babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Muslim Brotherhood -- what will it mean for Egyptian women?

66 replies [Last post]

Comments

kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

X


Barnes
Offline
Joined: May 6 2012

While you stupid progressives are 'apologising for your insensitive lanuage,' the Islamists are implimenting their viciously mysogenistic agenda, based on the ramblings of their nine year old-molesting 'prophet':

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Women

It's time for you people to grow up, and admit that this religion holds values dear that are 180 degrees apart from everything you stand for--from the rights of women, to the rights of gay, lesbian, and transgendered persons. Islam is a grossly regressive value system, and--under the new, Islamist govermment of Egypt--gays, lesbians, and women will suffer dearly.


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 27 2008

Fundamentalists are much the same in all the Abrahamic, guy in the sky cults. And as for the Islamists 'viciously mysogenistic agenda', military dictatorships and Western imperialist NATO regime change operations or resource wars are no beds of roses either. Haven't we already been down this failed and fruitless garden path of war-making 'to protect the women from the Islamists', already? I think the people of Egypt will work it out for themselves.


Barnes
Offline
Joined: May 6 2012

"Fundamentalists are much the same in all the Abrahamic, guy in the sky cults."

Yes, you hear Catholic, Mormon, and Jewish leaders calling for homosexuals to be stoned to death:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2012/06/09/19858731.html

Quit equivocating and grow a spine.


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 27 2008

monsters all monsters...

 Leave Egypt in the hands of those most willing, able and qualified: Egyptians.

I'm smelling Islamophobia here. Bye.


Unionist
Offline
Joined: Dec 11 2005

I apologize for using the phrase "paranoid hysteria" above. I didn't realize that was the object of the criticism of my comments. Please consider it replaced by "frenzy".

 


Merowe
Offline
Joined: Apr 16 2003

Barnes wrote:

"Fundamentalists are much the same in all the Abrahamic, guy in the sky cults."

Yes, you hear Catholic, Mormon, and Jewish leaders calling for homosexuals to be stoned to death:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2012/06/09/19858731.html

Quit equivocating and grow a spine.

My, that's a fine and handsome spine you have there, big boy. But they usually come with a BRAIN, growing one of those could maybe be your next project. If you studied the utterances of any mainstream Christian thinker from a century ago I suppose their hypocrisy around homosexuality would be as invidious as the sadsack imam referred to above.

My point being that instead of making jihad on a religion practiced by billions around the world, you might grant that it is their desire to do so, that they may not all be demented medievalists - any more than a contemporary Christian is. Their religion - the largest in the world - is evolving and fulminating against it is indistinguishable from common or garden variety racism.


Sineed
Online
Joined: Dec 4 2005

Women in Egypt are worried:

Quote:
Many women's rights activists are especially worried. Dalia Ziada, a Cairo women's advocate, told CBC News on Sunday that she was "very sad" about Morsi's win.

Ziada had recently been in a meeting with representatives in Morsi's campaign and she is concerned the regime will "try to take actions against people, against human rights and freedoms, by claiming those are orders from God."

"We were speaking with them, with how they see human rights, women's rights," Ziada said. "They said 'we see them according to Sharia' ... and they insisted on speaking on women in biological [terms], not in economic or political terms."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/06/24/egypt-election-results.html


MegB
Offline
Joined: Nov 28 2001

Okay, the men participating in this discussion who have, once again, hijacked a feminist discussion and made it about something other than a feminist discussion - I'm asking you politely to leave the discussion.  Immediately.  Do not come back.

You can continue to dominate all the other Egyptian politics threads (well, ALL the other threads on babble as a matter of fact), but you can't do that here. I'm incredibly fed up with having to do this over and over again, but you simply refuse to understand that you don't get to dominate in this one forum.  Ever.  Arguing about this will result in a 24 hour suspension.  Continuing to contribute will result in a 24 hour suspension.

ETA: Barnes, you troll, you don't even get this much consideration.  You're done.


Fidel
Offline
Joined: Apr 29 2004

Yeah I'm out. Thread participants seem more interested in slamming one another than discussing the plight of Egyptians in general.


MegB
Offline
Joined: Nov 28 2001

Welcome to your 24 hour suspension.


