Author Topic: Here we go again - after the revolution - women pushed back into the kitchen  (Read 10844 times)

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: 18,015
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 »