Author Topic: Here we go again - after the revolution - women pushed back into the kitchen  (Read 12145 times)

Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
 >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

As usual, men want women helping them overthrown an oppressive government, and then what do they get for their pains from these men who stood by their side?

CAIRO - Women hoping to extend their rights in post-revolutionary Egypt were faced with a harsh reality Tuesday when a mob of angry men beat and sexually assaulted marchers calling for political and social equality, witnesses said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20110317/wl_time/08599205943500

I never get such ingratitude.  Do these men think they owe women nothing for their help?  That now that EVERYone's oppressor is gone, they want to take the reins and oppress someone else?  These men obviously DON'T think much of women.  What did they think these women were out in the streets for?  Obviously JUST to help the men, because men count, women don't.   ::) ::) ::)  It makes me so incredibly angry.

Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,426
  • No crybabies
BWAAAHAAAHAAHAAHAAAA!!!

This is just too ironic. These "heroes" are finally starting to show their true colors.

I wonder what other little surprises the lauded new Egypt will have in store??
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

pnwDUDE

  • Guest
>:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

As usual, men want women helping them overthrown an oppressive government, and then what do they get for their pains from these men who stood by their side?

CAIRO - Women hoping to extend their rights in post-revolutionary Egypt were faced with a harsh reality Tuesday when a mob of angry men beat and sexually assaulted marchers calling for political and social equality, witnesses said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20110317/wl_time/08599205943500

I never get such ingratitude.  Do these men think they owe women nothing for their help?  That now that EVERYone's oppressor is gone, they want to take the reins and oppress someone else?  These men obviously DON'T think much of women.  What did they think these women were out in the streets for?  Obviously JUST to help the men, because men count, women don't.   ::) ::) ::)  It makes me so incredibly angry.

Egypt is an ISLAMIC country and there women don't count. But it is such a peaceful religion.............. ::)

Brad

Offline Monika

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,586
  • We are all the same. Women, men, gay, straight
Egypt is an ISLAMIC country and there women don't count. But it is such a peaceful religion.............. ::)

Brad
Haven´t you learned anything from recent events? Islam is not "one" religion, there are many branches of Islam that are pretty different from one another.
I´ve often heard the argument that Muslims don´t want democracy, for example. Well, look at what have happened. Muslims fighting in Egypt - Tunisia - and now Lybia for....democracy.

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.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2011, 03:34:16 am by Buffymon »

Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Egypt is an ISLAMIC country and there women don't count. But it is such a peaceful religion.............. ::)

Brad

WHAT?  You're calling George Dubya a liar?!?!  ;)

Anyway, this isn't just an Islamic or Egyptian thing, this happened in the US and in Britain as well, but about one century ago and as occasional stories in the news even today will tell you here in the US, when women join - or attempt to join - previously all-male organizations, whether the fire departments, police or military, coal mining or what have you, they run into this same sort of intimidation 'gauntlet' they're forced to run by men with teeny brains and apparently even smaller balls.

Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,426
  • No crybabies
whether the fire departments, police or military, coal mining or what have you, they run into this same sort of intimidation 'gauntlet' they're forced to run by men with teeny brains and apparently even smaller balls.

Many male institutions come with an element of testing the mettle of their new male members. If women want to join, they should expect the same treatment.
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Offline Monika

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,586
  • We are all the same. Women, men, gay, straight
Many male institutions come with an element of testing the mettle of their new male members. If women want to join, they should expect the same treatment.
why should we? I´d rather get a job based on my qualifications than on my participation in stupid games for men. You can keep those.

Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,426
  • No crybabies
why should we? I´d rather get a job based on my qualifications than on my participation in stupid games for men. You can keep those.

The "testing" has nothing to do with getting the job. You've already got the job. The "testing" is done so that the other men know that you will fit in. In Corporate America, hiring managers are often asked to consider a candidate's compatibility with the workgroup or department. A candidate might very well be qualified to do the job, but incompatible with the department for any number of reasons. Those reasons often have to do with the candidates character or personality. The "testing" among men in various institutions is a simplified way of doing that.

