Female human rights in Moslem cultures

by ROB Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:24 pm

First topic message reminder :

Female human rights in Moslem cultures

Responding here to this “thread” title (in “links”), these two phrases, “female human rights” and “Muslim cultures” are in many instances mutually exclusive.

Context: The most populous “Muslim” nation, Indonesia, in its key document affirms its creation and status as a non-Muslim nation. Perhaps that’s why Indonesia seems not a breeding ground for Islamafascist terrorist murderers.

In stark contrast, “Muslim” nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia intentionally deny unalienable human rights to females. The intentional tolerance of this female-enslaving culture in Western nations, carried out under the guise of “multiculturalism”, sows seeds for the destruction of these nations’ democracies from within. To tolerate evil is to support evil, whether that evil be “secular”, “religious”, or “cultural.”

Snowyflake is “on it”, committed to doing all she knows how to do to break the chains of slavery which allow Muslim women in “Muslim” nations to be raped, tortured, hacked into pieces, executed by hit squads on the streets (a common taliban action), tortured, imprisoned in their own homes and in state-supported prisons, stoned to death, and subjected to other nearly unspeakable and unconscionable acts of state-endorsed violence.

by ROB Sun Jul 15, 2012 8:17 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
Re: Female human rights in Moslem cultures
by oftenwrong Today at 19:53

Racism expresses itself in various guises, some of which are not at all obvious.¹

Underlined text is off topic.

by oftenwrong Sun Jul 15, 2012 10:45 pm

The "topic" is as follows:

Female human rights in Moslem cultures
by Ivan on Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:29 pm

.I’m posting these links to two charities at the request of Snowyflake, one of our members:-

Violence is Not our Culture (VNC): http://www.violenceisnotourculture.org/

Equality Now: http://www.equalitynow.org/

Both organisations exist to educate people about the human rights of women and girls living in Moslem countries, and to take action against abuses against women and girls in these cultures. This includes writing letters and emails to governments to stop stoning women for sexual 'crimes', female genital mutilation, physical and sexual abuse and rape victims being criminalised.

There is a real campaign by Moslem women to change the culture from inside, and to educate the men and ruling figures in those cultures that women and girls have a meaningful role in life and have value in their own right.

A neutral introduction turned immediately into muslim-bashing once under discussion, which can only fall into the category of racism, which is not acceptable.

by ROB Mon Jul 16, 2012 2:04 am

oftenwrong wrote:
Re: Female human rights in Moslem cultures
by oftenwrong on Sun 15Jul 2012 - 22:45

The "topic" is as follows:

Erroneous. I’ve corrected the error.

Text corrected by RockOnBrother:

The topic [inappropriate quotation marks removed] is as follows:

True but incomplete. As the initiator of the thread, I know exactly the topic and intent of the thread as conceived by it author (me) prior to your first post hereon.

As you’ve accurately recoded below, Ivan, at Snowyflake’s request, posted two links, “Violence is Not our Culture (VNC): http://www.violenceisnotourculture.org/” and “Equality Now: http://www.equalitynow.org/”, along with an explanation of these organizations’ common purpose. This is a crucial portion of the thread topic, its “beginning”, but this is not the entire topic.

oftenwrong wrote:
Female human rights in Moslem cultures
by Ivan on Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:29 pm

.I’m posting these links to two charities at the request of Snowyflake, one of our members:-

Violence is Not our Culture (VNC): http://www.violenceisnotourculture.org/

Equality Now: http://www.equalitynow.org/

Both organisations exist to educate people about the human rights of women and girls living in Moslem countries, and to take action against abuses against women and girls in these cultures. This includes writing letters and emails to governments to stop stoning women for sexual 'crimes', female genital mutilation, physical and sexual abuse and rape victims being criminalised.

There is a real campaign by Moslem women to change the culture from inside, and to educate the men and ruling figures in those cultures that women and girls have a meaningful role in life and have value in their own right.

Accurate rendition of Ivan’s post.

oftenwrong wrote:
A neutral introduction…

Erroneous. This thread’s original title, “Female human rights in Moslem cultures - A Response”, the thread initiated by me rather than the links posted previously, originally posted on the General Discussions board, encapsulated its complete topic. Additionally, this thread’s initiating post, authored by me, reposted below…

RockOnBrother wrote:
Female human rights in Moslem cultures
by RockOnBrother on Thu 5 Jul 2012 - 17:24

Female human rights in Moslem cultures
Responding here to this “thread” title (in “links”), these two phrases, “female human rights” and “Muslim cultures” are in many instances mutually exclusive.

