open Democracy News Analysis - Pathways of Women's Empowerment - Comments

Unimpressed on "Home truths in the Muslim family"

Unimpressed — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 05:51:28 +0000

Curb your enthusiasm, aspacia, RobPC is a bigoted moron high on the rubbish from hate sites like jihadwatch.Quoting verses in isolation from the Quran without any context is the standard tactic employed by these charlatans. Ethanll speaks of "honor killing"(claims its a Muslim thing, so care to explain why Hindus, Sikhs, Jains do it as well) yet denies that far far more women are murdered in his "civilized" culture on a daily basis. These childish cut and paste tactics only highlight the dishonest nature of western propagandists. Westerners with their primitive thinking process still cannot fathom that men and women are NOT the same, equality before the sight of God is not measured by some pathetic cretins inability to understand gender roles in the physical world. This is the reason western culture is inferior and in a downward spiral. No true culture, no family unit, no respect for the elderly, or compassion for the young. Is it any wonder that the most wretched inhuman ideologies originate from Europe? I think not!
Lets be brutally honest, if the Judeo-Christian cabal are not killing you with their bombs they send you a barrage of pompous intellectual dissertations, essentially informing you how to interpret your religion, your history and your culture, and that you are basically an animal and should be vanquished. Muslims have simply got to understand that these monsters have a plan. The plan is not only to murder, massacre and slaughter Muslims but degrade, humiliate and insult them and their religion, take over their countries, divide up their land, sell off their oil and resources and stoke up ethnic and religious hatred to keep the natives fighting and killing each other, while these beasts look happily on from well fortified turrets in 'Green Zones'. These filthy bloodthirsty hypocrites spent 50 years clamoring to bring the wall down in Germany and yet have eagerly built walls in Mexico, in Palestinian lands and now Iraq. They openly support each other’s viciously racist agenda. I wonder if succeeding generation of Muslims will be as complacent as their parents and turn the other cheek and grin and bear these outrages and this monsterously evil Judeo-Christian plan, which by the way has been termed by the Americans as the ‘New World Order’. One day this will all come back to haunt them.
Muslims are not like Westerners, crazy for power, whose motive is to dominate everybody else and who are very bad losers!
Islam is not about power. The West just CANNOT get that. It hurts to admit it - because of its blindness to its own manic obsession with power.
I liked the explanation given by the Edward Gibbon in the 18th Century for the unstoppable spread of Islam - its "moral authority".
I wonder where those Iraqi WMDs are....

Unimpressed on "Home truths in the Muslim family"

Unimpressed — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 05:42:54 +0000

Curb your enthusiasm, aspacia, RobPC is a bigoted moron high on the rubbish from hate sites like jihadwatch.Quoting verses in isolation from the Quran without any context is the standard tactic employed by these charlatans. These childish cut and paste tactics only highlight the dishonest nature of western propagandists. Westerners with their primitive thinking process still cannot fathom that men and women are NOT the same, equality before the sight of God is not measured by some pathetic cretins inability to understand gender roles. This is the reason western culture is inferior and in a downward spiral. No true culture, no family unit, no respect for the elderly, or compassion for the young. Is it any wonder that the most wretched inhuman ideologies originate from Europe? I think not!
Lets be brutally honest, if the Judeo-Christian cabal are not killing you with their bombs they send you a barrage of pompous intellectual dissertations, essentially informing you how to interpret your religion, your history and your culture, and that you are basically an animal and should be vanquished. Muslims have simply got to understand that these monsters have a plan. The plan is not only to murder, massacre and slaughter Muslims but degrade, humiliate and insult them and their religion, take over their countries, divide up their land, sell off their oil and resources and stoke up ethnic and religious hatred to keep the natives fighting and killing each other, while these beasts look happily on from well fortified turrets in 'Green Zones'. These filthy bloodthirsty hypocrites spent 50 years clamoring to bring the wall down in Germany and yet have eagerly built walls in Mexico, in Palestinian lands and now Iraq. They openly support each other’s viciously racist agenda. I wonder if succeeding generation of Muslims will be as complacent as their parents and turn the other cheek and grin and bear these outrages and this monsterously evil Judeo-Christian plan, which by the way has been termed by the Americans as the ‘New World Order’. One day this will all come back to haunt them.
Muslims are not like Westerners, crazy for power, whose motive is to dominate everybody else and who are very bad losers!
Islam is not about power. The West just CANNOT get that. It hurts to admit it - because of its blindness to its own manic obsession with power.
I liked the explanation given by the Edward Gibbon in the 18th Century for the unstoppable spread of Islam - its "moral authority".