So to answer the "why should we?" question: because qualifications are only part of the picture.
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Offline Monika

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,586
  • We are all the same. Women, men, gay, straight
The "testing" has nothing to do with getting the job. You've already got the job. The "testing" is done so that the other men know that you will fit in. In Corporate America, hiring managers are often asked to consider a candidate's compatibility with the workgroup or department. A candidate might very well be qualified to do the job, but incompatible with the department for any number of reasons. Those reasons often have to do with the candidates character or personality. The "testing" among men in various institutions is a simplified way of doing that.

So to answer the "why should we?" question: because qualifications are only part of the picture.
In most work places they can achieve compatability without silly games. So no, I don´t think we should.

Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
In most work places they can achieve compatability without silly games. So no, I don´t think we should.


Agree.  Why don't they see if I fit in because I can do the job, not because I can pass stupid frat boy hell week games.  We're adults now, not kids.

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,430
BWAAAHAAAHAAHAAHAAAA!!!

This is just too ironic. These "heroes" are finally starting to show their true colors.

I wonder what other little surprises the lauded new Egypt will have in store??

Many male institutions come with an element of testing the mettle of their new male members. If women want to join, they should expect the same treatment.


That's strange. These both appear to have been posted by the same person.



Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,426
  • No crybabies
In most work places they can achieve compatability without silly games. So no, I don´t think we should.

So let me get this right..

A = the personal whims, and private intuitions of a hiring manager at a corporation which are applied to your suitability for employment before you're hired.

vs.

B = out-in-the-open testing of one's character and personality by your peers after you have already secured the job.

Me? I'd much rather put up with the group games of my colleagues than the personal voodoo of the hiring manager. Why? Because I can win a game. With voodoo, the witchdoctor is in control.

iYou can call these games "silly" all you want. But you fail to recognize the benefits that play can bring to a company. When I was at Verizon, the annual meeting always included at least a half day of team-building exercises. The coaches were from institutions of higher learnng such as Cornell, George Washington University, and Penn State. These were games designed to encourage teamwork, critical analysis of our peers, and praise of each others' efforts.

You can call these things "silly" if you want to, but that illustrates how out of step you are with both the business and academic communities on this topic.
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,426
  • No crybabies
That's strange. These both appear to have been posted by the same person.

That "same person" would be me. What's the problem?
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Offline Brown Eyes

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 10,375
^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.

the world was asleep to our latent fuss - bowie

Offline Monika

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,586
  • We are all the same. Women, men, gay, straight
So let me get this right..

A = the personal whims, and private intuitions of a hiring manager at a corporation which are applied to your suitability for employment before you're hired.

vs.

B = out-in-the-open testing of one's character and personality by your peers after you have already secured the job.

Me? I'd much rather put up with the group games of my colleagues than the personal voodoo of the hiring manager. Why? Because I can win a game. With voodoo, the witchdoctor is in control.

iYou can call these games "silly" all you want. But you fail to recognize the benefits that play can bring to a company. When I was at Verizon, the annual meeting always included at least a half day of team-building exercises. The coaches were from institutions of higher learnng such as Cornell, George Washington University, and Penn State. These were games designed to encourage teamwork, critical analysis of our peers, and praise of each others' efforts.

You can call these things "silly" if you want to, but that illustrates how out of step you are with both the business and academic communities on this topic.

Team building efforts can come in many shapes or forms.  My experience is though, that with good leadership it´s not neccessary. And if you need more,  doing things together outside of work can do the trick and not any "gauntlets". I mean, next time, why don´t you just whip out your willies  and a meassure tape and get it over with?

Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,426
  • No crybabies
Team building efforts can come in many shapes or forms.  

We agree on that point.

My experience is though, that with good leadership it´s not neccessary.

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.

I mean, next time, why don´t you just whip out your willies  and a meassure tape and get it over with?

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.
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,430
^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.

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.



Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,426
  • No crybabies
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.

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.
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,426
  • No crybabies
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.

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.
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

pnwDUDE

  • Guest
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.

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


Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
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.

OK, but you interpreted my use of the word wrongly.  I was thinking Tailhook, when I wrote that.  The women had to run the male gauntlet of being all but sexually assaulted to attend the gathering.

Quote
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.

You would be incorrect and I'm sorry you had to experience that Milo but in my part of the US, in the many jobs I've had over my lifetime, I've NEVER had to experience such a phenomenon in any way, shape or form.  I was simply accepted as part of the work team and earned the respect of others through my work.