Context: The most populous “Muslim” nation, Indonesia, in its key document affirms its creation and status as a non-Muslim nation. Perhaps that’s why Indonesia seems not a breeding ground for Islamafascist terrorist murderers.

In stark contrast, “Muslim” nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia intentionally deny unalienable human rights to females. The intentional tolerance of this female-enslaving culture in Western nations, carried out under the guise of “multiculturalism”, sows seeds for the destruction of these nations’ democracies from within. To tolerate evil is to support evil, whether that evil be “secular”, “religious”, or “cultural.”

Snowyflake is “on it”, committed to doing all she knows how to do to break the chains of slavery which allow Muslim women in “Muslim” nations to be raped, tortured, hacked into pieces, executed by hit squads on the streets (a common taliban action), tortured, imprisoned in their own homes and in state-supported prisons, stoned to death, and subjected to other nearly unspeakable and unconscionable acts of state-endorsed violence.

… is in no way “neutral”; in fact, to use an analogy from plane geometry, its content and tone is one hundred eighty degrees opposite neutral.

This thread’s title, authored by me, and this thread’s initiating post, authored by me, taken together, are certainly an “introduction”, but most certainly not a “neutral introduction.”

oftenwrong wrote:
… turned immediately into muslim-bashing… which can only fall into the category of racism…

False. Bashing anyone because of religious affiliation contravenes decency, integrity, and morality. Racism contravenes decency, integrity, and morality.

Your publicly stated falsehood is insults to my father, my mother, my grandmothers, my grandfathers, my uncles, my aunts, my older siblings and older cousins, all of whom personally or by proxy taught decency, integrity, and morality unto me.

Moreover, as “I am them” and “they are me”, by insulting these persons, you personally insult me.

by Shirina Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:58 am

A neutral introduction turned immediately into muslim-bashing once under discussion, which can only fall into the category of racism, which is not acceptable.

"Muslim" isn't a race, it's a religion ... just like Christians aren't a race. Thus the Muslim faith is not protected under anti-racism rules. Just like bashing Christianity is also allowed. Or bashing Tories, for that matter. Very Happy

by blueturando Mon Jul 16, 2012 2:00 pm

I have posted many times debating, questioning and arguing against Christianity, their beliefs and practices without being labelled a racist on here, so why would it be different for the Islamic faith?

I have seen and met white muslims, black muslims, Asian muslims and even oriental muslims...so what race do these people come under OW?

by oftenwrong Mon Jul 16, 2012 7:22 pm

As it seems to be "put-up-or-shutup" time, let me ask who finds themselves effortlessly identifying with people of different faiths, e.g. Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Quaker, JHVW, Mormon etc.

There are, as everyone is aware, bigotted organisations such as the English Defence League and the British National Party, though all of them will tell you that they are not racist either. If you believe that you can believe anything.

The insidious nature of their propoganda is to identify an aspect of the target ethnic grouping which is unlikely to receive universal approval. Examples will be dietary customs and/or procedures such as circumcision, or as is the case on this thread, a female version.

People who allow themselves to identify with extreme views may not realise they are being manipulated, but they are, nonetheless.

Unfortunately.

by Shirina Mon Jul 16, 2012 8:21 pm

There are, as everyone is aware, bigotted organisations such as the English Defence League and the British National Party, though all of them will tell you that they are not racist either. If you believe that you can believe anything.

This is a trap I refuse to become ensnared by. The existence of bigoted, racist hate groups does not mean I have to placidly accept whatever their victims do. For instance, just because there are neo-Nazi groups does not mean I have to support any and all actions the government of Israel embarks upon. Expressing displeasure of Israeli policy does not mean I am a neo-Nazi or that I am being manipulated by them. In the same vein, just because there are Islamophobic hate groups does not mean I have to accept events such as 9/11 or the murder of a young girl by a mob as somehow justified. I have lost two people in my life to Islamic terrorism yet I still do not hate Muslims. Yet I have no love for Islamic terrorists and I won't be cowed into empathizing with them merely because others hate them. Perhaps that hatred is deserved. Those that hate ALL Muslims due to the actions of a few, they are your main concern, not those who hate terrorism.

by oftenwrong Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:35 pm

QUOTE: Those that hate ALL Muslims due to the actions of a few, they are your main concern, not those who hate terrorism.