Priscila Pimentel on "The right to abortion: briefing from Brazil "

Priscila Pimentel — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 03:57:45 +0000

Thank you Celilia for your article. Im brasilian and im also from salvador-bahia. I share the same feeling about abortion. Im a Law student and this subject has been discussed in class. Your article helped me to elucidate my point of wien. Keep up with the good work and congratulations.

Legacy on "Putting power back into empowerment"

Legacy — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:56:07 +0000

Parents are always looking for ways to improve concentration in kids.

aspacia on "Home truths in the Muslim family"

aspacia — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:30:43 +0000

Thank-you RobPC. The author fails to mention the fact that according to the Quran, women are inferior. Muslims can't step around that one.

EthanII on "Home truths in the Muslim family"

EthanII — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 04:57:13 +0000

On Feb. 13, 2009, just as Iftekhar was denying there was a problem with male domination and violence in many Muslim families, and blaming western stereotypes for perpetuating this concern on the part of the public,, the following tragedy occurred:

On February 13, 2009, in Orchard Park, a suburb of Buffalo, 44 year-old Muzzamil Hassan, a prominent Muslim businessman, was arrested for having be-headed his wife, 37 year-old Aasiya Z. Hassan. Yes, he beheaded her. Aasiya's crime? She dared to obtain an order of protection which forced her violent husband out of their home.

We are now sadly familiar with some high profile Islamic beheadings of infidels in Muslim lands; Daniel Pearl, Nicholas Berg, immediately come to mind. Sadly, we are also familiar with the practice of beheading, dismembering, burying alive, and stoning Muslim women to death in Muslim lands--or throwing acid in their faces if they are "uncovered", as in Pakistan and Kashmir. But this took place in a suburb of Buffalo, New York.

What can this mean? Why behead a wife who simply wanted a divorce and who wanted to live free of daily violence? Why didn't Hassan just agree to a divorce?

Because this foul murder was a ritual honor killing, a crime which has everything to do with Muslim culture, and little to do with western-style domestic violence.

Iftekhar on "Home truths in the Muslim family"

Iftekhar — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 21:32:45 +0000

Male dominance in Muslim countries - ah! The eternal subject returns.

I read a headline in a local newspaper that contraceptive use has reached 56% over the last 30 years from a low of 7% in Bangladesh.

Indeed, the fertility rate has come down from 6 per woman to 3 in the same period.

Given the premiss that women are dominated by men, the inescapable conclusion seems to me that men are FORCING more and more of 'their' women to gulp contraceptives.

More than 2 million women work in the garments industry in Bangladesh: this trend began in the '80s. How did these women have the temerity to work in the teeth of opposition from husbands, brothers and fathers?

Obvously, they were FORCED to work by these men.

When the writer says that more and more women are working, she doesn't realise that she is contradicting the basic thesis of male-domination. If women are working, then how are they dominated? If women are having fewer children, then how are they dominated?

Muslim society, like most non-western societies, works by consensus. It is the same in the Muslim family.

In fact, the trend seems to be the opposite of what the writer claims: more women, and men, are turning back to 'tradition' and religion rather than embracing a 'modernity' that they find degrading. Freedom of expression? Pornography. Freedom to date boys? Date rape. Sexual freedom? Teenage sex and pregancy.I personally know many women who have left western countries because they were revolted by these things. If western society respects women, then we all respect zoo animals.

In Bangladesh last year, around 200 women were raped - considered a high figure despite a population of 150 milion. In Britain, 61,000 rapes took place in a population half that size. If that's respect, then western men sure have odd ways of showing it (watch one film on the subject: The Dead Girl).

Interestingly, in a World Bank report on health in the early '90s, it was observed that Muslim women are the safest in the world - Arab women had very little to fear from men as well as themselves (in terms of self-inflicted wounds).

Their main source of danger? War.

Analyse that.

PS India has some remarkable laws on the family, and yet several thousand women there are sod intio temple prostitution every year. How come I never hear about that?