I'm so sorry that you have had to experience that so often that you have now come to accept such harassment as a normal part of any job.  In truth, you don't have to.  I never have and any job in the future I might go to where I AM subject to such hazing or whatever they might call it, I would seriously consider a lawsuit, because it is quite obvious in my experience that such things are completely unnecessary for team building and acceptance.

Offline Monika

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,586
  • We are all the same. Women, men, gay, straight
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
 

  uhm..is your point that Islam is a violent religion and to proove this you give us quotes from their holy book?

Read the old testament lately, Brad?

Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
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



Hi Brad, no one is denying that the Q'uran is misogynistic.  So is the Bible.  So is mostly anything written about women by men in the last several millennia.  But as with Christianity, you have to take into account that many Muslims are just as cherry-picking about their holy book as are Christians today.  For every Muslim male who would put to death his wife for showing her face to strange men, there are just as many men who let their wives show their faces to strange men all over the world in TV and magazines for photographers and when they aren't in a Muslim country and don't do anything to their wives.

pnwDUDE

  • Guest
 uhm..is your point that Islam is a violent religion and to proove this you give us quotes from their holy book?

Read the old testament lately, Brad?

Hi Brad, no one is denying that the Q'uran is misogynistic.  So is the Bible.  So is mostly anything written about women by men in the last several millennia.  But as with Christianity, you have to take into account that many Muslims are just as cherry-picking about their holy book as are Christians today.  For every Muslim male who would put to death his wife for showing her face to strange men, there are just as many men who let their wives show their faces to strange men all over the world in TV and magazines for photographers and when they aren't in a Muslim country and don't do anything to their wives.

Which takes us back to these statistics:

Islam on Campus - published in July 2008 - is the most comprehensive survey ever undertaken of Muslim student opinion in the UK. It is based on a specially commissioned YouGov poll of 1400 students, as well as on fieldwork and interviews.

The report examines students' attitudes on key issues including religious tolerance, gender equality and integration. While most Muslim students support secularism and democratic values, and are generally tolerant towards other minorities and reject violence in the name of their faith, Islam on Campus uncovered significant findings:
- 40% of Muslim students polled support the introduction of Sharia into British law for Muslims.
- Almost a third (32%) of Muslim students polled said killing in the name of religion was ever justified. By contrast, just 2% of non-Muslims polled felt the same way
- 40% of Muslim students polled felt it unacceptable for Muslim men and women to associate freely.
- 33% of Muslim students polled declared themselves supportive of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate based on Sharia law.
- 54% of Muslim students polled were supportive of an Islamic political party to represent the views of Muslims at Parliament.
- Slightly less than a quarter (24%) of Muslim student respondents do not think that men and women are equal in the eyes of Allah.
- 6% of Muslim students polled said that converts from Islam should be punished "in accordance with Sharia law."
- 25% of Muslim students (and 32% of male Muslim students) polled said they had not very much or no respect at all for homosexuals.
- 66% of Muslim students polled said they had lost respect for the British government because of the invasion of Iraq.
- However, 30% of Muslim students polled also said their respect for British society had increased based on the public's (largely negative) reaction to the Iraq war.

http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/blog/2009/12/islam-on-campus.html


Glaringly, many young Muslims still embrace lots of the most radical and misogynistic beliefs of the Qua'ran. Show me any evidence that today's Christians abide by or embrace those radical equivalents (which don't hold a candle to that of the Qua'ran) held in the Old Testament.

Bill Maher is correct in his assessment:
Quote
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”.

Brad

Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Which takes us back to these statistics:

Islam on Campus - published in July 2008 - is the most comprehensive survey ever undertaken of Muslim student opinion in the UK. It is based on a specially commissioned YouGov poll of 1400 students, as well as on fieldwork and interviews.

The report examines students' attitudes on key issues including religious tolerance, gender equality and integration. While most Muslim students support secularism and democratic values, and are generally tolerant towards other minorities and reject violence in the name of their faith, Islam on Campus uncovered significant findings:
- 40% of Muslim students polled support the introduction of Sharia into British law for Muslims.
- Almost a third (32%) of Muslim students polled said killing in the name of religion was ever justified. By contrast, just 2% of non-Muslims polled felt the same way
- 40% of Muslim students polled felt it unacceptable for Muslim men and women to associate freely.
- 33% of Muslim students polled declared themselves supportive of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate based on Sharia law.
- 54% of Muslim students polled were supportive of an Islamic political party to represent the views of Muslims at Parliament.
- Slightly less than a quarter (24%) of Muslim student respondents do not think that men and women are equal in the eyes of Allah.
- 6% of Muslim students polled said that converts from Islam should be punished "in accordance with Sharia law."
- 25% of Muslim students (and 32% of male Muslim students) polled said they had not very much or no respect at all for homosexuals.
- 66% of Muslim students polled said they had lost respect for the British government because of the invasion of Iraq.
- However, 30% of Muslim students polled also said their respect for British society had increased based on the public's (largely negative) reaction to the Iraq war.

