Women's Rights In Middle East

[snfu73]

The only way you change those things is by conquering the country, problem is, no one has been able to conquer a muslim country. Even after you defeat their armies in the field, you still have to face decades of guerrilla warfare. Afghanistan is a good example, the British couldn't do it in the 19th century, the Russians couldn't do it in the 20th, America couldn't do it in the 21st, and the body bags keep coming home. Our young men are only capable of suffering to a certain degree. Eventually, there will be no military prescence in muslim countries, because the price is too high and neverending. The only way to win, is to kill everyone, and I know that better be out of the question.

I totally disagree that the only way to change things is through conquering these nations. I think there are a great number of grass roots movements in the areas fighting for the rights of women. Did women gain the vote in North America through conquering? Nope. They gained it through persistence...through sacrifice...through hard work. There is no need to conquer. There is a need for debate, for confronting issues, for discussion, for hard work...and for support from the outside world...but not conquering.

 

[Josephine]

I totally disagree that the only way to change things is through conquering these nations. I think there are a great number of grass roots movements in the areas fighting for the rights of women. Did women gain the vote in North America through conquering? Nope. They gained it through persistence...through sacrifice...through hard work. There is no need to conquer. There is a need for debate, for confronting issues, for discussion, for hard work...and for support from the outside world...but not conquering.

Here Here!!! Well said!:lol:

 

[able]

Outstanding, now we can all leave Afghanistan and Iraq. So glad to see that it can and will be solved by peaceful means. I said before, and say it again, does it occur to anyone that neither country wants our brand of freedom? I can see no reason whatsoever why our young men should die to change the internal workings of another country. The body bags are changing public opinion, personally I think things would change more quickly if chat room cheerleaders were drafted and put on the line. Nothing educates faster than a round that just missed your own head.

 

[Josephine]

Outstanding, now we can all leave Afghanistan and Iraq. So glad to see that it can and will be solved by peaceful means. I said before, and say it again, does it occur to anyone that neither country wants our brand of freedom? I can see no reason whatsoever why our young men should die to change the internal workings of another country. The body bags are changing public opinion, personally I think things would change more quickly if chat room cheerleaders were drafted and put on the line. Nothing educates faster than a round that just missed your own head.

I don't think we're "Chatroom cheerleaders"...we just don't believe that conquering a country is the answer. I'm content with my "education" on the issue thanks. It's a difference of opinion, that's it.

 

[EagleSmack]

Technically they can show their faces, just not their body parts or hair or shape.

Oh well that's not too bad then.

 

[earth_as_one]

I think you are missing the point. Canada has obscenity laws too. But our laws aren't as strict as they are are in Muslim countries.

I'm sure some Muslim women find their obscenity laws overly restrictive, just as some Canadians find our obscenity laws overly restrictive. But since many Muslim women choose to wear their hijabs and burkas even when they move to countries which are more relaxed about what women can expose in public, they must be ok with the laws in their countries of origin.

But if one country has the right to bomb another because of restrictive obscenity laws, then should Iceland bomb Canada because our obscenity laws are more restrictive than their obscenity laws?

I think western nations should be patient and choose our battles. I'd say the right to work or drive is more important than the right to expose arms, legs and hair. The best way to cause change is to lead by good example.

 

[EagleSmack]

I think you are missing the point. Canada has obscenity laws too. But our laws aren't as strict as they are are in Muslim countries.

I'm sure some Muslim women find their obscenity laws overly restrictive, just as some Canadians find our obscenity laws overly restrictive. But since many Muslim women choose to wear their hijabs and burkas even when they move to countries which are more relaxed about what women can expose in public, they must be ok with the laws in their countries of origin.

But if one country has the right to bomb another because of restrictive obscenity laws, then should Iceland bomb Canada because our obscenity laws are more restrictive than their obscenity laws?

I think western nations should be patient and choose our battles. I'd say the right to work or drive is more important than the right to expose arms, legs and hair. The best way to cause change is to lead by good example.

