The World Beyond BetterMost > Women Today
Here we go again - after the revolution - women pushed back into the kitchen
milomorris:
--- Quote from: Buffymon on March 19, 2011, 02:52:20 am ---Team building efforts can come in many shapes or forms.
--- End quote ---
We agree on that point.
--- Quote from: Buffymon on March 19, 2011, 02:52:20 am ---My experience is though, that with good leadership it´s not neccessary.
--- End quote ---
Your experience is your experience, and I cannot debate that--I wasn't there.
What I can say is that at Verizon i learned that leadership can never replace the interpersonal dynamics of a department. It is simply a matter of fact that no manager has the ability to control how his employees think and feel about each other. That can come only from employee interaction. What management can do is control how employees treat each other during working hours.
--- Quote from: Buffymon on March 19, 2011, 02:52:20 am ---I mean, next time, why don´t you just whip out your willies and a meassure tape and get it over with?
--- End quote ---
WOW!! Only 2 pages!! Ya know, I should have started a betting pool for how many pages it would take before misandry reared its ugly head in this thread. I hope everyone realizes that if a guy had said something like that here about women, there would be hell to pay.
Challenging a new employee has nothing to do with penis size. Men don't assess each others' character in an effort to establish who has the biggest dick. If you had one, you'd know that.
It speaks volumes that you think so little of men.
serious crayons:
--- Quote from: atz75 on March 19, 2011, 01:26:24 am ---^I think K was trying to point out that your reaction to the situation in the two different posts seems to reveal a contradiction.
K, please correct me if I'm mistaken in what you were trying to illustrate.
--- End quote ---
Well stated, A.
Milo, she's correct. Your two responses seemed contradictory. Explaining why will be a bit complex, partly because the contradiction occurred around the conversational turning point of delalluvia's post. And let me state right now that I fully expect you to find some reason to justify the two responses and explain away the contradiction that's apparent in them.
Nevertheless, here goes:
In response to the OP about men in Egypt violently attacking women marchers, your tone was derisive and condemnatory, and rightly so. However, your response also contained an element of snark that suggested ... I don't know, Xenophobia or Islamaphobia I guess. The all-caps "bwahaha" laugh and description of this news as "just too ironic." Your contention that the "heroes" -- which you put in ironic quotes -- were showing their "true colors" and your sarcastic use of the word "lauded." You were suggesting, in other words, that this incident constitutes evidence that the Egyptian protesters as a whole were not heroic, that violence and sexual assault were to be expected from Egyptians and/or Muslims ("true colors"), that all male Egyptian protesters should be held accountable for the actions of one angry mob.
Then came the turning point, when delalluvia pointed out that the misogynistic activity that you (and later, more explicitly, Brad) implied were endemic to Islamic cultures, could in fact be be found in traditionally male workplaces in the U.S. and Britain.
Gone was the snark in your response to that! On the contrary, you defended the practice, suggesting that what early women firefighters, miners and soldiers have been subjected to was simply what men routinely endure when they're first hired.
To which I suggest you read up on some sexual harassment cases, such as the one filed by women workers at Eveleth Mines, depicted in the movie "North Country." You might also acquaint yourself with current reports on rape of women soldiers. This isn't about amusing pranks like sending the rookie off in search of a left-handed wrench. It's about threats, stalking, sexual assault, slashed tires, and various other forms of intimidation, abuse, property damage and violence.
So, to recap, your reaction to news of misogynistic actions in Egypt was to point the finger at all Egyptian male protesters. Your response to news of misogynistic actions in the U.S. and Britain was to excuse them as a benign and even useful custom to which men are subjected in equal measure.
Reflexive condemnation of one; reflexive defense of the other.
That's why I expressed amazement that the two posts were written by the same person. Even though, yes, of course, I recognized that person as you.
milomorris:
--- Quote from: crayonlicious on March 19, 2011, 11:05:53 am ---To which I suggest you read up on some sexual harassment cases, such as the one filed by women workers at Eveleth Mines, depicted in the movie "North Country." You might also acquaint yourself with current reports on rape of women soldiers.