http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/blog/2009/12/islam-on-campus.html


Glaringly, many young Muslims still embrace lots of the most radical and misogynistic beliefs of the Qua'ran. Show me any evidence that today's Christians abide by or embrace those radical equivalents (which don't hold a candle to that of the Qua'ran) held in the Old Testament.

Bill Maher is correct in his assessment:
Brad

1400 people polled isn't statistically very significant, Brad.  There was a poll taken the other day which indicated that the majority of people in the US now approve of gay marriage.  Number polled?  1000.  Do you believe that stat to be indicative of how all of the US feels about gay marriage?

Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,426
  • No crybabies
I'm so sorry that you have had to experience that so often that you have now come to accept such harassment as a normal part of any job.  In truth, you don't have to.  I never have and any job in the future I might go to where I AM subject to such hazing or whatever they might call it, I would seriously consider a lawsuit, because it is quite obvious in my experience that such things are completely unnecessary for team building and acceptance.

There's nothing to be sorry about, and certainly nothing to sue over. If you have never experienced another, more senior coworker challenging you, or your abilities, then I xfeel sorry for you for having missed out on a valuable growth experience. And it doesn't just happen at work. It happens at school, even at the post-graduate level. It happens on neighborhood playgrounds. It happens in volunteer organizations.

What we are talking about is--at the root level--a form of competition. When one joins a new group of people, the others compete as a means of defending their positions, while you compete to establish your own. It seems that our opinions on this  are at odds because I believe that acceptance (along with respect) is earned. People--men and women alike--must prove themselves to be both capable and worthy. The capable part gets you into the job or group. The worthy part is what gains the respect of your peers and leaders.
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Offline Monika

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,586
  • We are all the same. Women, men, gay, straight
Which takes us back to these statistics:

Islam on Campus - published in July 2008 - is the most comprehensive survey ever undertaken of Muslim student opinion in the UK. It is based on a specially commissioned YouGov poll of 1400 students, as well as on fieldwork and interviews.

The report examines students' attitudes on key issues including religious tolerance, gender equality and integration. While most Muslim students support secularism and democratic values, and are generally tolerant towards other minorities and reject violence in the name of their faith, Islam on Campus uncovered significant findings:
- 40% of Muslim students polled support the introduction of Sharia into British law for Muslims.
- Almost a third (32%) of Muslim students polled said killing in the name of religion was ever justified. By contrast, just 2% of non-Muslims polled felt the same way
- 40% of Muslim students polled felt it unacceptable for Muslim men and women to associate freely.
- 33% of Muslim students polled declared themselves supportive of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate based on Sharia law.
- 54% of Muslim students polled were supportive of an Islamic political party to represent the views of Muslims at Parliament.
- Slightly less than a quarter (24%) of Muslim student respondents do not think that men and women are equal in the eyes of Allah.
- 6% of Muslim students polled said that converts from Islam should be punished "in accordance with Sharia law."
- 25% of Muslim students (and 32% of male Muslim students) polled said they had not very much or no respect at all for homosexuals.
- 66% of Muslim students polled said they had lost respect for the British government because of the invasion of Iraq.
- However, 30% of Muslim students polled also said their respect for British society had increased based on the public's (largely neg in spite of itative) reaction to the Iraq war.

http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/blog/2009/12/islam-on-campus.html


Glaringly, many young Muslims still embrace lots of the most radical and misogynistic beliefs of the Qua'ran. Show me any evidence that today's Christians abide by or embrace those radical equivalents (which don't hold a candle to that of the Qua'ran) held in the Old Testament.