My main concern is that there are always people wishing to influence my main concern. Some benign, others evil. The trick is to be able to differentiate, because there will never be an end to bias and special pleading.

by snowyflake Tue Aug 28, 2012 10:23 pm

The two charities that Ivan has kindly posted links to are meant to educate those outside of these cultures and to support the women activists inside these cultures in the hope of effecting fundamental changes to that culture in regards to the rights of women and girls. These are not organisations of 'bias' or 'special pleading', OW. They are trying to change how their culture views the role of women and girls and that can only be a good thing. It is not muslim bashing, they are fighting for basic human rights. Something, we, in the West, sometimes take for granted.

by oftenwrong Tue Aug 28, 2012 11:18 pm

"they are fighting for basic human rights. Something, we, in the West, sometimes take for granted."

Thousands of allied soldiers have died already in places like Iraq and Afghanistan because "we in the West" disapprove of the way others behave.

Would things be improved if we could learn to set our own house in order before dictating to others?

by snowyflake Wed Aug 29, 2012 6:01 am

That is a different issue altogether. We are not in Afghanistan and Iraq because we disapprove of the way women are treated in those countries. You're on crack if you think we are there for anything other than resources. Governments sell their bullshit under the guise of 'moral superiority' so the general public will accept our presence there. And governments don't seem to have any moral obligation to the young men and women they send there to fight or those who die.

In OW's world, should Britain and America have set their own houses in order before stepping in to stop Hitler's slaughter of millions?

by oftenwrong Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:43 am

Apart from Opium Poppies, what are the "resources" of Afghanistan?

by boatlady Wed Aug 29, 2012 12:38 pm

Many years ago I did a degree course in religious studies, with units on both Judaism and Islam. I wouldn't call myself an expert, but I was struck by the similarities between the two religions - dietary laws, rules of hygeine, marriage customs etc. I believe in Orthodox Jewish families it is still deemed unseemly for a woman to uncover her head in public, as in some Muslim societies women are required to cover their faces in public for example. Christianity also has similar rules, although over the years they have become less noticeable (fish on Fridays, wearing a hat to church)
My point is, it seems the religious rules set down in the respective religious texts are similar and on the whole benign - where things seem to get unpleasant is in their interpretation within some political situations.
I might want to point to the Salem Witch trials, or the Spanish Inquisition as examples of situations where religious ideas have been interpreted in a particular way that perhaps serves a political or social end, resulting in behaviour in the name of religion that none of us today would I hope endorse.
I would want to say that women are not oppressed within Muslim societies because those societies are Muslim but because it is politically expedient and possible for the leaders of those societies to do so.
Imposing change on societies from outside hardly ever does any good (anyone remember Iraq?) - what I think does help is to support by offering asylum and access to public media those members of the society who oppose whatever the oppressive regime is.
In my view, killing people is always wrong, oppression of women and minority groups is also always wrong, but killing more people and hating people doesn't solve those problems, and all the passsionate polemic in the world won't make it so.

by oftenwrong Wed Aug 29, 2012 2:00 pm

Who could argue with such a balanced viewpoint? Unfortunately such opinions are hard to identify among the politicians and generals who actually make the aggressive decisions on our behalf. If the Republican Party unseat the current US President, their loony Christian fundamentalist membership will be howling for a reversed intifada.

by ROB Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:13 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
… "we in the West" disapprove of the way others behave.

Would things be improved if we could learn to set our own house in order before dictating to others?

Video: Taliban publicly execute woman near Kabul
https://www.youtube.com/v/vCV61MYdRj8

None Of Us Are Free: “There are voices crying across the ocean” - Solomon Burke
https://www.youtube.com/v/87PJHQGAx38

My Muslim sisters are crying across the ocean. My Muslim sisters are chained. I am not free.

by oftenwrong Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:15 pm

Have you seen the recent figures for domestic violence in nominally Christian countries?

by snowyflake Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:51 pm

Have you seen the recent figures for domestic violence in nominally Christian countries?