MegB
Offline
Joined: Nov 28 2001
Timebandit
Offline
Joined: Sep 25 2001

No government party that bases itself in superstition has ever benefitted women.  There are deep seams of misogyny in every facet of Abrahamic religion, even the liberal arms.  Why?  Because you have to ignore large parts of the basis of those religions - their holy books - in order to expunge the misogyny.

Islam, as well as Christianity, is deeply anti-feminist and the Muslim Brotherhood is not in any respect pro-woman.  This does not bode well for the women of Egypt. 

Just as electing Santorum to the American presidency would not have been good for American women.  And we can see how women's rights are being affected in the US under Republicans who are morphing ever more into a faith-based party. 

I don't think it is either Islamophobic or Christophobic to call a duck a duck.


MegB
Offline
Joined: Nov 28 2001

I agree Timebandit.  Support for Islam does not trump women's rights, or the right of babble's women to express their opinions.

That said, Egyptian feminism isn't really comparable with Western feminism, except that they are both representative of a wide variety of opinion, left to right across the political spectrum.

Fundamentalism, conservative by nature, has never been good for women - regardless of the religion.  There is intense debate in Muslim women's communities over whether Sharia law improves the status of women, or further restricts their choices.  There is no monolithic feminist voice in Egypt any more than there is a monolithic feminist voice in the West.

At the very least we need the freedom to discuss all aspects of the issues that affect all women without being shut down. That includes men's attempts to frame our issues for us.


Esther Pinder
Offline
Joined: Jun 24 2012

Egypt is already awash in anti-female behaviour. To the credit of the previous government special train cars were set up for women only, but that only shifts the issue to another location. The society needs fundamental change when it comes to accepting women as complete equals and I really do not see that happening under a religious government.

I think back to the scenes from Tahir Square where every person was male. Where were the women?

 


quizzical
Online
Joined: Dec 8 2011

Esther Pinder wrote:
Egypt is already awash in anti-female behaviour. To the credit of the previous government special train cars were set up for women only, but that only shifts the issue to another location. The society needs fundamental change when it comes to accepting women as complete equals and I really do not see that happening under a religious government.

I think back to the scenes from Tahir Square where every person was male. Where were the women?

i think the whole world is awash with "anti-female" behaviour.  society as in the whole world needs  fundamental change in respect to equality.


MegB
Offline
Joined: Nov 28 2001

quizzical wrote:

Esther Pinder wrote:
Egypt is already awash in anti-female behaviour. To the credit of the previous government special train cars were set up for women only, but that only shifts the issue to another location. The society needs fundamental change when it comes to accepting women as complete equals and I really do not see that happening under a religious government.

I think back to the scenes from Tahir Square where every person was male. Where were the women?

i think the whole world is awash with "anti-female" behaviour.  society as in the whole world needs  fundamental change in respect to equality.

It's true, it does.  But apart from our individual activism, and our understanding of the relative privilege Western women (European background by far the most privileged) the best we can do right here is stand up for all women's rights, whatever form our feminism takes, and make an example here, in this forum. "Honey, we need to talk."  And more important,  listen.


quizzical
Online
Joined: Dec 8 2011

yep agree 'bout  white women's privilege. lived experiencing both sides of it most of my life. 'cause i can pass as 'white"- except with hardcore racists - my life experiences as a women has been different than my cousins and  my grandma. 

there's so much to be done in our own communities and IMV that's where we need to start. and not with judging from a place of  illusionary superiority.


Doug
Offline
Joined: Apr 17 2001

It's a time of transition. Of course there's cause for worry by Egyptian women as there must be for all Egyptians. But the great thing about Egypt becoming a democracy - if the military is willing to allow that in more than nominal terms - is that it allows Egyptian women a means to protect and advance their own rights in a way they couldn't before. 


Maysie
Offline
Joined: Apr 21 2005

Rebecca West wrote:
 Muslim Brotherhood elected to Egyptian gov't.  Good or bad for Egyptian women?

Canadian democracy, measured from the date the first white man was elected to our version of British Parliament (1867), took only 50 years for white women to be allowed to vote, give or take a few years depending on the province. Non-white women had to fight even longer.