--- End quote ---
What I was responding to was the part of del's post that talked about the "intimidation" faced by women in previously all-male organizations, not the part about female workers being sexually harassed in mines, or being raped in the military. I would have expected that to be made obvious by the segment I quoted. When I saw the word "gauntlet" in quotes, I interpreted it as the kinds of generalized pranks/hazing that occur in male institutions. Both men and now women are subjected to this phenomenon in a variety of work environments. None of that is comparable to sexual harassment/rape.
So because they are two very different things, there is no contradiction in my condemnation of one, and dismissal of the other.
milomorris:
--- Quote from: crayonlicious on March 19, 2011, 11:05:53 am ---However, your response also contained an element of snark that suggested ... I don't know, Xenophobia or Islamaphobia I guess. The all-caps "bwahaha" laugh and description of this news as "just too ironic." Your contention that the "heroes" -- which you put in ironic quotes -- were showing their "true colors" and your sarcastic use of the word "lauded." You were suggesting, in other words, that this incident constitutes evidence that the Egyptian protesters as a whole were not heroic, that violence and sexual assault were to be expected from Egyptians and/or Muslims ("true colors"), that all male Egyptian protesters should be held accountable for the actions of one angry mob.
--- End quote ---
Guess again. Nerither you, nor anyone else, can slap a psychological dysfunction on a person because they view the volatility of the situations in places like Egypt, Lybia, Yemen, etc. with suspicion and concern. That is an elitist presumption at best, and a direct slur at worst.
I never said anything at all about Egyptian protesters as a whole. I was simply suggesting that not all of them had/have the best of intentions in mind, and that is now starting to bubble to the surface, whereas prior to this incident, the guys that did this might have been keeping a low profile until the dust settled a bit.
pnwDUDE:
--- Quote from: Buffymon on March 18, 2011, 01:36:26 am --- It´s some of the most radical Muslim groups that are dangerous - the situation in Egypt is highly volatile right now. Let´s hope that not the military or the radical group (the brotherhood of Islam) will kidnap this revolution.
--- End quote ---
Surely you mean the group 'The Muslim Brotherhood'. Here's what Obama appointee Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said about them:
"The term 'Muslim Brotherhood'...is an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam," Clapper said. "They have pursued social ends, a betterment of the political order in Egypt, et cetera.....In other countries, there are also chapters or franchises of the Muslim Brotherhood, but there is no overarching agenda, particularly in pursuit of violence, at least internationally."
Hardly radical in his eyes. Perhaps it's his attempt at political correctness.
Then we have everyones favorite liberal, Bill Maher, saying this to Rep. Keith Ellison, a converted Muslim, in a March 11 interview regarding the Qu'ran, calling it a “hate-filled holy book…which is taken very literally”.
So, what is the truth? How does the Qur'an play into the belief by a MAJORITY of 5 billion Muslims and the status of women in their religion?
Here is what the Qur'an says about women in a Muslim world according to the paper Women in the Qur’an By Dallas M. Roark:
There is another strain of thought running through the Qur’an and it involves paradise through the eyes of the male, rather than the female being there on her own right and because of her own faith. Paradise is described as a man’s world where he shall eat and drink with easy digestion. "Reclining upon couches ranged in rows; and We shall espouse them to wide-eyed houris," (52:20) or as Sales translated it, "virgins having large black eyes." (p. 506)
In Sura 37:44 the faithful have waiting for them fruits and high honor where they recline on couches face to face with spring water passed around to them "and with them wide-eyes maidens restraining their glances."
In Sura 38:52, the description is similar with an additional qualifier that the maidens are of equal age to the males. The men recline, are given abundant fruits, and the maidens are around them restraining their glances. Sale translated the additional description of maidens "refraining their looks from beholding any besides their spouses." (p. 447) In Sura 44:51 a little different emphasis is made. The Qur’an says, "Surely the god-fearing shall be in a station secure among gardens and fountains, robed in silk and brocade, set face to face. Even so, and We shall espouse them to wide-eyed houris, therein calling for every fruit, secure."
In Sura 56:23 Paradise is described with the fruit, couches, and "maidens restraining their glances, untouched before them by any men or jinn...lovely as rubies, beautiful as coral."