Bill Maher is correct in his assessment:
B
Brad
In your previous post you tried to argue that Muslims are violent because of their religion (exemplified by you with quotes from their holy book) and in this post you argue that yes, the bible is violent too, but that does not mean that Christians are violent at all. Which is it?

pnwDUDE

  • Guest
1400 people polled isn't statistically very significant, Brad.  There was a poll taken the other day which indicated that the majority of people in the US now approve of gay marriage.  Number polled?  1000.  Do you believe that stat to be indicative of how all of the US feels about gay marriage?

You are right Del. These 1,400 British students are 'Western Cultured' Muslims. Much more tolerant than their Middle-Eastern brethren, I would assume.

100,000 Muslim's of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iran should be polled. Perhaps then we would get a better picture........................

Brad

pnwDUDE

  • Guest
In your previous post you tried to argue that Muslims are violent because of their religion (exemplified by you with quotes from their holy book) and in this post you argue that yes, the bible is violent too, but that does not mean that Christians are violent at all. Which is it?

We're not talking about Christians. If you want to, start another thread.

Brad

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,430
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.

Yes, I know, you quoted selectively. But let's review the relevant paragraph of Del's post, in which your selectively quoted segment appeared:

Anyway, this isn't just an Islamic or Egyptian thing, this happened in the US and in Britain as well, but about one century ago and as occasional stories in the news even today will tell you here in the US, when women join - or attempt to join - previously all-male organizations, whether the fire departments, police or military, coal mining or what have you, they run into this same sort of intimidation 'gauntlet' they're forced to run by men with teeny brains and apparently even smaller balls.

See how she makes clear that she's talking about

1) Incidents that occur here and in Britain that she considers to be similar to the Egyptian incident described in the OP

2) Incidents involving women, very specifically, who are new to an organization

3) Incidents perpetrated, very specifically, by men

So although Del didn't describe the nature of American and British incidents, she is very explicitly referring to incidents that she believes resemble the one in Egypt and that are perpetrated by men against women.

Quote
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.

If you choose to ignore everything in a post, including the factors mentioned above, with the exception of a single word, "gauntlet" (although technically it should be "gantlet"), and respond accordingly, you can probably expect people to draw conclusions about your viewpoints that you might not have intended to convey.

Quote
None of that is comparable to sexual harassment/rape.

Again, Del, who wrote the post to which you were directly responding, made that very comparison. In regard to the Egyptian incident involving sexual assault, she wrote, "this happened in the US and in Britain as well." You didn't bother to figure out why she would be comparing the beating and sexual assault of women by an angry mob of men to what you consider to be mild hazing routinely applied to all new employees of either gender. You didn't even dispute this comparison, or attempt to draw a distinction, or to argue that unlike the Egyptian situation what happens in workplaces here is mild and non-misogynistic. You could, for example, have said, "I've never heard of anything that terrible happening in a U.S. workplace. I do know that hazing of new employees is routine, but that involves employees of either gender and is never seriously violent or sexual." You didn't say anything like that. Instead, what you did was defend what happens in U.S. workplaces while condemning what happened in Egypt.

(By the way, I would be more likely to shrug this off as a simple miscommunication ((even if one tinged with Islamaphobic undertones)) if you hadn't ALSO taken the opportunity to get in a subtle dig implying that women who "want to join" institutions that you continue to define as "male" should man up, so to speak, and submit to the hazing. But actually, why should they? Those organizations may have traditionally hired men exclusively. But institutions can change at any time. And if an organization is now open to employees of either gender, there's no particular reason new employees ((male or female)) should be required to submit to the boys' club rules of the past. Maybe women will say, "hell no" to the hazing, and maybe the organizations will improve as a result.)

Quote
So because they are two very different things, there is no contradiction in my condemnation of one, and dismissal of the other.

You chose to see them as two very different things, even though Del, who mentioned them in the first place, introduced them as similar things. And, as we've established, she was correct in doing so because, as I pointed out, there ARE cases of extreme sexual harassment in workplaces and of sexual assault in the military. You say you weren't talking about those. But why not? Del was talking about situations like that, and you were responding to Del. Instead, you pretended she was talking about a much less objectionable custom, and then defended it.


So let me now quote myself:

I fully expect you to find some reason to justify the two responses and explain away the contradiction that's apparent in them.





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.

Of course I can't "slap a psychological disfunction" on you. Either one exists or it doesn't. Direct slur? Arguable. Elitist presumption? Nope. Just my impression of the tone of your post. Others will draw their own conclusions. What's that you always say? Your mileage may differ.

