Mighty Intellect
Posts: 1,986 
January 5th, 2008, 10:04 PM
There was an interesting documentary about the Aga Khan on Vision TV the other day. For want of a better analogy, he is like the Pope to Ismaili Muslims, which is a small sect. Ismaili muslims firmly believe in equality and women's rights. It was very, very interesting.
Don't make the mistake of assuming that all of Islam is the same, any more than Greek Orthodox Christians are the same as Southern Baptists. There is a HUGE difference.
There was an interesting documentary about the Aga Khan on Vision TV the other day. For want of a better analogy, he is like the Pope to Ismaili Muslims, which is a small sect. Ismaili muslims firmly believe in equality and women's rights. It was very, very interesting.
Don't make the mistake of assuming that all of Islam is the same, any more than Greek Orthodox Christians are the same as Southern Baptists. There is a HUGE difference.
Mighty Intellect
Posts: 1,986
January 5th, 2008, 10:06 PM
Quoting Toro
Well, there are passages in the Bible that permit beating of wives as well, so I don't see what the fuss is about.
Are we misinterpreting this article?
This is what it says
Does he really mean "beating" as we understand it?
[/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font]
This is what it says
Does he really mean "beating" as we understand it?
[/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font]
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 8,698
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
January 5th, 2008, 10:07 PM
If evangelical christians had oil and we were killing them I wonder what the headlines would be like.
If evangelical christians had oil and we were killing them I wonder what the headlines would be like.
January 5th, 2008, 10:29 PM
Yeah, it's an op ed piece--and heaven knows we've got our share of nasty ones here in the "western" world as well.
It seems to me that he is not so much condoning violence as he is opposing involving police. In a religious culture, I can see how one would opt to have tradition (as he defined it as a progressive set of actions that involve family and divorce, not beatings) instead of asking the state to take over.
Yeah, it's an op ed piece--and heaven knows we've got our share of nasty ones here in the "western" world as well.
It seems to me that he is not so much condoning violence as he is opposing involving police. In a religious culture, I can see how one would opt to have tradition (as he defined it as a progressive set of actions that involve family and divorce, not beatings) instead of asking the state to take over.
A Mad Mulligan
Posts: 2,771
Videos: 3
Location: The Moonsine Cafe
Videos: 3
Location: The Moonsine Cafe
January 5th, 2008, 10:29 PM
The interpretation is where I get off too. But that's subjective isn't it? To me the statement reads that I as a father and a husband am duty bound not to beat but to instruct and educate by as simple and clear meaning as required to acquire the behaviour I feel the morals of the religion dictates.
So a quiet word if that is all it takes or going through the motions with whom ever to so exactly how and explain why it is to be so in order for that person to come to an understanding and comply.
But that's me and how I would fit that statement into my way of thinking and manner.
Not everyone is me. Some might see that as exactly meaning that if you don't get the wife and kids to toe the line then force them to in whatever way you can even if it means beating them.
And this small thing is where we seem to run into all the problems.
We send the very same confused message in western culture and for that matter have done so on this very page.
"Stop violence against women." What the **** is that? Violence against men or children or homosexuals or someone else is ok? Of course not and I don't for a moment think that this is what that means. But the fact is that we always say stop violence against women when we should be saying stop violence altogether.
A very tricky turn of phrase this is. Not to mention the exceptions to it. Self defence for one.
If ever there was a good case for being blunt and direct this should be it. Though sometimes when I am, it's clearly not appreciated in the least.
The interpretation is where I get off too. But that's subjective isn't it? To me the statement reads that I as a father and a husband am duty bound not to beat but to instruct and educate by as simple and clear meaning as required to acquire the behaviour I feel the morals of the religion dictates.
So a quiet word if that is all it takes or going through the motions with whom ever to so exactly how and explain why it is to be so in order for that person to come to an understanding and comply.
But that's me and how I would fit that statement into my way of thinking and manner.
Not everyone is me. Some might see that as exactly meaning that if you don't get the wife and kids to toe the line then force them to in whatever way you can even if it means beating them.