Incredible. This sidewinding in the sand doesn't work, OW. Again, you are talking apples and donkeys. Domestic violence is often endorsed by religions but the difference is that the secular state has laws protecting people from it and police to arrest offenders and courts to send the bastards to jail. Women in muslim countries do not enjoy these basic human rights and that is what these activists are trying to change within their own culture. It is education and surely, even you, can't argue with education. It has to start somewhere and they need our support.

by ROB Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:40 pm

snowyflake wrote:
Have you seen the recent figures for domestic violence in nominally Christian countries?

Incredible. This sidewinding in the sand doesn't work, OW. Again, you are talking apples and donkeys. Domestic violence is often endorsed by religions but the difference is that the secular state has laws protecting people from it and police to arrest offenders and courts to send the bastards to jail.

The referenced quote, “Have you seen the recent figures for domestic violence in nominally Christian countries?” is selfish.

I am a Christian (some of the time). As I type, I count thirty-one men, all Christians, my brothers, a number of my first cousins, my sons, and my nephews, and myself, all of whom are Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Baha’is, all of whom would have torn apart (on the spot) the bastard who, on the Reuters video, shot the innocent Muslim woman nine times through the head at close range.

I’m not sure how many bystanders witnessed this abomination before all that’s holy and decent exterminate this woman as if she was a rabid rat, but perhaps more than thirty-one males (not men) verbally applauded this atrocity in the name of God.

To compare events in the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or the US to this crap is to compare bacon-wrapped filet mignon to fetid human defecation in an open sewer.

by oftenwrong Thu Aug 30, 2012 10:53 am

QUOTE: "Women in muslim countries do not enjoy these basic human rights and that is what these activists are trying to change within their own culture."

There can be no objection to that, but most of the hostility in Third-world countries is directed at foreign interference. From where does "The West" derive authority to impose its own customs on everybody else?

What would we think about pressure from e.g. Arabic-speaking countries demanding that we cease to consume alcohol, that we pray five times a day, and that we fast during daylight hours one month in ten?

I believe they'd receive a robust response.

by snowyflake Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:12 pm

Apart from Opium Poppies, what are the "resources" of Afghanistan?

Minerals and mining....which you probably know by now since you can google as easily as the next person.

There can be no objection to that, but most of the hostility in Third-world countries is directed at foreign interference. From where does "The West" derive authority to impose its own customs on everybody else?

Who's interfering? These organisations are supporting the women activists within their own culture. My guess is that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the authority behind it.

What would we think about pressure from e.g. Arabic-speaking countries demanding that we cease to consume alcohol, that we pray five times a day, and that we fast during daylight hours one month in ten?

Too funny. Smile

You are comparing the rituals associated with the islamic religion to basic human rights. Wow.

by **Phil Hornby** Thu Aug 30, 2012 7:18 pm

There will now be a short intermission while we take cover..... Very Happy

by oftenwrong Thu Aug 30, 2012 10:32 pm

There is no purpose in responding to contributors who simply string cliches together. The skill of propagandists lies in spreading their message unrecognised for the brainwashing which of course it is.

by snowyflake Fri Aug 31, 2012 8:24 am

You may well bury your head in the sand and pretend that the concerns of the innocent or helpless has nothing to do with you. Did you even look at the websites? Maybe before being obtusely critical, you ought to read some of the stories presented and check the information and perhaps present a more balanced view of the topic.

Are you a Tory propagandist btw?

by oftenwrong Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:26 am

The stock responses continue to appear, rather like those frustrating communications with a Call Centre where the operatives are only permitted to repeat the words on their screen.

Xenophobia is alive and well in all its aspects. The criticism is not obtuse, I am directly opposed to any attempts to manipulate our thoughts.

by snowyflake Fri Aug 31, 2012 11:37 am

Xenophobia is alive and well in all its aspects.

So are your stock answers of ignorance and denial, OW. You could be the poster child for both. Thinking that activists trying to make changes within a rigid culture is xenophobic then you are not aware of the impact of civil rights or women's rights movements. Do you suppose anything would have changed if there weren't people taking a stand against injustice?