RobPC on "Home truths in the Muslim family"

RobPC — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:42:31 +0000

"the Quran dose not teach bad things".
Here are some of the good things the Qur'an teaches.
".... I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them." [8:12].
“It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land.” [8:67]
“O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives … and those whom thy right (sword) hand possesses of the captives of war whom Allah has assigned to thee.” [33:50]. “Married women are forbidden to you except the captives your sword hand possesses.” [4:24]
“One-fifth of your spoils of war shall belong to Allah, the Apostle, the Apostle's kinsfolk, the orphans, the destitute, and the traveler in need.” [8:41]
“You shall be called upon to fight a mighty nation, unless they accept Islam.” [48:16]
“Warfare is prescribed for you” [2:216].
“Who so fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or victorious, on him we shall bestow a vast reward.” [4:74]
“Hast thou not seen those unto whom it was said: Withhold your hands and establish worship and pay the poor-due? But when fighting was prescribed for them, behold! a party of them fear mankind even as they fear Allah or with greater fear, and say: Our Lord! why hast Thou ordained fighting for us? If only Thou wouldst give us respite for a while. I Say: The comfort of this world is scant; the Hereafter will be better for him that wardeth off evil.” [4:77]
"Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are merciful to one another, but ruthless to unbelievers." [48:29]

“Allah promises you will capture much booty.” [48:20]
“Slay the pagans wherever ye find them”.[9:5]
“Fight the unbelievers till they pay the Jizya tax on unbelievers and are subdued.”[9:29]
"Prepare for them whatever force and cavalry ye are able of gathering, to strike terror, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah and your enemies."[8:60]
"…. if they turn renegades, seize them and kill them wherever ye find them, and take no friends or helpers from their ranks." [4:89]
"Fight them until there is no dissension, and the religion is entirely Allah's." [8:39]

Qur’an 59:2-7 is a commentary on the start of Mohammed’s ethnic cleansing of Arabia, with his military attack against the Jews of Bani-Nadir. (As with much of the Qur’an its context is made clear by the related sacred Hadiths which are detailed accounts of Mohammed’s sayings.)
These Qur’an verses below make clear that the Jews were acting defensively, that Allah approved of their exile and the unexpected innovation of cutting down their desert food trees to terrorise them, and Allah granted the Muslims ownership of the property of the evicted Jews.

“He it is who hath caused the Jews who disbelieved to go forth from their homes unto the first exile. Ye deemed not that they would go forth, while they deemed that their strongholds would protect them from Allah. But Allah reached them from a place whereof they reckoned not, and cast terror in their hearts so that they ruined their houses with their own hands…“[59:2]
“This is because they were opposed to Allah and his messenger ….” [59:4]
“Whatsoever palm trees ye cut down or left standing on their roots, it was by Allah’s leave, in order that he might confound the evil-livers.”[59:5]
“And that which Allah gives as spoil unto His messenger from them, ye urged not any horse or riding-camel for the sake thereof, but Allah giveth His messenger lordship over whom he will. Allah is able to do all things.”[59:6]
"The spoils of war taken from the town-dwellers and assigned by Allah to His apostle shall belong to Allah, to the Apostle and his kinsfolk, to orphans, .....” [59:7]

There's also a huge amount of wisdom in the Qur'an, such as the following.
“Every being that is in the heavens and on earth: all are devoutly obedient to Him.” [30:26] … and the Qur’an also makes hundreds of references to those who are not obedient [2:11-20, 3:10-12, etc etc] and the horrors that await them.

Unapproachable on "Home truths in the Muslim family"

Unapproachable — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:05:13 +0000

Its funny how we talk down to muslim people with out understanding their sense of identity and world view. Typical stereotypes and cliches do not offer anything constructive.

When I saw the tittle of this article I knew that i would see statements like religious fundamentalism and backwards or my favorite Med-evil.

Its true that there is more to muslims then you think. There are complex dynamics at work. Religious and spiritual believes, as well as culture, identity. Muslims from Asia do not have the same dynamics as Muslims from Africa. Things are more complex then that.

I know that people in the media are unwilling to try to understand Islam on a intellectual level. As a young black man people like me have always been seen as a threat to society long before they even cared about my beliefs.

Muslim dose-not equal Arab. The problems which the global muslim community has is that they have been vilified and dehumanized plus years of stagnations and underdevelopment.

What the Muslims need is modernization not just in how to deal with new things like, globalization, the internet and social reforms. But how to train and educate their community leaders to deal with modern problems. We dont need Judge Judy we need Dr Phill. I subject you look up Imam Suhaib Webb on the net or youtube or google.