Quote
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.

Not all members of any group have the best of intentions in mind. I think that's a given. Yet I'm guessing that if an angry mob of men attacked a group of women in this country you would not use it as an occasion to make generalized statements that at least appear to include all of the men in this country, and that if someone else did you would rightly object.


« Last Edit: March 19, 2011, 07:22:19 pm by crayonlicious »

Offline milomorris

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,426
  • No crybabies
If you choose to ignore everything in a post, including the factors mentioned above, with the exception of a single word, "gauntlet" (although technically it should be "gantlet"), and respond accordingly, you can probably expect people to draw conclusions about your viewpoints that you might not have intended to convey.

Draw conclusions about what I did not respond to?? Then you're writing your own script for me. "Milo didn't say anything about X, so let's assume the worst." That's unjustified.

The only reason that I didn't say anything about the factors you mention is that I didin't disagree with those, and had nothing to add. I did disagree with the comparison to "hazing," so I focused on that.

You could, for example, have said, "I've never heard of anything that terrible happening in a U.S. workplace. I do know that hazing of new employees is routine, but that involves employees of either gender and is never seriously violent or sexual."

So if you knew what I meant, and understood the point, why manufacture some non-existent contradiction?

(By the way, I would be more likely to shrug this off as a simple miscommunication ((even if one tinged with Islamaphobic undertones)) if you hadn't ALSO taken the opportunity to get in a subtle dig implying that women who "want to join" institutions that you continue to define as "male" should man up, so to speak, and submit to the hazing. But actually, why should they? Those organizations may have traditionally hired men exclusively. But institutions can change at any time. And if an organization is now open to employees of either gender, there's no particular reason new employees ((male or female)) should be required to submit to the boys' club rules of the past. Maybe women will say, "hell no" to the hazing, and maybe the organizations will improve as a result.)

The short answer is: doing things according to the "boy's club" rules worked just fine, and continues to produce desirable results. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. For example, I have said before that there is no need for African-Americans to make American culture "blacker" in order for us to thrive. The same goes for everyone else. There's no need to feminize society in order for women to thrive. Those of us in the professional class of African-Americans, and professional-class blacks internationally, take pride in our ability to "work the system." We consider it an achievement to find a place at the table without changing the menu.

Instead, you pretended she was talking about a much less objectionable custom, and then defended it.

I didn't "pretend" anything. She included it in her post, and I found that inclusion to be incorrect.

Elitist presumption? Nope. Just my impression of the tone of your post.

"You say 'tom-AY-duh,' I say 'tom-AH-toh."
  The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.

--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,430
Draw conclusions about what I did not respond to?? Then you're writing your own script for me. "Milo didn't say anything about X, so let's assume the worst." That's unjustified.

The only reason that I didn't say anything about the factors you mention is that I didin't disagree with those, and had nothing to add. I did disagree with the comparison to "hazing," so I focused on that.

So if you knew what I meant, and understood the point, why manufacture some non-existent contradiction?

Sorry, but this stuff doesn't even make sense.

This is not about "assuming the worst," or assuming anything that's not right there on the screen. Everybody on here can read all of the posts involved and pretty easily judge for themselves.

Quote
The short answer is: doing things according to the "boy's club" rules worked just fine, and continues to produce desirable results. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

First, let me add my voice to those of others here to say I have no idea what you're talking about. I've never been subjected to hazing at a job. Second, you're telling me that you can look around today's American economy and business climate and say it ain't broke, or at least not in need of some serious tweaking? I don't know about you, but I'd like my stocks and mutual funds to continue making money. Third, even beyond macroeconomics, clearly there are myriad  problems in U.S. corporations and workplaces. Fourth, thank god all of the entrepreneurs and innovators throughout the history of business weren't content to shrug and say the existing rules "work just fine" and "if it ain't broke," etc. etc. We'd still be getting around on horses, for one thing. Horses ain't broke, either.

Quote
For example, I have said before that there is no need for African-Americans to make American culture "blacker" in order for us to thrive. The same goes for everyone else.

This I can't knowledgeably comment on.

Quote
There's no need to feminize society in order for women to thrive.

This is demonstrably incorrect.

