Women with sexy eyes forced to cover up

[AngryAtheist8]

**So you believe every woman in Saudi Arabia lives in 24 hour fear of their husbands?
**Are you saying every man in Saudi Arabia is some sort of over-sexed monster?

That husbands and wives don’t love eachother?

What happened to the thought that only a very small minority of Muslims are fanatic and the majority are just like us and laugh, love and just want to live peaceably?

Probably not, people can get used to anything.
That doesn’t mean the system is anything close to just.

And I am sure that there many men in places like Saudi Arabia that love their wives and daughters and would never hurt them. But these men live in a system that encourages the opposite type of behavior.

According to National Geographic thousands of women are killed each year by male relatives in places like Saudi Arabia (i.e. very religious, patriarchal, and usually Islamic) for dishonoring the family in some way, and usually face little to no legal consequences (link to source: news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0212_020212_honorkilling.htm).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Angry Athiest said women live under the threat of death from the government and their male relatives.

If the majority of Muslims are peaceful then they need to remove that threat.

If you need clarification of my thoughts it’s OK to just ask.

If their peaceful how are they supposed to overthrow a ruthless and violent government?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

First, i would agree with you that any social change in SA, if it happens at all, will happen through women.
Second, I don’t think that western feminism would play much of a role in that change, for the conflict model of the Marxist school has made men the enemy in Western feminism, the bourgoise oppressor of the female proletariat. By and large, Muslim women reject this misandry, and for good reason of course. Western feminism has very little to teach them in this regard. Their husband is not the enemy, and having men blinded or led around by mothers has not much appeal. Muslim women seem to very much have the understanding that whatever demeans their husband demeans themselves and their family as well.
This has been my observation.

As for the men, it is a mixed bag. Certainly many have now spent time in western universities and can understand well enough the stimulation involved in having women as social and intellectual equals. Recall as well though that Qutb of Muslim Brotherhood fame had a similar history, and was very disturbed by he idea of female liberty. No doubt his own program of a return to tradtitional oppression of women has been very popular in Muslim lands, and a lot of Saudi men would likewise be very uncomfortable with the idea of no longer being king of their castle, being served as the lioness serves the lion. Many surmise in fact, that the idea of having such free women in their midst in the state of Israel is the main hatred of Israel. Sex is primal like that for most men, even as it is politcally incorrect to say so in our feminized world.
But yea, if there will be change, it will be instigated by the women of the area, and it won’t come easy. Both men and women there reject the western feminist model, albeit for diffrent reason. But women by and large have the bigger reason to detest the system, which is becoming more oppressive rather than less, as much as a reaction against the western system than a belief in tradtional Islam itself.

Islam has never abandoned the ancient Abrahamic idea of women as property the way that Christianity has. The actions of groups like the Taliban and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia make a lot more sense when seen in that light.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

First, i would agree with you that any social change in SA, if it happens at all, will happen through women.
Second, I don’t think that western feminism would play much of a role in that change, for the conflict model of the Marxist school has made men the enemy in Western feminism, the bourgoise oppressor of the female proletariat. By and large, Muslim women reject this misandry, and for good reason of course. Western feminism has very little to teach them in this regard. Their husband is not the enemy, and having men blinded or led around by mothers has not much appeal. Muslim women seem to very much have the understanding that whatever demeans their husband demeans themselves and their family as well.
This has been my observation.

As for the men, it is a mixed bag. Certainly many have now spent time in western universities and can understand well enough the stimulation involved in having women as social and intellectual equals. Recall as well though that Qutb of Muslim Brotherhood fame had a similar history, and was very disturbed by he idea of female liberty. No doubt his own program of a return to tradtitional oppression of women has been very popular in Muslim lands, and a lot of Saudi men would likewise be very uncomfortable with the idea of no longer being king of their castle, being served as the lioness serves the lion. Many surmise in fact, that the idea of having such free women in their midst in the state of Israel is the main hatred of Israel. Sex is primal like that for most men, even as it is politcally incorrect to say so in our feminized world.
But yea, if there will be change, it will be instigated by the women of the area, and it won’t come easy. Both men and women there reject the western feminist model, albeit for diffrent reason. But women by and large have the bigger reason to detest the system, which is becoming more oppressive rather than less, as much as a reaction against the western system than a belief in tradtional Islam itself.

Women have (and traditionally have had) so little political power or voice in decision making in Muslim countries that’s its hard to say what they want or think as a group.

For instance, the vast majority of women in Saudi Arabia could hate their husbands or love them and it would make relatively little difference on the societial level, because women in that country have so little freedom or power over their own lives.