And this small thing is where we seem to run into all the problems.
We send the very same confused message in western culture and for that matter have done so on this very page.
"Stop violence against women." What the **** is that? Violence against men or children or homosexuals or someone else is ok? Of course not and I don't for a moment think that this is what that means. But the fact is that we always say stop violence against women when we should be saying stop violence altogether.
A very tricky turn of phrase this is. Not to mention the exceptions to it. Self defence for one.
If ever there was a good case for being blunt and direct this should be it. Though sometimes when I am, it's clearly not appreciated in the least.
Gobsmacked
Posts: 4,735
January 5th, 2008, 10:33 PM
The article highlighted a glaring difference in what two differing cultural perceptions are regarding what's acceptable. In spite of my earlier post contending that we need to put our money where our mouths are in regards to enforcing our own domestic violence laws, I believe we do at least acknowledge physical abuse shouldn't be happening. At an emotional/intellectual level I do think we find it abhorant - we just haven't made it all the way to bringing that forward into consistent and effective action yet.
The article as I read it is saying there is a point where domestic violence is acceptable. This is what is eliciting such strong responses here I believe, and I also am certain that no matter who wrote such words, the response would have been the same. It's not a case of inciting cultural division here, this is about humans caring about the physical well being of other humans who are in situations that condone harm to them.
Ten Penny has already pointed out that this cannot be pinned down to an issue that one particular segment of society owns - it is clearly prevalent in many religions/societies - even as I said, within our own.
The author of the article is merely today's catalyst that brings this issue back into our range of vision. Tomorrow it could your neighbor, or mine.
Quoting darkbeaver
I have to disagree with that comment DB - I don't read that intention within the posts in this thread at all. I have to admit I'm surprised to see such a strong statement coming from you, given some of the views I've seen you express regarding Americans. There's some dissonance in what you've said about others here vs what you yourself have posted elsewhere.
Apparently not, but we indulge in racism and hate on command it seems, to quickly looking for some convienient definintion that separates us from them, and if there isn't one at hand we will invent it ad hoc.
The article highlighted a glaring difference in what two differing cultural perceptions are regarding what's acceptable. In spite of my earlier post contending that we need to put our money where our mouths are in regards to enforcing our own domestic violence laws, I believe we do at least acknowledge physical abuse shouldn't be happening. At an emotional/intellectual level I do think we find it abhorant - we just haven't made it all the way to bringing that forward into consistent and effective action yet.
The article as I read it is saying there is a point where domestic violence is acceptable. This is what is eliciting such strong responses here I believe, and I also am certain that no matter who wrote such words, the response would have been the same. It's not a case of inciting cultural division here, this is about humans caring about the physical well being of other humans who are in situations that condone harm to them.
Ten Penny has already pointed out that this cannot be pinned down to an issue that one particular segment of society owns - it is clearly prevalent in many religions/societies - even as I said, within our own.
The author of the article is merely today's catalyst that brings this issue back into our range of vision. Tomorrow it could your neighbor, or mine.
Gobsmacked
Posts: 4,735
January 5th, 2008, 10:40 PM
Quoting Unforgiven
I concur. And sometimes bluntness fits the bill perfectly.
We send the very same confused message in western culture and for that matter have done so on this very page.
"Stop violence against women." What the **** is that? Violence against men or children or homosexuals or someone else is ok? Of course not and I don't for a moment think that this is what that means. But the fact is that we always say stop violence against women when we should be saying stop violence altogether.
A very tricky turn of phrase this is. Not to mention the exceptions to it. Self defence for one.
If ever there was a good case for being blunt and direct this should be it. Though sometimes when I am, it's clearly not appreciated in the least.
"Stop violence against women." What the **** is that? Violence against men or children or homosexuals or someone else is ok? Of course not and I don't for a moment think that this is what that means. But the fact is that we always say stop violence against women when we should be saying stop violence altogether.