Quote
I didn't "pretend" anything. She included it in her post

She most certainly did not. Again, this is just what you're pretending. Del said that abuse and sexual assault occur in U.S. organizations. And, in fact, abuse and sexual assault DO occur in U.S. corporations. You chose to ignore both Del's message and the real-life fact.

Quote
You say 'tom-AY-duh,' I say 'tom-AH-toh."

So it seems. But in this case, the word reads TOMATO and you are responding to "pineapple."



Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
You are right Del. These 1,400 British students are 'Western Cultured' Muslims. Much more tolerant than their Middle-Eastern brethren, I would assume.

100,000 Muslim's of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iran should be polled. Perhaps then we would get a better picture........................

Brad


Most college-age guys I know liked to pull pranks on such polls and most college-age guys I know were more than happy to think their dicks should rule the world.  How much of that is macho immature bluster and how much of that is religion?  I think it would be hard to say.

Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Crayon understands my points exactly Milo, so short of reinterating, I too will address this

Quote
The short answer is: doing things according to the "boy's club" rules worked just fine, and continues to produce desirable results. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

First, let me add my voice to those of others here to say I have no idea what you're talking about. I've never been subjected to hazing at a job.

Being a woman, I've found that the 'boys club' rules work fine...for boys.  Not so much for women.  This is why women in the workplace have been working slowly and steadily to change things.  Some men were not interested in inviting women into their 'club' and so women started working around them and so now, there are a myriad of ways to develop teamwork and a sense of belonging in a work environment, if one is even necessary rather than just the 'boy's club'.  It was broke, Milo, but you had to not be a man to see it.

And no, I've never had to 'compete' with my bosses or co-workers either.  I was there to do a job.  The only person I was out to impress with my work, was the boss and the clients.  I wasn't there to show up my boss or other co-workers. 

I know in the theatrical and music world you are continually 'trying out' and competing against someone else for a part in a production.  I understand that also happens in sports.  This does not carry over to the business world.

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,430
Being a woman, I've found that the 'boys club' rules work fine...for boys.  Not so much for women.  This is why women in the workplace have been working slowly and steadily to change things.  Some men were not interested in inviting women into their 'club' and so women started working around them and so now, there are a myriad of ways to develop teamwork and a sense of belonging in a work environment, if one is even necessary rather than just the 'boy's club'.  It was broke, Milo, but you had to not be a man to see it.


Well put, and I'm not just saying this because you agree with me.  :)

It's pretty easy to see why Milo is incorrect in stating that "boys' club rules ... continue to produce reliable results" and "there's no need to feminize society in order for women to thrive."

First of all, if "society" includes workplaces, then it's already done been feminized. Half of all jobs in the U.S. are held by women (a milestone reached last year, BTW, through a combination of more women working and men losing jobs to the recession). Meanwhile, more women than men now earn college and graduate degrees, so at least in white-collar jobs the feminization of workplaces will continue.

As it does, it becomes increasingly obvious that the old-boy rules are no longer compatible with modern workplaces. And I'm not just talking about froo-froo like dick-contest hazing rituals or taking clients to strip clubs. I mean the basic structure of workplaces. Their rules, norms and schedules were created for breadwinner men who had full-time housewives at home taking care of all domestic responsibilities. Now that far fewer women are full-time housewives and far more men share  domestic responsibilities, those old-school structures are increasingly outdated and inoperable for both men and women.

In short, they're broke.


« Last Edit: March 20, 2011, 10:14:50 pm by crayonlicious »

Marge_Innavera

  • Guest
Anyway, this isn't just an Islamic or Egyptian thing, this happened in the US and in Britain as well, but about one century ago and as occasional stories in the news even today will tell you here in the US, when women join - or attempt to join - previously all-male organizations, whether the fire departments, police or military, coal mining or what have you, they run into this same sort of intimidation 'gauntlet' they're forced to run by men with teeny brains and apparently even smaller balls.

In a less extreme form, that happened in the decade after WWII.  Although in the US, the genie was out of the bottle by that time.

After the American Revolution, according to History.com, (among other sources):

Quote
In a letter dated March 31, 1776, Abigail Adams writes to her husband, John Adams, urging him and the other members of the Continental Congress not to forget about the nation's women when fighting for America's independence from Great Britain.

The future First Lady wrote in part, "I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation."