Ok you don't agree with it. I get it. Take care of yourself.

by oftenwrong Fri Aug 31, 2012 4:53 pm

I'm neither ignorant, nor in denial but regret that some people are so ready to jump on any passing band-wagon that supports prejudice. Nevertheless thank you for your good wishes.

by snowyflake Fri Aug 31, 2012 5:54 pm

You're welcome even though you are wrong. Smile

by oftenwrong Fri Aug 31, 2012 7:24 pm

Check the name. Thank you.

by Guest Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:34 pm

[Wikipedia’s Terms of Use, effective 25 May 2012, states “You are free to: Share and Reuse our articles and other media under free and open licenses… Under the following conditions: Civility — You support a civil environment and do not harass other users. Lawful Behavior — You do not violate copyright or other laws. No Harm — You do not harm our technology infrastructure.” Wikipedia’s Creative Commons Deed states “You are free: to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work… Under the following conditions: Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).” Full texts of Terms of Use and Creative Commons Deed available below.]

Domestic violence in Pakistan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Domestic violence in Pakistan is an endemic social problem. According to a study carried out by Human Rights Watch it is estimated that between 70 and 90 percent of women in Pakistan have suffered some form of abuse.^[1] There are an estimated 5000 women killed per year from domestic violence, with thousands of others maimed or disabled.^[2] The majority of victims of violence have no legal recourse. Law enforcement authorities do not view domestic violence as a crime and usually refuse to register any cases brought to them. There are also very few women's shelters in the country, limiting victims' ability to escape from violent situations.^[2]

Lisa Hajjar, an Associate Professor at the University of California, describes abuse against women in Pakistan as "endemic in all social spheres".^[3] In an observational study published in the Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences using a non-randomized "convenience" sample of 218 women in the gynecology wards of three hospitals, 97% of the interviewed women said they had been victims of some form of assault, ranging from verbal abuse or threatened to being subjected to beatings or non-consensual sex.^[4]

Amongst Dowry-related violence, Bride burnings, also known as stove deaths,[7] are widely reported. In 1988 a survey showed that 800 women were killed in this manner, in 1989 the number rose to 1100 and in 1990 it stood at 1800 estimated killings. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan reported that about four women are killed in this manner every day, by either family members or husbands.[10] Shahnaz Bukhari, who runs the Progressive Women's Association in Islamabad, has said of such attacks: "Either Pakistan is home to possessed stoves which burn only young housewives, and are particularly fond of genitalia, or looking at the frequency with which these incidences occur there is a grim pattern that these women are victims of deliberate murder."^[7]

According to the Acid Survivors Foundation, up to 150 [acid] attacks occur every year. According to the foundation, the attacks are often the result in an escalation of domestic abuse and the majority of victims are female.^[11]

References

1. Cited in: Gosselin, Denise Kindschi (2009). Heavy Hands: An Introduction to the Crime of Intimate and Family Violence (4th ed.). Prentice Hall. p. 13. ISBN 978-0136139034.
2. Hansar, Robert D. (2007). "Cross-Cultural Examination of Domestic Violence in China and Pakistan". In Nicky Ali Jackson. Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence (1st ed.). Routledge. p. 211. ISBN 978-0415969680.
3. Hajjar, Lisa (2004). "Domestic Violence and Shari’a: A Comparative Study of Muslim Societies in the Middle East, Africa and Asia". In Lynn Welchman. Women's Rights and Islamic Family Law: Perspectives on Reform. Zed Books. p. 265. ISBN 978-1842770955.
4. Shaikh, Masood Ali (2003). "Is domestic violence endemic in Pakistan: perspective from Pakistani Wives". Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences 19 (1): 23–28. Cited in: Hanser, Robert D. (2007). "Cross-cultural examination of domestic violence in China and Pakistan". In Nicky Ali Jackson. Encyclopedia of Domestic Violence (1st ed.). Routledge. p. 211. ISBN 978-0415969680.
5. Van Wormer, Katherine; Fred H. Besthorn (2010). Human Behavior and the Social Environment, Macro Level: Groups, Communities (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 149. ISBN 978-0199740574.
6. Pickup, Francine; Suzanne Williams, Caroline Sweetman (2000). Ending Violence Against Women: A Challenge for Development and Humanitarian Work. Oxfam. p. 91. ISBN 978-0855984380.
7. Terzieff, Juliette (October 27, 2002). "Pakistan's Fiery Shame: Women Die in Stove Deaths". Women's eNews.
8. Rappaport, Helen (2001). Encyclopedia of Women Social Reformers, Volume 1. ABC-CLIO. p. 115. ISBN 978-1576071014.
9. Jilani, Hina; Eman M. Ahmed (2004). Savitri Goonesekere. ed. Violence, Law and Women's Rights in South Asia. Sage. p. 161. ISBN 978-0761997962. Retrieved 3 August 2012.
10. Kapoor, Sushma (June 2000). "Domestic Violence Against Women and Girls". Innocenti Digest (UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre) (6): 7. ISSN 102-3528.
11. Rodriguez, Alex (May 29, 2012). "Pakistan offers little justice for victims of acid attacks". Los Angeles Times.