 

[iamrefreshed]

If their peaceful how are they supposed to overthrow a ruthless and violent government?

I never said they should remain peaceful.

Revolutions are sometimes necessary.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Probably not, people can get used to anything.
That doesn’t mean the system is anything close to just.

And I am sure that there many men in places like Saudi Arabia that love their wives and daughters and would never hurt them. But these men live in a system that encourages the opposite type of behavior.

According to National Geographic thousands of women are killed each year by male relatives in places like Saudi Arabia (i.e. very religious, patriarchal, and usually Islamic) for dishonoring the family in some way, and usually face little to no legal consequences (link to source: news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0212_020212_honorkilling.htm)..)

Your link does not work.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Your link does not work.

That’s odd.
Here’s another link: news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/02/0212_020212_honorkilling.html

This one seems to work.

 

[Darryl1958]

Islam has never abandoned the ancient Abrahamic idea of women as property the way that Christianity has. The actions of groups like the Taliban and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia make a lot more sense when seen in that light.

You continue to demonstrate a fairly simplistic understanding of the Bible and the values of the ancient people that followed it. I have found rabbis such as Rabbi Forhmann and even Dennis Prager very good to read and to listen to, if a more mature understanding is to be reached.
Superficial readings and understandings of the biblical traditions, such as an illiterate such as Mohammed could only have reached, or really, such as most biblically illiterate moderns today have access to, would indeed give the impression that the Bible merely justifies the pagan sexual oppression of the ancients.
People truly schooled in Biblcia wisdom understand that it is no coincidence that Christianity has developed a radically different concept.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

You continue to demonstrate a fairly simplistic understanding of the Bible and the values of the ancient people that followed it. I have found rabbis such as Rabbi Forhmann and even Dennis Prager very good to read and to listen to, if a more mature understanding is to be reached.
Superficial readings and understandings of the biblical traditions, such as an illiterate such as Mohammed could only have reached, or really, such as most biblically illiterate moderns today have access to, would indeed give the impression that the Bible merely justifies the pagan sexual oppression of the ancients.
People truly schooled in Biblcia wisdom understand that it is no coincidence that Christianity has developed a radically different concept.

Considering the personal insults and typos, I will give this post the respect it deserves

 

[AngryAtheist8]

You continue to demonstrate a fairly simplistic understanding of the Bible and the values of the ancient people that followed it. I have found rabbis such as Rabbi Forhmann and even Dennis Prager very good to read and to listen to, if a more mature understanding is to be reached.
Superficial readings and understandings of the biblical traditions, such as an illiterate such as Mohammed could only have reached, or really, such as most biblically illiterate moderns today have access to, would indeed give the impression that the Bible merely justifies the pagan sexual oppression of the ancients.
People truly schooled in Biblcia wisdom understand that it is no coincidence that Christianity has developed a radically different concept.

A large number of Christians, Muslims, and Jews seemed to agree with that impression. The idea of women as chattel was the norm until recently (in historical terms).

 

[Kaninchen]

A large number of Christians, Muslims, and Jews seemed to agree with that impression. The idea of women as chattel was the norm until recently (in historical terms).

It’s also been something of a norm in other cultures as well - ‘the universal religion of patriarchy’ as some radical feminists have described it.

 

[Darryl1958]

Considering the personal insults and typos, I will give this post the respect it deserves

You really should try looking a things from the point of view of the people I have alluded to.
It is not as if your radical feminist point of view is exactly neutral when it comes to describing the Judeo-Christian tradition.

And my apologies for typos and grammar. I hope that you don’t expect a quick response on a message board to rise to theses level.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

**You really should try looking a things from the point of view of the people I have alluded to.**It is not as if your radical feminist point of view is exactly neutral when it comes to describing the Judeo-Christian tradition.

And my apologies for typos and grammar. I hope that you don’t expect a quick response on a message board to rise to theses level.

Why?
They are at least as biased as radical feminists (if not more so).
Religious officials and spokesmen by definition have a (religious) agenda.

 

[Darryl1958]

Why?
They are at least as biased as radical feminists (if not more so).
Religious officials and spokesmen by definition have a (religious) agenda.

Why

For the same reason that you would want to go to evolutionary scientist to learn about evolution more than you would want to go to the creationist. It is not as if either does not have an agenda, but the evolutionist lives and breathes and drinks and poops evolution. They read every article, and think deeply on the subject, and immerse themselves into the minutiae to an extent that evolution’s greatest critics never would. It is their life. Torah is the life of the rabbis to the exact same extent.

