The Islamic Epic Fail

[rocketdodger]

It's no more brainwashing than the manner in which you were convinced that lipstick and stockings are for women.

But who says I agree with that?

What if I want to raise my children to be free of all biases, and understand that things like lipstick and stockings should be a genuine choice of women when they want to dress a certain way for a certain purpose, and not something they should be subconsciously uncomfortable without?

My wife never wants to go anywhere without putting some makup on and making sure her hair is in order -- it drives me nuts, I don't like how many women feel compelled to act that way because of upbringing.

 

[joobz]

Perhaps I'm chiming in late, but the oppression isn't in the burka. The oppression is in the reason for wearing the Burka.

If a woman does it out of cultural self-idenity and desire, than there is no oppression.
If a woman does it because they will be ostracized by the men and other women of their society, than there is oppression.

I view this like the classic "stay at home mom" thing.
In the 80s and into the 90s, women viewed the "stay at home" thing as a sign of subservient oppression. And they were right to link this. Afterall, there was oppression of women in the work place.

Now adays, Women have a true and real choice to do what they want (stay at home or work). This makes many of the women of the former generation a bit uneasy for they view this as a sign of "loosing ground". But I view this as a sign of true equality. Afterall, I have more friends who are stay at home dads than stay at home moms. It all matters on what makes the most sense financially for the couple.

 

[FireGarden]

On the other hand (and I could be wrong) it seems to me that the bare head vs. covered head issue can be traced back to the status of women in pre-islamic arabia/persia as owned property.

Well, I don't know the history. But some of the stories I've heard would suggest that the more elaborate coverings, beyond headscarves, would be associated with rich women. The idea being: "It's too impracticle to work dressed like this, so I can't be working. Therefore I'm rich".

Google turns up:
http://www.womeninworldhistory.com/essay-01.html

I did begin to quote bits and pieces. But that got to be so long it was practicly the whole thing. You should read the linked article for the details. Suffice it to say that the meaning of the veil, let alone the hijab, changes as time goes on. Here's a beginning and end:

The veil itself predates Islam by many centuries. In the Near East, Assyrian kings first introduced both the seclusion of women in the royal harem and the veil. Prostitutes and slaves, however, were told not to veil, and were slashed if they disobeyed this law.

[...] [in modern times] For women wishing to pursue professional and public social lives, wearing hijab allows freer movement outside the confines of the home. In leaving their homes, this upwardly mobile group is actually defining new roles for themselves, not defending traditional ones.

Fashions change in the intervening centuries.

I mean that it is a person's choice whether they want to work as a stock broker or a car salesman or a garbage collector or, on the very opposite end of the spectrum, a video game developer (we wear whatever the **** we want, every day).

So people who want a particular job don't always get to choose what they want to wear.

But who says I agree with that?

What if I want to raise my children to be free of all biases, and understand that things like lipstick and stockings should be a genuine choice of women when they want to dress a certain way for a certain purpose, and not something they should be subconsciously uncomfortable without?

My wife never wants to go anywhere without putting some makup on and making sure her hair is in order -- it drives me nuts, I don't like how many women feel compelled to act that way because of upbringing.

I meant lipstick being for women, as oppossed to for men. So, even though I can agree there may be some pressure on women to wear make-up, that wasn't my point. Hence the example I gave in the earlier post: a cross-dressing presidential candidate.

So to rephrase...

Because then the answer is absolutely, I think the idea of "kosher" is obsolete and borderline oppressive. Even if it isn't oppressive, it is certainly brainwashing.

There's no more brainwashing in the teaching of kosher laws than in the teaching of who should wear make-up and who shouldn't.

 

[bikerdruid]

There's no more brainwashing in the teaching of kosher laws than in the teaching of who should wear make-up and who shouldn't.

in this day of factory meat, i think that kosher meat is probably healthier, because it is 'produced' on a much smaller scale.
animals for kosher meat are probably raised in a more sustainable manner.
certainly the butchering of those animals is done on a more personal level.