Retrieved 6 September 2012 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_Pakistan
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Terms of Use (Wikipedia), effective May 25, 2012

This is a human-readable summary of the Terms of Use.

Disclaimer: This summary is not a part of the Terms of Use and is not a legal document. It is simply a handy reference for understanding the full terms. Think of it as the user-friendly interface to the legal language of our Terms of Use.

Part of our mission is to:

Empower and Engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content and either publish it under a free license or dedicate it to the public domain.
Disseminate this content effectively and globally, free of charge.

You are free to:

Read and Print our articles and other media free of charge.
Share and Reuse our articles and other media under free and open licenses.
Contribute To and Edit our various sites or Projects.

Under the following conditions:

Responsibility — You take responsibility for your edits (since we only host your content).
Civility — You support a civil environment and do not harass other users.
Lawful Behavior — You do not violate copyright or other laws.
No Harm — You do not harm our technology infrastructure.
Terms of Use and Policies — You adhere to the below Terms of Use and to the applicable community policies when you visit our sites or participate in our communities.

With the understanding that:

You License Freely Your Contributions — you generally must license your contributions and edits to our sites or Projects under a free and open license (unless your contribution is in the public domain).
No Professional Advice — the content of articles and other projects is for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice.

Terms of Use, full legal text: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use_(2012)/en#Our_Terms_of_Use

Creative Commons Deed (Wikipedia)

You are free:

to Share—to copy, distribute and transmit the work, and
to Remix—to adapt the work

Under the following conditions:

Attribution—You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work.)
Share Alike—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license.

Creative Commons Deed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License

by oftenwrong Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:31 pm

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

"People who live in glass houses should not throw stones."

In 1860, Doctor Isaac Baker Brown took away uppity highly-strung girls and delivered them back to their concerned families numb and submissive, after a radical clitoridectomy.

There is nothing new under the Sun.
http://upalumni.org/medschool/appendices/appendix-42.html

You might also be interested to read about the results of stirring-up hatred of Muslims: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/muslim-womans-body-found-in-hospital-morgue-covered-with-bacon-745706.html

by boatlady Fri Sep 07, 2012 2:10 pm

Crimes of violence against women are common in male-dominated societies - it has nothing to do with religious belief and everything to do with the perceived role and value of women within the society.
Personally I find it distressing in the extreme to witness the kinds of abuse described, and I believe that the men who do these things and the societies that allow them are in breach of human rights, but it would be arrogant to suppose that I, as an outsider, am able to judge the social norms of another society, or to know what will be the proper way to change those norms without doing greater harm than already exisits.
Social change has to evolve within a society, and this involves a broad consensus, not a 'solution' imposed from outside and backed up by military intervention. Such 'solutions' may well make us feel better, but usually will do little to improve conditions on the ground.
We may well feel that we should do all in our power to facilitate social change within countries where there are human rights abuses - we will most effectively do this by offering asylum to individuals fleeing abuse, and an audience to those who report it, as well as financial aid where appropriate, in my view.
I think oftenwrong is quite right as well to point out the danger of stirring up hatred of Muslims, which is what is likely to be the outcome of high levels of moral outrage about the plight of Muslim women. Again, this is something that makes us feel better, but can in fact do harm.

by Guest Fri Sep 07, 2012 4:25 pm

Boatlady,

You are on target in your abhorrence for these despicable acts and the cultural rather than religious atmosphere within which these bestial atrocities are carried out. Conversely, you are completely off target in seeming to buy into the “anti-Muslim” obfuscation.

I have many cousins of several faiths. Several cousins are adult Muslims, of which number about half are men. “Ahmad”, Muslim name, “George”, birth name (both changed here) has been married the entire time I have known him, as he became my cousin through marriage.