Islam is not backwards and the Quran dose not teach bad things. It is because of the cultural dynamics and lack of modernization that the classical scholarship of rationality and the flexibility have not had a chance to deal with these new things.

The first Scholar of Islam was a women and there are many women in history who have achieved alot in muslim society. No community is with out its problems, but lets make a separation between Culture and authentic Islamic Teachings.

Thanks

johanna bartley on "Marriage, motherhood and masculinity in the global economy"

johanna bartley — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:02:26 +0000

The times when marriages were arranged between members of the same class are over. Now we are free to marry whoever we wish without being seen as outcasts. Even if back then marriages were arranged, it seems that only couples that love each other need marriage counseling, the other just go by the rules they established.

loulou on "Men and gender justice: old debate, new perspective "

loulou — Fri, 09 May 2008 00:09:28 +0000

I fear that in responding to an era of patriarchy, the (western) feminist movement has not looked actively for the changes needed on the other side of the rights/responsibilities coin.

However I think that it is understandable that in a struggle for equality, looking at the rights of "the other side" are overlooked. I don't think it's justified, but I think it's human nature.

Now the men's rights movement are fighting back, sometimes with exaggerated or simply biased studies, and equally with unbiased and accurate information that shows up some of the biases in feminist studies. They, too understandably are prone to looking at the injustice done to them as a priority over the past injustices done to women in the patriarchy.

The only way to get fair and just legal rights for both men and women is to understand what both sides are crying out for and with unbiased studies into the nature of the issues raised.

Complete unbias is rare in human beings, and so healthy debate and cooperation between women's and men's rights groups (as seperate but cooperating bodies) is the only way justice can be achieved in a way that both men and women welcome.

I look forward to open and respectful debate about changes needed in society for equal rights for all genders. It is hard to see all aspects of life from all angles and even harder to see all aspects of life from the point of view of a gender you have never been and never will be....there has been much too much talk, and not enough listening on both sides.

dia fnaish on "Rebuilding civil society in Sierra Leone"

dia fnaish — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 22:07:59 +0000

Hi there
My name is Dia Fnaish and I would like to share some information about the crimes against women. I came across this while researching statistics and thought it might be of interest.

The victimization of women is a special area of concern, and both the NCVS and the UCR contain data on gender as it relates to victimization. Statistics show that women are victimized less frequently than men in every major personal crime category other than rape,72 is The overall U.S. rate of violent victimization is about 25 per 1,000 males age 12 or older, and 18 per 1,000 female 73

When women become victims of violent crime, however, they are more likely than men to be injured (29% versus 22%, respectively).74 Moreover, a larger proportion of women than men make modifications in the way they live because of the threat of crime.75 Women, especially those living in cities, have become increasingly careful about where they travel and the time of day they leave their homes—particularly if they are unaccompanied—and in many settings are often wary
of unfamiliar males.

Date rape, familial incest, spousal abuse, stalking, and the exploitation of women through
social-order offenses such as prostitution and pornography are major issues facing American society
today. Testimony before Congress tagged domestic violence as the largest cause of injury to American women.76 Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop once identified violence against women by their partners as the number one health problem facing women in America.77 Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS) reveal the following78:

■ Physical assault is widespread among American women. Fifty-two percent of surveyed
women said that they had been physically assaulted as a child or as an adult.
■ Approximately 1.9 million women are physically assaulted in the United States each year.
■ Eighteen percent of women experienced a completed or attempted rape at some time in their lives.
■ Of those reporting rape, 22% were under 12 years old, and 32% were between 12 and 17 years old when they were first raped.
■ Native American and Alaska Native women were most likely to report rape and physical assault, while Asian/Pacific Islander women were least likely to report such victimization. Hispanic women were less likely to report rape than non-Hispanic women.
■ Women report significantly more partner violence than men. Twenty-five percent of surveyed women, and only 8% of surveyed men, said they had been raped or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or date.
■ Violence against women is primarily partner violence. Seventy-six percent of the women who had been raped or physically assaulted since age 18 were assaulted by a current or former husband, cohabiting partner, or date, compared with 18% of the men.
■ Women are significantly more likely than men to be injured during an assault. Thirty-two percent of the women and 16% of the men who had been raped since age 18 were injured during their most recent rape; 39% of the women and 25% of the men who were physically assaulted since age 18 were injured during their most recent physical assault.
■ Eight percent of surveyed women and 2% of surveyed men said they had been stalked at some time in their lives. According to survey estimates, approximately 1 million women and
371,000 men are stalked annually in the United States.

human_tide on "Men and gender justice: old debate, new perspective "

human_tide — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:13:00 +0000

Unsurprisingly, I'm with Emily on this one. I've tried to address the claims for a parity in gender violence but I don't see any of the responses really engaging on that level of debate.