You seem to be interested in the Old Testament, as you are continually referring to it, so why not at least refer to the people that have studied the Abrahamic traditions from the inside out, rather than those who hardly even touch the book other than to cut and paste its supposed shortcomings.
Like young earth creationists normally only deal with the science in as superficial a manner as possible, so too do secularists treat the Bible and the “Abrahamic faiths”.

So lets look at the Abrahmic faith then. In terms of Abraham himself, this means that not only did God forewarn him in a dream about the path that Sarah was leading him on when she treated Egyptian Hagar as just so much chattel. Moreover, when Sarah puts her lowly ‘female incubator’ l under her thumb like so much chattel, so to did the Egyptians put Sarah’s progeny under their thumbs, like so much chattel, to let them understand the world from the point of view of the Egyptian chattel, Hagar.
This point made by God to those who actually study the Abrahamic faith was not even subtle. 400 years of slavery and oppression later, it was driven home with an iron fist.
“You want to treat my girl Hagar as chattel? Fine then. The lowly will be raised and the high and the mighty will be humbled. That is your ‘Abrahamic’ justice, my dears”.

The radical feminists won’t teach you this. Their understanding is as common as mud, widely accepted as true, but no less supericial on that account. Even Christianity, which is more interested in OT fulfillment through Christ (in whom the whole of the Abrahamic code of law is contained) than the intricacies of the Hebraic code of law and ethics, glide over these kind of messages as often as not.

But for the rabbis, this is their life’s passion. This is their lives work. This is what keeps them up at night.
Sure they are biased.

But they do know their stuff, and there is nothing superficial in the least in the way that they go into the finest detail of that stuff.

That is why.

 

[LemonAndLime]

You really should try looking a things from the point of view of the people I have alluded to.
It is not as if your radical feminist point of view is exactly neutral when it comes to describing the Judeo-Christian tradition.

And my apologies for typos and grammar. I hope that you don’t expect a quick response on a message board to rise to theses level.

Can you define feminism please in the context that you used it?

A Saudi Arabian feminist for example, is extreme if they want women to be able to walk around freely.

 

[LemonAndLime]

It’s also been something of a norm in other cultures as well - ‘the universal religion of patriarchy’ as some radical feminists have described it.

 

[aloe]

I’ve never understood why the obvious answer isn’t for men to be blindfolded outside the house and led around by their mothers.

This is the best idea I have heard yet.

 

[Gift_from_God]

Can you define feminism please in the context that you used it?

To me, there’s two types of feminists; the first is the people that look for things to whine about such as Kate Middleton wearing a dress (yes, I’ve heard that). The second is the women who advocate income equality, stronger female representation in Parliament, and bringing awareness to rape & sexual assault

 

[LemonAndLime]

To me, there’s two types of feminists; the first is the people that look for things to whine about such as Kate Middleton wearing a dress (yes, I’ve heard that). The second is the women who advocate income equality, stronger female representation in Parliament, and bringing awareness to rape & sexual assault

I like to call the first type feminazis. The second I like to call feminists. Unfortunately, on this forum feminazis are ordinary feminists, and if I try to claim to be one I learn all sorts of things about myself - such as I must be pro-choice, must be anti-male…

 

[Wendy_7810]

It is extremely difficult to understand the Muslim Religion/Culture. My husband is Muslim and I am NOT. We disagree on everything. I can tell you that a woman having to cover her eyes is the least of the concerns of Islam. Many peoples intentions are good, however, in many cases, Islam uses blind faith to mislead good people. For example, Women are taught that they are being protected as a treasure. They are not allowed to leave the home without the husband’s permission. They are not allowed to fast without the husbands permission. They are not allowed to pray during certain times of the month. They are not allowed to walk in front of the husband while he is praying because her presence makes his prayer invalid. Men and women worship separately because the men cannot be exposed to seeing a woman while he is praying. To them this is all normal. To us, it is unimaginable. As Christians, we worship together as a family. We gain strength and support from each other. We are two halves which become one greater whole in marriage. For them, marriage is not a promise between the couple and God. For them, it is nothing more than a contract where the husband gets “X” rights while the wife gets “Y” rights. They are taught from the start that all humans NEED sex and we know this to simply be untrue. Look at our Priests and Nuns and also look at all those people who simply never find the right person to share their lives with…you can see that sex is a temptation, but not a need.

Honestly, I would suggest that we should offer prayers for these people that they may find the true path of God. Some of them (admittedly not all) are truly good people and I do hope that they find the truth.