A paragraph later the maidens are said to be "good and comely...houris, cloister in cool pavilions...untouched before them by any man or jinn." Sura 56:10-25 describes the same scene in paradise with the couches, reclining face to face, with immortal youths going round about them with goblets, and ewers, and a cup from a spring (no brows throbbing, no intoxication) and such fruits as they shall choose, and such flesh of fowl as they desire, and wide-eyed houris as the likeness of hidden pearls, a recompense for that they labored." The Sura continues to underscore the fact that God created the spotless virgins, "chastely amorous, like of age for the Companions of the Right." Sura 78:32-33 confirms again the reward of the god-fearing who will be given a place of security, "gardens and vineyards and maidens with swelling breasts, like of age, and a cup overflowing."
------------------------------
First, what is the reward for faithful women? They are promised paradise, but at best they are ignored in the reward system. Second, the men seemed to be rewarded the beautiful damsels of like age, and since there is no explanation in the Qur’an, it would seem that the female believers lose out on things. On the one hand it seems that they are equal to the men in being welcomed to Paradise in some of the passages, but on the other hand, appear to be replaced by the dark eyed houris. Third, whatever the solution to this question, paradise is clearly the reward for the men rather than the women.
These are issues about Paradise for the female. Down on earth things are quite different but not much better in many ways. Men’s wives are compared to a garden, their tillage, "so come unto your tillage as you wish." (Sura 2:223) But in spite of this general attitude toward a husband’s sexuality, there are some limitations. When one is going on the Pilgrimage a man should "not go into his womenfolk, nor indulge in ungodliness and disputing in the Pilgrimage." (Sura 2:197) Women are not to engage in sex with their husbands during their monthly course. They are not to have sex until the wives are "clean." (Sura 2:222)
The Day of Judgment is the basis for purity for the man and woman. Because of their "chastisement none feels secure and guard their private parts save from their wives and what their right hand owns...." (Sura 70:29-31) Sale translated this as abstaining from "carnal knowledge of women other than their wives, or the slaves which their right hands posses (for as to them they shall be blameless; but whoever coveteth any women besides these, they are transgressors.)" (Sale, p. 552)
We have observed many Muslim cultures in which women cover themselves almost completely. The inspiration for this is in the Qur’an. Sura 33:59 declares, "O Prophet, say to thy wives and daughters and the believing women, that they draw their veils close to them; so it is likelier they will be known, and not hurt." Sale gave a more detailed interpretation translation, women are to "cast their outer garments over them when they walk abroad; this will be more proper, that they may be known to be matrons of reputation, and may not be affronted by unseemly words or actions." (p. 417)
Greater detail is given concerning the covering of women in Sura 24:30-31. The Qur’an says, "Say to the believers, that they cast down their eyes and guard their private parts; that is purer for them. God is aware of the things they work, and say to the believing women, that they cast down their eyes and guard their private parts, and reveal not their adornment save such as is outward and let them cast their veils over their bosoms, and not reveal their adornment save to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband’s father, or their sons, or their husband’s son, or their sister’s sons, or their women, or what their right hands own, or such men as attend them, not having sexual desire, or children who have not yet attained knowledge of women’s private parts; nor let them stamp their feet, so that their hidden ornaments may be known."
The subordinate position of women in society is reinforced in other contexts. Sura 2:228 states, "Women have such honorable rights as obligations, but their men have a degree above them." Sale is more to the point in declaring that "the women ought also to behave towards their husbands in like manner as their husbands should behave toward them, according to what is just; but the men ought to have a superiority over them. God is mighty and wise." (p. 32) The superiority is expressed in another fashion toward their wives. "Men are the managers of the affairs of women for that God has preferred in bounty one of them over another, and for that they have expended of their property. Righteous women are therefore obedient, guarding the secret for God’s guarding. And those you fear may be rebellious admonish; banish them to their couches, and beat them. If they then obey you, look not for any way against them." (Sura 4:34) Moreover, the Qur’an declares that God "created for you, of yourselves, spouses, that you might repose in them." (Sura 30:20)
-----------------------------------------------------
Heck, I think, for once, Bill Maher is right.
Brad
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version