Of course, Abigail Adams' plea was ignored. It was a century and a half later before women got the right to vote; and feminist-bashing is still fashionable.  You can look back just three years to the 2008 POTUS election for some whoppers of examples.  The spirit is far from gone in the West.

pnwDUDE

  • Guest
Crayon understands my points exactly Milo, so short of reinterating, I too will address this

Being a woman, I've found that the 'boys club' rules work fine...for boys.  Not so much for women.  This is why women in the workplace have been working slowly and steadily to change things.  Some men were not interested in inviting women into their 'club' and so women started working around them and so now, there are a myriad of ways to develop teamwork and a sense of belonging in a work environment, if one is even necessary rather than just the 'boy's club'.  It was broke, Milo, but you had to not be a man to see it.

And no, I've never had to 'compete' with my bosses or co-workers either.  I was there to do a job.  The only person I was out to impress with my work, was the boss and the clients.  I wasn't there to show up my boss or other co-workers.  

I know in the theatrical and music world you are continually 'trying out' and competing against someone else for a part in a production.  I understand that also happens in sports.  This does not carry over to the business world.

I agree here. I believe, in the context of post-revolution Egypt, religion does plays a significant role in the status of women in most of the Middle East (should that be capitalized?). That aside, I see a positive trend regarding women in the past 30 years I have been involved in predominately male-oriented jobs/institutions. I can't speak for the upper crust of corporate America since it is a world of 'at the pleasure of the board', the 'good old boy system', 'you pat my back, I'll pat yours', and tied to an earnings report. I go by statistics, not experience. Del is correct as those statistics show that while women are gaining ground, there isn't equality. Based on my experience, this doesn't carry over to 'blue collar' and mainstream professional services.

For many years, police work was a man-only world (Just watch one of those wonderful, post-WWII, 'film noir' classics). Cops had to be tough and strong. Brute often ruled over intelligence and women were relegated to positions such as matron, juvenile officer or 'get the coffee doll' secretary. Since we don't beat confessions out of people or break up bar-room brawls with our Irish brawn anymore, no part of police work can be considered a closed 'boys club'. In most large American cities this has been the case since I entered the field in the mid 80's. As for woman needing to run the 'gauntlet' in that field, I haven't seen anything like that. Sure, there is the social aspect that attracts mostly guys. The late night poker parties where guys sit around drinking beer, smoking cigars, farting and generally acting stupid isn't necessarily closed to 'the gals'. It doesn't have to be, they want no part of it and have their own girls-only treks to the beach anyway. Same thing about taking a coffee break. With a few exceptions  ;), women cops would prefer not to spend their coffee breaks at places, the likes of the 'Purple Kitten'. I had women partners throughout my career. When I retired, one of my ex partners was the police chief.

I have been involved in the fire service for many years, up to the rank of Fire Commissioner. A bit of a late start, but now, the same experiences. While in extreme emergency situations, brawn and strength does play a factor, so long as women can pass the test, they are  accepted by their male counterparts into what was considered an exclusive 'boys club'.

After retiring from police and fire services at the stroke of 50 (with a fat pension thanks to collective bargaining), my second life has taken me into the throws of the great American port. The iconic 'men only need apply' world ala 'On The Waterfront', has been a huge surprise.  Rather it be the 'ILWU' loading and unloading cargo ships. Train crews 'riding the iron' in a subzero snow storm, 'Linesmen' 'Lineworkers' working in tandem to 'tie up' a 700' cargo ship containing 3,000 Subaru's, or walking atop a grain conveyor 150' high, it is men and lots of women working in complete harmony. Some train crews are made of entirely women. And the first woman river pilot of the great Columbia is being trained as we speak. A previously 'closed club' if there ever was one. One which pays men an average of $380,000 a year. To start.

The younger of these men and women don't have an gender issue. Most of the older peers that viewed these venue's as 'men only' have retired. With all the tools, equipment, Union's, OSHA and state workplace guidelines, strength-required superiority isn't a factor. Sorry Milo, but I don't see anywhere that women need to prove themselves to their male counterparts in order to be part of the team. If they can do the job, that is what counts. And for every woman that can't do the job or fit into the team, there are an equal number of men.

Brad


Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,430
Thanks for sharing that, Brad. That was really interesting, and nice to see a firsthand perspective.  :)

Re the upper crust of corporate America, I would bet that's changing, too. If anyone here has witnessed that group firsthand, I would love to hear your thoughts.