Originally posted by inimalist
that's a bit of a stretchfeminism for instance
A research was published in my country where researchers looked into the Quran and the Bible to see how hostile these books were to women. And surprisingly, the researches cocnluded, they are not. The Bible was a bit more favourable for women, but even the Quran has many lines in favour of a solid position for a woman. Apparantlt wearing headdress was mistranslated, women can have their own income and property and should be provided for in case of divorce.
The Bible even describes the woman as head of her house, lands and servants (a regular manager), the Song of Solomon is a very romantic ode to a woman singing her beauty etc., and the NEw Testament suggests a woman to be heading a local church.
Maybe the problem is not in these books, maybe it's in people. Strange how good stuff can wrought to make other people very miserable, but that goes for many philosophies, political movements etc.
Originally posted by queeq
A research was published in my country where researchers looked into the Quran and the Bible to see how hostile these books were to women. And surprisingly, the researches cocnluded, they are not. The Bible was a bit more favourable for women, but even the Quran has many lines in favour of a solid position for a woman. Apparantlt wearing headdress was mistranslated, women can have their own income and property and should be provided for in case of divorce.
The Bible even describes the woman as head of her house, lands and servants (a regular manager), the Song of Solomon is a very romantic ode to a woman singing her beauty etc., and the NEw Testament suggests a woman to be heading a local church.Maybe the problem is not in these books, maybe it's in people. Strange how good stuff can wrought to make other people very miserable, but that goes for many philosophies, political movements etc.
The quote was all meaningful laws come from faith
laws that promote feminist and women's rights are fairly arguably not from faith. Not that the books are overly hostile to women (though... lets not mention reproductive rights), just that, laws of feminine equality and the entire feminist movement appear to be more of a result of secular ideas than of faith.
Yes, there were early feminist christians, and I am not even taking away the roll of the church in promoting equality. The Quran, as you mentioned, introduced many rights for women.
Whatever these passages in any holy book, the reality on the ground was not equality. I'm actually not making the argument for the oppression of women for religious reasons (though they were the primary justification, although victorian England started trying to use science, much like eugenics was used to justify racism). Simply that the actual emancipation of women is much more to do with secularism, and to be quite honest, economics, rather than religion.
Equality Rights and feminism are two different things.
I think many feminists are misguided because they don't respect other women who they deem to be, "behind".
What I mean by that is:
Feminists who are company directors look down on women who they deem as carrying out "traditional jobs" which hold the sex back: i.e. housewife. However, I think that the where these feminists are going wrong is the importance they place on jobs. Both men and woman should have equal respect for the housewife as the company director.
Please note I do not think women belong in the kitchen as many of you will now claim that that is exactly what I am getting at.
I think women and men should get to do pretty much whatever job they want and it should be respected. Where would the Politicians and Lawers be if there were no Binmen or Plumbers or Labourers?
Mutual respect is needed, then the idea of a War of the Sexes should fall apart.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Equality Rights and feminism are two different things.I think many feminists are misguided because they don't respect other women who they deem to be, "behind".
What I mean by that is:
Feminists who are company directors look down on women who they deem as carrying out "traditional jobs" which hold the sex back: i.e. housewife. However, I think that the where these feminists are going wrong is the importance they place on jobs. Both men and woman should have equal respect for the housewife as the company director.
Please note I do not think women belong in the kitchen as many of you will now claim that that is exactly what I am getting at.
I think women and men should get to do pretty much whatever job they want and it should be respected. Where would the Politicians and Lawers be if there were no Binmen or Plumbers or Labourers?
Mutual respect is needed, then the idea of a War of the Sexes should fall apart.
i think you have confused traditional and modern feminists.
Also, feminism is not a unitary block of philosophy, as the debate about pornography shows.
I generally see your point, as it is the very typical conservative retort to the existence of modern feminism. I agree, personally, about people who choose to raise children being, morally and legally, the same as those who have careers. However, in what you are saying, it appears as you would wish to take away the right of the woman to be condescending toward traditional life.
However, the most important point, even the most vocal critics of feminism tend to draw a distinction between "old school" and "new school" feminism. Maybe a rule of thumb: the former will rant about the role of women in islam and about the glass ceiling, the later will rail about the misogyny implicit in authoritarian political structure and other such academic issues.
Originally posted by inimalist
I generally see your point, as it is the very typical conservative retort to the existence of modern feminism. I agree, personally, about people who choose to raise children being, morally and legally, the same as those who have careers. However, in what you are saying, it appears as you would wish to take away the right of the woman to be condescending toward traditional life.
I do not recognize it as a right to condescend towards any person based on their job. Its little more than self-righteous snobbery.
If a woman wants to be a housewife- good for her.
If a man wants to be a househusband- good for him.
If a woman wants to be president- good for her.
If a man wants to be president- good for him.
No one, should be so assured of their own superiority that they feel they are better and/or more important than other people based purely on their profession.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I do not recognize it as a right to condescend towards any person based on their job. Its little more than self-righteous snobbery.If a woman wants to be a housewife- good for her.
If a man wants to be a househusband- good for him.If a woman wants to be president- good for her.
If a man wants to be president- good for him.No one, should be so assured of their own superiority that they feel they are better and/or more important than other people based purely on their profession.
ok, but you are now essentially a) giving a hypocritical argument: regardless of your justifications (as a woman you describe can probably describe what she dislikes about traditional life) and b) eliminating the freedom of thought from those who don't agree with you
people have the right not to like stuff, and if you want to start telling people how they have to feel toward others, thats a rather slippery slope. And there would be way better places to start than whether corporate women appreciate housewives.
Originally posted by inimalist
ok, but you are now essentially a) giving a hypocritical argument: regardless of your justifications (as a woman you describe can probably describe what she dislikes about traditional life) and b) eliminating the freedom of thought from those who don't agree with youpeople have the right not to like stuff, and if you want to start telling people how they have to feel toward others, thats a rather slippery slope. And there would be way better places to start than whether corporate women appreciate housewives.
I don't see mutual respect for your fellow man as hypocritical...where about am i being so?
Originally posted by inimalist
Whatever these passages in any holy book, the reality on the ground was not equality. I'm actually not making the argument for the oppression of women for religious reasons (though they were the primary justification, although victorian England started trying to use science, much like eugenics was used to justify racism). Simply that the actual emancipation of women is much more to do with secularism, and to be quite honest, economics, rather than religion.
I don't think religion invented the patriarchal system though. Times change, and whatever's at hand to excercise influence or power (the latter doesn't apply here though) will be used by people to get their way. And to be quite honest, economics have always been major driving forces behind customs and changes.
Originally posted by queeq
I don't think religion invented the patriarchal system though.
Evolution probably. Men are generally larger and in hunting and gathering systems they genuinely were more valuable/important than women. The social structure didn't progress as fast as the species.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I don't see mutual respect for your fellow man as hypocritical...where about am i being so?
"Tolerance is cowardice."
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Evolution probably. Men are generally larger and in hunting and gathering systems they genuinely were more valuable/important than women. The social structure didn't progress as fast as the species.
PLus in ancient times I'm sure the child bearing and raising took quite something out of a woman physically and working the land or hunting was major hard labour.