As to the wider questions, I'm still curious about the role of an explicit and political feminism in the bridging and analysis that the article suggests.

Again, why 'women's movement' rather than 'feminist movement'?

Devonavar on "Men and gender justice: old debate, new perspective "

Devonavar — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 07:01:53 +0000

I don't understand the concern with men setting themselves up as "victims". Check that — I understand the concern, but I think it is unfounded. Setting gender idealism aside, men have far less to gain from playing the victim than women — whether they are "actual" victims or not. Gender politics being what they are, a man playing the victim is a wimp: an object of derision, not an object of pity. Outside of a small subset of academia (read: gender specialists), playing the victim is not a viable means of attracting support for men.

A man who finds himself a victim (of any wrongdoing, not just violence) is expected to find redress by his own means — and he has his pride and his sense of masculinity to lose if he does not. That means he has more to gain by being aggressive than accepting his victimhood and passively waiting for / allowing someone to help him. The expectation is self-fulfilling.

As a general rule, a woman can get much more mileage out of playing the victim because, thanks to our ingrained prejudices, she's much more likely to attract pity and therefore help. As a man, it doesn't matter how aware I am of men and women being equally deserving of help — I'm still more likely to respond to the damsel in distress than the defeated knight. I suspect that most women would react in the same way: Help the women and children first; let the men help themselves.

I'd like to point out the irony that, seen through an uncharitable lens, the history of feminism can be seen as a study in women collectively playing the victim to the sympathies of the male patriarchy. Should the masculinities movement referred to by the author ever gain any real power, I would expect that power to manifest itself in a stereotypically male way: it will be aggressive, set its own rules, and, in all probability, completely ignore gender equality. It will wield its power with all the skill and corruption of a politician and it will succeed in spite of its opponents, not because of its allies. Is this fair? No. Is it right? Probably not, but this is where male power lies. This is what the author should fear the masculinities will become, not a network of male victims.

TM Lutas on "Men and gender justice: old debate, new perspective "

TM Lutas — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 20:15:42 +0000

What a mess this article and discussion are. Let's start with first things first. Women on men violence *is* a dirty little secret that is not handled correctly in law, police regulations, jury attitudes, or funding for men in the unfortunate situation where they have to evacuate their homes due to a battering spouse. If you can't handle the murder of men by women with justice, you don't get to come to the table to lecture about anything. You're part of the problem.

Mary Winkler gets 210 days in jail for murdering her spouse, 3 years of split confinement in total. Now reverse the sexes on the crime and watch the sentencing (and the societal outrage) rise. Heterosexual sexual crimes on minors are another area where women get off lightly in the courts (at least in the US). The disparate sentencing of men having sex with minor students versus women (especially cute women) is not something that is seriously up for discussion. It happens.

The biological fact is that men are pretty good at violence as a group. We tend to be about 10% bigger and that added mass has consequences in terms of the severity of violence inflicted. But the law and police regulations are not set up to be about comparative body mass. If it's a big guy and a small woman in a domestic dispute and somebody's getting tossed out of their home for the night to cool down, it's going to be the guy. If it's a big woman and a small man having that same dispute, it's going to be the small guy looking for a hotel room, or calling up friends, or spending the night in jail. Go talk to a cop if you have any doubt of this.

The rule of law is about equal treatment for equal acts. We don't have that when it comes to relationship violence. We don't have it when it comes to divorce. We don't have it when it comes to a whole host of things. If the desired end state is a complementary system where role specialization occurs, such a legal system can be a functional part of the larger societal setup whose disparate treatment supports complementary gender roles. What we have in the feminist West is a largely still complementary legal system with women seeking to break out of their gender roles and demand equality but in no hurry at all to change the complementary legal structure where it favors them. Recognize *that* and a useful conversation is possible about masculinity and where we go forward from our current mess.