I think when muslim women move to western nations and still where the restrictive clothing they are still under the patriachal authority of their husbands and family. I do not think they have too much of a choice. When the daughters of these families become in tune with western culture and rebel they are dealt with harshly. I am not saying that every family goes through this but there are enough stories around to support that this does happen. I saw an article on "60 Minutes" whereas a Pakistani woman fell in love with an American while here in college. She was promised to a Pakistani man but refused and married the American. To the daughter's family it was an insult and they swore vengence. Her own father was interviewed in Pakistan saying how she has disgraced her family and they will hunt her down and kill her OR mutilate her face.

Gee... Thanks Dad

Iceland should definitley bomb Canada... They should have done it years ago. ;-)

 

[Zzarchov]

I think the point he is making though, is that wearing restrictive clothing is more visible, but not as bad as not having the right to be their own guardian, earn wages, own property, choose a husband etc.

And many generations down the road they will still probably wear the veils, even if not needed to. Example: In Canada, women can go topless just like men can. That being said, you are going to find that most women will wear "restrictive" and "oppressive" tops all the same while the men walk around in shorts and sandals at the beach.

To the minds of many muslim women its the same, they really don't like clothes that show off their form (not everyone wants to be oggled by dirty minded men twice their age and ugly as a mule). That being said, some do.

 

[earth_as_one]

Thank you Z.

 

[tracy]

Oh well that's not too bad then.

All countries have standards of dress. I couldn't walk down the street here showing my bare chest like men can, but I don't consider myself oppressed because of it.

 

[earth_as_one]

From what I've read, women who choose to wear the veil, do so for the same reason why Canadian women choose to wear tops. Its all about their perception of modesty. Forcing these women to expose their arms, legs and hair would be about as liberating as forcing Canadian women to expose their breasts.

 

[Josephine]

From what I've read, women who choose to wear the veil, do so for the same reason why Canadian women choose to wear tops. Its all about their perception of modesty. Forcing these women to expose their arms, legs and hair would be about as liberating as forcing Canadian women to expose their breasts.

Not quite. You should read "Reading Lolita inTehran". It's very good. They believed that they should wear the veil because they should not show they're bodies. Not that it's something really to be ashamed of, but because they tempt men. That a man would want a women if he saw her skin.
There was a muslim leader in Australia who said (talking about rape)...something along the lines of "if you leave meat exposed on the windowsill and a wild dog comes and eats it...you can't blame the dog".
And that about sums it up for me.
Peace!

 

[earth_as_one]

I agree with your point.

My point is that whether a women wears a veil or not isn't as important as having the right to wear a veil or not.

 

[snfu73]

This fella I work with belongs to this church group...it's not really a church, but it is a church group. Everyone takes a turn being the "minister" sorta speak. HOWEVER, the women are NOT allowed to speak, because apparently the christian bible says that women are not allowed to speak. I don't get it myself.

I am uncomfortable with the idea that all women are oppressed in the middle east. I think that, yes, it is a serious issue, and that it does happen a great deal. However, I also think that there are is a large number of women who are islamic fundementalists who are happy with their role in society. I don't understand necessarily WHY...but that isn't up to me to decide for someone else. I do think that there are also a large number of women who are NOT happy with their role, and that is very unfortunate. I also think much of the issues that are being discussed here are not uniform..it depends on the region...it depends on the country...it depends on a lot of issues. I think it is far more complex than just saying...well...the middle east.

 

[El Barto]

Josepine, any man that thinks like that is a dog.
It is said that the betterment (don't know what word to use ) of women is the betterment of humanity.

 

[Liberalman]

Don’t forget you are talking about a religious state.

There are few women’s rights in most religions and I am not talking about the Middle Eastern religions.

Most people don’t care.

If you look at the Catholics one of the major religions in the world they don’t allow women in key positions and the women prefer it that way.

You would have to invade every country and separate church from state so women can get all the rights men have.

God says women has different important role in society but women are more motivated than ever to tell God where to go.

As long as you have religion women will never have the same status as men.