A very tricky turn of phrase this is. Not to mention the exceptions to it. Self defence for one.
If ever there was a good case for being blunt and direct this should be it. Though sometimes when I am, it's clearly not appreciated in the least.
Knows No Bounds
Posts: 2,769
January 6th, 2008, 02:21 AM
Side note:
My wife saw the Sean Connery bit and agrees with him. In her mind, she would smack me in the same circumstances so (her words) "It would be pretty damn sexist not to hit a woman when you would hit a man for doing the same thing"
But I am a sexist chauvinsit pig raised with a sense of chivalry (patronising or not), so I just don't think that way myself.
Side note:
My wife saw the Sean Connery bit and agrees with him. In her mind, she would smack me in the same circumstances so (her words) "It would be pretty damn sexist not to hit a woman when you would hit a man for doing the same thing"
But I am a sexist chauvinsit pig raised with a sense of chivalry (patronising or not), so I just don't think that way myself.
far better just to take a hike Bright Spark
Posts: 476
Location: Zurich
Location: Zurich
January 6th, 2008, 08:26 AM
At first I thought that the author was joking. I read through the setup and anxiously towards the first good punchline. But it never came.
Zan, "I believe that the loudest statement in support of change is made through living the example. We've made it to the point of having the language and legal instruments of change well established, BUT until those within our own culture who are entrusted with enforcing the laws - and the husbands in our country who still perpetrate domestic violence - fully integrate the message within our own society, we've little to offer if we're hoping to open closed minds."
Zan stopped short of saying that it's our fault, but not much. If there is a constructive thing to do to curb violence in our society, what is that thing or things?
The subjegation of women under Islam, and the example and condemnation of the west, may well be the unstated motive behind Muslim extremist violence. While there may be other factors used to promote hatred and agitate violence, the fear of the destruction of male culteral dominance, though not spoken of, may be a major factor in this struggle, a struggle for power. In comparative terms, the battle of the sexes in the west was a cold war, but in the east there are no demonstrations, (what woman dares?) only displays of violence. Democracy means the end of the man age and the dawn of the woman age. To promote democracy is to promote women. This we've done so well that it frightens the Mullahs. Any improvement in our example will have the opposite effect of that intended.
Nevertheless, we must finish what we started.
At first I thought that the author was joking. I read through the setup and anxiously towards the first good punchline. But it never came.
Zan, "I believe that the loudest statement in support of change is made through living the example. We've made it to the point of having the language and legal instruments of change well established, BUT until those within our own culture who are entrusted with enforcing the laws - and the husbands in our country who still perpetrate domestic violence - fully integrate the message within our own society, we've little to offer if we're hoping to open closed minds."
Zan stopped short of saying that it's our fault, but not much. If there is a constructive thing to do to curb violence in our society, what is that thing or things?
The subjegation of women under Islam, and the example and condemnation of the west, may well be the unstated motive behind Muslim extremist violence. While there may be other factors used to promote hatred and agitate violence, the fear of the destruction of male culteral dominance, though not spoken of, may be a major factor in this struggle, a struggle for power. In comparative terms, the battle of the sexes in the west was a cold war, but in the east there are no demonstrations, (what woman dares?) only displays of violence. Democracy means the end of the man age and the dawn of the woman age. To promote democracy is to promote women. This we've done so well that it frightens the Mullahs. Any improvement in our example will have the opposite effect of that intended.
Nevertheless, we must finish what we started.
Grossly Underrated
Posts: 4,725
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
January 6th, 2008, 10:00 AM
Woof!
Quoting Toro
True enough.... The term "browbeating" on a witness stand has nothing to do with smacking anyone around - or beating up a runway involves nothing of violence. How about that cop walking a beat? Semantics are a funny thing....
Are we misinterpreting this article?
This is what it says
Does he really mean "beating" as we understand it?
[/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font]
This is what it says
Does he really mean "beating" as we understand it?
[/color][/size][/font][/color][/size][/font]
Woof!
