background.

But, does the position of women cause me to reject the entire culture? By your argument, that's what I should do. If women are regularly treated so poorly in this society, how can I accept that?

That is a question I ask myself on a regular basis.

But culture is much bigger than that issue, even if it's an issue that's hurting and even killing women. There are other aspects of the culture that can help me learn and develop as an American.

Luckily, I don't have to set public policy in this matter. I get to work with individuals. So, I do my work with individuals- meeting people where they are, and hopefully making a positive impact on those individuals in some of these challenging areas. In return, I think that the families have met me where I was, and helped me to make progress on some of my more annoying American habits.

The middle east is much more isolated from the west than Mexico is. I know that. The situation I'm describing is much less drastic than the one you're describing. But, I think it's the same issue at its core. It's just a matter of extremes. I'm not willing to dismiss an entire culture or religion based upon one aspect, even if that aspect is as findamental as the treatment of (roughly) half the population. But, that doesn't mean that I don't feel strongly about it. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't like to see things change. I just don't think it has to be seen in black and white.

[Jester]

Perhaps the term I'm misunderstanding is the notion of supporting Islamic culture.

Is your question 'how can any western, non muslim woman support any aspect of muslim culture", or does it just pertain to the parts about beating, raping, oppressing, etc... women? It seems pretty obvious that nobody who values women's rights would support that. But that's just one part of the culture, yes?

Would you find it strange for a western, non-muslim world to support muslim art, music, literature, religion (from a less fundamentalist perspective) and whatnot, but oppose the poor treatment of women?

Jester

[Occhidiangela]

Perhaps the term I'm misunderstanding is the notion of supporting Islamic culture.

Is your question 'how can any western, non muslim woman support any aspect of muslim culture", or does it just pertain to the parts about beating, raping, oppressing, etc... women? It seems pretty obvious that nobody who values women's rights would support that. But that's just one part of the culture, yes?

Would you find it strange for a western, non-muslim world to support muslim art, music, literature, religion (from a less fundamentalist perspective) and whatnot, but oppose the poor treatment of women?

Jester
[right][snapback]80511[/snapback][/right]

The Bolshoi Ballet was a great draw for the artsy crowd, even when the Soviet Union was in full repression. Muslim Art is doubtless like a lot of other art, an acquired taste, poetry likely the same, prose literature probably the best medium of cultural reciprocity.

What little Muslim music, or rather Arabic music, that I heard was cacophonous to my ear (again, a subjective measure, I find Greek music similarly galling) though there are plenty of pop bands who sing songs in Arabic to recognizably "decadent" Western musical forms.

Occhi

[Ashock]

Would you find it strange for a western, non-muslim world to support muslim art, music, literature, religion (from a less fundamentalist perspective) and whatnot, but oppose the poor treatment of women?

Jester
[right][snapback]80511[/snapback][/right]

Art, music - no. Religion, society - yes. This I think, also at least partially addresses Griselda's post.



-A