 

[rocketdodger]

There's no more brainwashing in the teaching of kosher laws than in the teaching of who should wear make-up and who shouldn't.

What if there is more to it, though?

What if the way women dress and present themselves -- more revealing clothing, makeup, etc -- is at least partially a result of the difference in sex drive and factors that are found attractive in others?

 

[cienaños]

how clever and original...a muslim hate thread.

Cute.

Had you paid attention you would have noticed that this is a thread about placing respect for women above a stubborn unexamined respect for religious idiocy.

 

[cienaños]

Well that's probably because most posters here recognise the difference between constructive criticism and bigotry; and one sure sign that you're dealing with someone motivated not with a specific problem with a defined action, but a generalised dislike for a particular race or people is when they write threads with broad-brush titles like "Islamic Epic Fail", or when they say "All Muslims Do This" or "Ok, I may only have noticed the Muslims wearing a headscarf, but that doesn't mean there are Muslim's who don't!" or even "Ok, you've given plenty of examples of a country that doesn't act like that, but still, they're all like that!!"

Bigotry? Don't make me laugh. I despise all idiots alike. Idiots are not a race nor a religion. They're a wet sock with the potential of becoming death by distraction.

In fact, using a word like "apologists" for people who've simply noticed certain posters have a long, long history of far-right, jingoistic, and yes bigoted posting about anything to do with Islam or Arabic peoples tends to confirm suspicions. As does their refusing to apply the same broad-brush strokes to other religions, and declare all Catholics child molesters say, and then not being aware of their hypocrisy in calling other posters out for not doing that to Islam either... so you mean they apply a consistently fine brush approach to all religions do you? How dare they! And so... the opposite of that, someone who applies broad-brushes to only one religion is a...?

You must be new. Again, I despise all organized religion. The lot of them are filthy. To be clear though, I do believe that most of them have appropriated certain ethical, logical guidelines into their fear-based mechanisms -- this does not mean that we should eat the entire cake and defend it.

Or I could link to this handy guide where it lists the history of the current Anti-Mosque fervor;, in particular the role outright racist and lunatic Pamella Gellar has had in pushing the story...

But why bother? Would it make it any more real to you than the links already given to the wider, objective world out there where Islam isn't a monolithic block or experience? Why bother when we'll just be labelled "apologists"? Just don't expect to act like a bigot and not get called on it too.

And to illustrate why I despise idiots, click here.

 

[cienaños]

Perhaps, but I think you underestimate the power of upbringing when it comes to adult behaviors. If this woman had it rammed into her brain that as a female she was bound by Islam to cover her head in some way, the whole time growing up, she probably feels very uncomfortable on a subconscious level whenever she is in public without a head scarf.

So what do we call that? She has a "choice" to not wear one, but her programming makes it so she would never make the "choice" not to. Really, what do we call that?

Control.

Oh, and thank you, by the way.

 

[cienaños]

No. Who am I to tell a woman from another culture how she should dress her children, what they should eat, what to value in other people?

Who are you?

Let's take old school American slavery. Try and swallow this.

I'm the guy who tells the unfortunate, uneducated house negro woman (from another culture) that she should dress her children in warmer clothes during winter. I have the means to assist her in this. In this case, it's cash. Then, I tell her to feed her kids (from another culture) to get them to eat a certain diet so as to avoid malnutrition. Again, I have the means to assist her in this, with cash. Throughout this process, my house negro's suspicions of valuing others based on the content of their character is solidified and passed onto her kids.

Now substitute "genuine edified care" for "cash" in this analogy and please, please proceed with your argument for holding an apathetic stance. I'm begging you.

The subjugation of women is not a culture that we should preserve. Nor, in the case of Catholicism, is the allowance of child molestation.

Let me reiterate, I am not anti-Muslim, nor am I anti-Catholic. I am anti-stupid. I am anti-hatred.

 

[cienaños]

That sure is a logical, intelligent, mature, and reasonable argument you have right there.

I know.

Oh yeah, were you going to say anything?