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,612
January 6th, 2008, 10:11 AM
Beve
If you think for a moment that any oppressive regime will suffer at the gas pumps for the way they treat women....I've got some swamp land in Florida for you...
The mental masturbation of moaning and thrashing of hands when issues of inhumanity are brought to the attention of the great unwashed satisfies the thrasher's belief in their moral superiority...and that's about it. When it comes to filling up at the gas pump, the wads of money that are paid by these same "morally superior" nutbars to the Saudis and regimes that have practiced de-humanization of women and children for centuries is conveniently forgotten.
It's nearly impossible (and certainly isn't appreciated by the caliber of people driving SUVs today) to get them to connect the enabling of these barbarians in mistreating and marginalizing women and children to the gas pumps that have supplied these hypocritical anti-life Moslem and Islamic regimes. Apparently it's far more serious when American corporations contract with Matel and Fisher Price for toys that are dangerous and poisonous to American children than it is when the danger involves anyone else....
Don't rely on these people to think Beve they don't and haven't for a very long time.
Beve
If you think for a moment that any oppressive regime will suffer at the gas pumps for the way they treat women....I've got some swamp land in Florida for you...
The mental masturbation of moaning and thrashing of hands when issues of inhumanity are brought to the attention of the great unwashed satisfies the thrasher's belief in their moral superiority...and that's about it. When it comes to filling up at the gas pump, the wads of money that are paid by these same "morally superior" nutbars to the Saudis and regimes that have practiced de-humanization of women and children for centuries is conveniently forgotten.
It's nearly impossible (and certainly isn't appreciated by the caliber of people driving SUVs today) to get them to connect the enabling of these barbarians in mistreating and marginalizing women and children to the gas pumps that have supplied these hypocritical anti-life Moslem and Islamic regimes. Apparently it's far more serious when American corporations contract with Matel and Fisher Price for toys that are dangerous and poisonous to American children than it is when the danger involves anyone else....
Don't rely on these people to think Beve they don't and haven't for a very long time.
Bright Spark
Posts: 476
Location: Zurich
Location: Zurich
January 6th, 2008, 10:37 AM
Tenpenny, this regarding Ismaili women worldwide, from the Ismaili Womans' Forum"
"These Ismaili women are not a homogenous group. They span all socio-economic levels, and represent a number of different cultures. Nevertheless, these women also share some of the same problems. In London and Nairobi, Singapore and Tananariv, Bombay and Toronto, women face similar hurdles, and develop similar solutions. Many of them are prohibited from working outside the home; they have limited access to employment opportunities, technology, markets and credit facilities, and face barriers to upward mobility in their chosen careers. Although they are educated, and have an extensive range of institutions at their disposal, these are not utilized to their full potential."
The generalisation that Muslim women have a great cause in freedom and equality at this time is valid. Any attempt to disconnect religion from the present evil is made more difficult by those who use religion to excuse evil. Islam is not the first religion to be made infamous for it's dark side proponents. But it is happening and as sure and as long as the headlines feature more bad news than good, it will go on. But this is the beginning of the end of radical Islam and religious tyranny worldwide. Our time is an hour of the long birth of an age in which women will take the reins that were once the reigns of violence, take them by peaceful means, will take them by consent. See if the next 1,000 years looks like that last 1,000 years. But we cannot see. Hope then.
Tenpenny, this regarding Ismaili women worldwide, from the Ismaili Womans' Forum"
"These Ismaili women are not a homogenous group. They span all socio-economic levels, and represent a number of different cultures. Nevertheless, these women also share some of the same problems. In London and Nairobi, Singapore and Tananariv, Bombay and Toronto, women face similar hurdles, and develop similar solutions. Many of them are prohibited from working outside the home; they have limited access to employment opportunities, technology, markets and credit facilities, and face barriers to upward mobility in their chosen careers. Although they are educated, and have an extensive range of institutions at their disposal, these are not utilized to their full potential."