Ahmad’s wife, “Laila”, was once threatened by a scumbag criminal who decided to commit armed robbery at the shop co-owned by Ahmad and Laila. The sorry sucker was armed with a handgun, perhaps a nine millimeter. He entered the shop, pointed the gun at Laila, standing behind the counter at the cash register, and demanded money.

In the ensuing disorder, Ahmad was able to grab the .45 handgun that was under the end of the counter, away from the register. Shots were fired; the criminal ran from the shop and escaped.

Here’s the part that’s relevant. Ahmad put himself between the armed robber and Laila and pushed her down behind the counter as he began firing. After the robber fled, Ahmad attempted to chase him down. He was restrained by Laila. As Laila and Ahmad told several cousins, including me, about the incident, it was apparent that Ahmad’s actions were motivated by his absolute commitment to keep his wife Laila, a Muslim woman, safe, even if keeping her safe required him to sacrifice his life.

That’s the culture of Ahmad, that’s the culture of all of my Muslim cousins, and that’s the culture my Muslim cousins share with me. A man’s job, a man’s sacred duty, is to protect the lives and safety of his wife, mother, daughters, nieces, grandmothers, aunts, and “girl” cousins at all costs, period. To state or imply that such absolute, non-negotiable commitment is in any way “anti-Muslim” is to promote falsehood. Ask Ahmad. And if you are a scumbag male that wants to stay alive and healthy, do not threaten Laila’s life or safety around Ahmad.

Please view the following Reuters news video, posted here for your information.

Video: Taliban publicly execute woman near Kabul
https://www.youtube.com/v/vCV61MYdRj8

The male beast that is applauded by fellow male beasts in the video ought to be hunted down and destroyed like the vicious, immoral that it is.

“For me, there is zero tolerance.”

by boatlady Fri Sep 07, 2012 5:07 pm

Rockonbrother
Your passion does you credit, and your story about your cousin and his wife provides an excellent illustration of the positive face of Islam.
It also provides a very good illustration of the positive face of male hegemony, a social arrangement I don't necessarily subscribe to. For both these positive faces there are, of course, negative aspects, which can involve brutal killing of women, and various other abuses.
The video clip is indeed harrowing to view and certainly arouses powerful feelings of anger, frustration and grief; however, that poor woman's ordeal is thankfully over - nothing you can do will protect her any more, and seeking 'revenge' on her behalf against the individuals concerned will do nothing to change her fate. Seeking revenge on her behalf, in my view, will serve only to perpetuate hatred, anger and abuse, with still more women becoming the butts for this kind of indefensible behaviour.
It makes better sense, in my view, to provide an audience for those within Pakistan who deplore such abuses, to lobby your government to ensure that the Pakistani government are publicly censured, and to provide asylum for individuals wishing to move away from a regime in which they are not safe. That you are making yourself aware of these abuses, sharing the information, and expressing your horror are all positive if unglamorous methods of supporting the women of Pakistan - going over there with an army will only make their situation worse, and making generalisations about a whole cultural environment based on isolated incidents will in fact foment racial hatred.
Sadly, not everyone has a sophisticated understanding of the distinction between race, culture, religion and skin colour.

by oftenwrong Fri Sep 07, 2012 5:33 pm

Why, Oh why, oh why can't other people be like us? study

by witchfinder Fri Sep 07, 2012 8:17 pm

As a non-adherent of any particular faith I do know and understand that Islam, like Christianity is supposed to be a religion of peace and love, but some humans have to interpret the Bible and Quoran to mean hatred, violence and discrimination.

Why is it that the nation with the second highest number of Muslims (Pakistan) is so intollerant and backwards, yet the nation with the seventh largest number (Turkey) is a modern, forward thinking and open society where a persons faith is a matter of personal choosing and has nothing to do with the state.

The problems in backwards places like Pakistan or Saudi are in my view not so much religious, but cultural, and to a large degree are caused by ignorance and lack of education.

by Shirina Sat Sep 08, 2012 1:35 am

but it would be arrogant to suppose that I, as an outsider, am able to judge the social norms of another society

Hello, boatlady:

I agree with everything you've said in both of your posts, but I can't say I agree with the above statement. The reason is this: No matter what culture one belongs to, we are all human beings, and because of that, we all experience the same emotions; we are all bound by human psychology. Within that paradigm, we can say without doubt that no one ... regardless of faith or culture ... wants to be afraid, terrorized, or killed. That is an absolute, something we can apply to every human being (aside from those anomalous cases like sociopaths, etc. but those people are outside the norm).