 

[temperance]

Here in Canada women only earned the right to vote 1916 Manitoba 1940 Quebec

Imagine the right to vote

 

[earth_as_one]

Don’t forget you are talking about a religious state.

There are few women’s rights in most religions and I am not talking about the Middle Eastern religions.

Most people don’t care.

If you look at the Catholics one of the major religions in the world they don’t allow women in key positions and the women prefer it that way.

You would have to invade every country and separate church from state so women can get all the rights men have.

God says women has different important role in society but women are more motivated than ever to tell God where to go.

As long as you have religion women will never have the same status as men.

Some major generalizations here. For example, most first nations were traditionally matriarchal and spiritual/religious states.

...There are six distinct tribes within the Iroquois: Cayugas, Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, Senecas, and Tuscaroras. At some point--no one's exactly sure, but it was before Columbus landed--they joined to form the Iroquois Confederacy. For all the supposed connections between this confederacy and the government adopted by the United States in 1787, a comparison of the two doesn't yield a lot of eerie parallels. The Iroquois Confederacy was ultimately matriarchal. Under the Great Law, the fundamental source of authority were the clan mothers, senior members of their tribes. The clan mothers selected the chief statesmen, each of whom served on the Grand Council "as long as the women judge(d) him to be fulfilling his responsibility." The council was not proportionally representative--the biggest tribe, in fact, had the fewest representatives--and it ruled by unanimous consent. It did not meet regularly, only when necessary....

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=redux&s=newman110788

Even today, first nation people are born into the same clan as their mother. Not only did women have equality, but because they chose the chiefs and owned most property, women dominated this warrior society.

The matriarchal society isn't isolated to first nations:

Minoan Religion

Since we have only ruins and remains from Minoan culture, we can only guess at their religious practices. We have no scriptures, no prayers, no books of ritual; all we have are objects and fragments all of which only hint at a rich and complex religious life and symbolic system behind their broken exteriors. The most apparent characteristic of Minoan religion was that it was polytheistic and matriarchal, that is, a goddess religion; the gods were all female, not a single male god has been identified until later periods. Many religious and cultural scholars now believe that almost all religions began as matriarchal religions, even the Hebrew religion (where Yahweh is frequently referred to as physically female), but adopted patriarchal models in later incarnations. What precipitated the transition from goddess religions to god religions is still subject to much debate and controversy, but the adoption of a sedentary lifestyle because of agriculture may have fundamentally reoriented society towards patriarchal organization and the subsequent rethinking of goddess religions. It is certain, however, that urbanization dramatically precipitated gender inequality as human life suddenly assumed a double quality: public life and private life. The domination of public life, that is, administration, rule, and military organization, by men certainly produced a reorientation of religious beliefs. The Cretans, however, do not seem to have evolved either gender inequality nor adapted their religion to a male-centered universe. The legacy of the goddess religion seems to still be alive today...

http://wsu.edu/~dee/MINOA/RELIGION.HTM

Also this book speculates that most civilizations started out matriarchic and evolved into patriarchic as a result of urbanization:

When God Was a Woman

is the U.S. title of a 1976 book (ISBN 0-15-696158-X) by sculptor and history professor Merlin Stone. It was published earlier in the UK as The Paradise Papers.
Drawing largely upon the speculations of Margaret Murray and Robert Graves, Stone postulates a prehistoric matriarchy, painting ancient societies, including Ancient Egypt as matriarchal paradises, destroyed by the patriarchal Indo-Europeans...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_God_Was_a_Woman

Also, many traditionally patriarchal religions like Christianity and Judaism have growing feminist movements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_feminism

So religions/cultures/nations don't have to be patriarchal. The ones westerners are most familiar with are but matriarchal societies/religions do exist.

http://www.saunalahti.fi/penelope/Feminism/KhasiGaro.html

 

[karrie]

As long as you have religion women will never have the same status as men.

Which religion? That seems a pretty odd statement considering the number of religions in this world, and the number yet to be born.

 

[little bird]

:smile: hi there i live in middle east i can tell you that women s right is improving;-)