The generalisation that Muslim women have a great cause in freedom and equality at this time is valid. Any attempt to disconnect religion from the present evil is made more difficult by those who use religion to excuse evil. Islam is not the first religion to be made infamous for it's dark side proponents. But it is happening and as sure and as long as the headlines feature more bad news than good, it will go on. But this is the beginning of the end of radical Islam and religious tyranny worldwide. Our time is an hour of the long birth of an age in which women will take the reins that were once the reigns of violence, take them by peaceful means, will take them by consent. See if the next 1,000 years looks like that last 1,000 years. But we cannot see. Hope then.
Clever Clogs
Posts: 653
Location: Baja Canada
Location: Baja Canada
February 6th, 2008, 07:51 PM
Well, I guess I have been wrong all along about Canada.
I've been reading this forum about 2-3 years, and I have never heard one mention that Canada accepted wife beating as "justified" -- to end a fight. I do not know any such women, nor have I ever heard anyone say smacking your wife was OK. And I live in Texas.
If a man did that to me, I would break my arm fighting back.
Uncle
Well, I guess I have been wrong all along about Canada.
I've been reading this forum about 2-3 years, and I have never heard one mention that Canada accepted wife beating as "justified" -- to end a fight. I do not know any such women, nor have I ever heard anyone say smacking your wife was OK. And I live in Texas. If a man did that to me, I would break my arm fighting back.
Uncle
Quoting karrie
When our society started REALLY pushing to stop violence against women, it wasn't a whole lot different guys. There were people speaking against women's rights, and yes, some of them were women. I don't really get why it's so shocking or appalling. It's our past too. Even in this day and age I know western women in their 40's and 50's who think a good smack is a justified way to end a fight. Change isn't instantaneous. But the fact that they are even having to write articles trying to justify and keep violence 'okay' is evidence that change has begun.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,384
Location: London, Ont. Canada
Location: London, Ont. Canada
February 26th, 2008, 11:34 PM
Abortion doctor killing is ok by Christianity. Hatred and bigotry toward homosexual is a Christian tenet. The man is head of the household and women should be subservient and dress modestly is a Christian belief.
You see what I mean. If you pick and choose your examples then any religion or culture can be construed as misogynist, homophobic and morally bankrupt.
Don't perpetuate negative stereotypes. Those who do walk a thin line between bigotry and ignorance.
Quoting TenPenny
Exactly. Moderate Islam does not condone wife beating anymore than moderate New Testament Christians do. Just because some illiterate goat herder type says his religion lets him beat his wife does not make it a religious tenet.
There was an interesting documentary about the Aga Khan on Vision TV the other day. For want of a better analogy, he is like the Pope to Ismaili Muslims, which is a small sect. Ismaili muslims firmly believe in equality and women's rights. It was very, very interesting.
Don't make the mistake of assuming that all of Islam is the same, any more than Greek Orthodox Christians are the same as Southern Baptists. There is a HUGE difference.
Don't make the mistake of assuming that all of Islam is the same, any more than Greek Orthodox Christians are the same as Southern Baptists. There is a HUGE difference.
Abortion doctor killing is ok by Christianity. Hatred and bigotry toward homosexual is a Christian tenet. The man is head of the household and women should be subservient and dress modestly is a Christian belief.
You see what I mean. If you pick and choose your examples then any religion or culture can be construed as misogynist, homophobic and morally bankrupt.
Don't perpetuate negative stereotypes. Those who do walk a thin line between bigotry and ignorance.
Ponderous Intellect
Posts: 4,348
Location: Minnesota: Gopher State
Location: Minnesota: Gopher State
February 26th, 2008, 11:52 PM
Why children must be beaten:
Proverbs 13:24; 19:18; 22:15; 23:13,14; 29:15
Why? Because the Christian Bible says so! Therefore, if Islam is to be condemned, then the same standard must be applied to Christianity.
Why children must be beaten:
Proverbs 13:24; 19:18; 22:15; 23:13,14; 29:15
Why? Because the Christian Bible says so! Therefore, if Islam is to be condemned, then the same standard must be applied to Christianity.