Therefore, when women are afraid, being terrorized, or killed because their culture demands it, then I am not arrogant in the least if I condemn or judge that culture. When a society's laws legalize fear and oppression of a specific group, in this case women, simply for being a woman, then, using what we know about human beings in general, I can judge that culture to be morally wrong. This is not arrogance or hubris ... it is simply using what we know to be true about all human beings. Fear, panic, sadness, terror, and the desire to live are emotions felt by everyone irrespective of culture.

It is no different than if we see another parent abusing his or her children. We can say, "it's none of our business" and rationalize it by claiming "it's not my place to tell other parents how to raise their children." Yet, morally, we know child abuse is wrong and *most* of us would report them or, in some cases, even intervene. Thus if we see another culture abusing its women, it is equally valid to make a judgment and act accordingly. I simply can't rationalize it away as the beliefs of another culture and, thus, I have no right to make such a judgment. I believe I do have that right on the basis of our humanity -- one thing we all have in common.

by Guest Sat Sep 08, 2012 5:27 am

Boatlady,

Commenting on your comments, you are correct that nothing I might do to the male beast that fired nine rounds into the innocent woman’s head can help that woman now. It distresses me, however, that the beast still lives to prowl to and fro throughout taliban-controlled northern Afghanistan and northern Pakistan, free to rape, torture, maim, and murder more innocent Muslim women at will, with the approval of and to the accolades of fellow male beasts that are not worthy of breathing the air we all share. I believe all decent people worldwide should emulate the Afghani Muslim woman on the Reuters video in calling for zero tolerance. And you are correct in asserting that education must be the keystone for permanent change.

Rock

None Of Us Are Free - Solomon Burke
https://www.youtube.com/v/87PJHQGAx38

by boatlady Sat Sep 08, 2012 10:17 am

Shirina
perhaps I expressed myself badly - the point I wanted to make was that I, as an outsider cannot 'judge', in the sense of knowing the solution to the problem.
You are quite correct - if we see abuse under our noses, we do of course make a judgement that this is morally wrong behaviour, but we would be arrogant indeed if we thought that, on the basis of that one observation, we had the right to condemn a whole family and/or culture - I'm not even sure we have the right to condemn the abusive individual, until we have fully understood her/his situation.
Had I been in Kabul that day I might well have felt it appropriate to put myself at risk in order to try and protect the woman - as I wasn't all I can reasonably do is express outrage and horror, and maybe donate to an appropriate charity which will provide education and asylum.
The individual who perpetrated this distressing act was as surely a product of his environment and culture as you and I are - he no doubt felt, operating within a male hegemony, that he was merely exercising his rights, as clearly did other men in the situation. The extreme violence of his behaviour suggests to me that he, and his like, feel threatened and anxious about the growing capacity of Pakistani women to think for themselves and challenge the negative aspects of their lives.
I can see some parallels in the behaviour of the British in India during the time approaching Independence. Maybe it's not a coincidence that one of the parties in that struggle (Pakistan) is experiencing some difficulty in achieving a good record on human rights.

by oftenwrong Sat Sep 08, 2012 7:50 pm

"Saturday Opinion" in today's Independent goes straight to the point of this discussion, in which lines are drawn even before opinions can be expressed. If you're not on the same side of the wall you must obviously be a bad person.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/no-more-shades-of-grey-why-in-a-world-of-paradoxes-cant-we-hold-contradictory-ideas-in-our-minds-8117837.html?origin=internalSearch

by boatlady Sat Sep 08, 2012 8:30 pm

I was so glad to read this, and will think about it further. Thank you for postng ths link

by snowyflake Sun Sep 16, 2012 7:57 pm

I liked the opinion piece posted by OW. However, there is a huge difference in saying that something is cultural and therefore we ought to ignore it and let women and children be brutalised by the men of that culture or taking a stand with the people inside that culture who wish to educate and enlighten. Unfortunately, OW would rather everyone minded their own business and if you don't he'll call you a racist. Incredible.

I feel sorry for anyone who lives next door to OW and would need his assistance in time of dire need. He'll just ignore you cuz it's got nowt to do wiv him.

by Sponsored content