MegB
Offline
Joined: Nov 28 2001

Doug wrote:

It's a time of transition. Of course there's cause for worry by Egyptian women as there must be for all Egyptians. But the great thing about Egypt becoming a democracy - if the military is willing to allow that in more than nominal terms - is that it allows Egyptian women a means to protect and advance their own rights in a way they couldn't before. 

Given that barely 2% of the newly elected Egyptian parliament is female, on what would you base that opinion?


6079_Smith_W
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

When voting in Canada was based on property there was no refusal based on gender. Some women - mostly widows - had the right, and exercised it as early as 1791 in New Brunswick.

It wasn't until voting began extending to men with less property that the loophole was closed and voting was formally forbidden to women. It happened first when the word "men" was included in the Quebec Franchise Act in 1849. By 1851 this extended to include Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Upper and Lower Canada.

So it isn't just a case of undoing old prejudices. It was also a case of reversing some fairly recent laws which targetted women in order to exclude them from the rights and freedoms men were gaining.

Not trying to undercut your point Maysie, because I agree with it. Your comment just reminded me that although our society is progressive in many ways, we still keep doing things which fly in the face of that. I think it is something to remember when we look at other countries.

 

 


MegB
Offline
Joined: Nov 28 2001

Legislation in any country only goes so far.  If attitudes don't change, nothing much of substance does either.

If you read the Al Jazeer article, one non-secular Egyptian feminist makes the point that it isn't Sharia that oppresses women - it's the male-dominated culture and socio-political construct that interprets Islamic law in a way that works against the rights of women. 

I have no comparable experience to that of Egyptian women, but women everywhere have some understanding just how little legislation protects them. Here in the land of privilege we may not have to worry so much about having our ass grabbed in the office anymore, but it doesn't mean we don't continue to face gender inequity in the workplace.  Legislation may change behaviour, but it doesn't do squat for antediluvian attitudes about the roles of women.


Timebandit
Offline
Joined: Sep 25 2001

That always reminds me of what NRA activists say:  "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

You cannot seperate religious law from the religion that spawns it.  That goes for repression of women through "biblical law" and any other faith-based legal system out there, not just sharia.  It's a cognitively dissonant statement.


MegB
Offline
Joined: Nov 28 2001

Timebandit wrote:

That always reminds me of what NRA activists say:  "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

You cannot seperate religious law from the religion that spawns it.  That goes for repression of women through "biblical law" and any other faith-based legal system out there, not just sharia.  It's a cognitively dissonant statement.

True.  But what spawns the religion?  Organized religion is mostly - if not always - patriarchal (Wicca and a few other Earth-based spiritualities excepted).  Anything organized along patriarchal lines is inherently favourable to men almost in direct proportion to its detriment to women.  At the time Sharia law was devised, it was actually more progressive than anything women had under Western religions.  Of course, that was over a millennium ago  ... this is what observant Muslims - men and women - say in defense of Sharia.  And the historicity of it is valid - but only as a piece of history I think.

Fundamentalist religious sects like to hearken back to a time when men were men and women were property.  People with power over others don't willingly give up that power, even if it's to their - and society's - detriment.


Catchfire
Offline
Joined: Apr 16 2003

Esther Pinder wrote:
Egypt is already awash in anti-female behaviour. To the credit of the previous government special train cars were set up for women only, but that only shifts the issue to another location. The society needs fundamental change when it comes to accepting women as complete equals and I really do not see that happening under a religious government.

I think back to the scenes from Tahir Square where every person was male. Where were the women?

Great post, Esther -- and welcome to babble.

This for me is about the long and short of it. And it also speaks to the problems arising in this thread. I don't think there's anything uniquely patriarchal about the brotherhood--it's on the same continuum as the police and thug rule before the Arab spring. Some babblers have asserted that criticizing the Brotherhood for its misogyny feeds into imperialist narratives. This is certaily true, but what rarely gets asked is how much of the anti-imperialist discourse of the West feeds into patriarchal narratives or otherwise ignores the voices of women, especially women of colour. It's a tough tightrope to walk, but easy to see: "where are the women?" indeed.


quizzical
Online
Joined: Dec 8 2011

Rebecca West wrote:
  People with power over others don't willingly give up that power, even if it's to their - and society's - detriment.

i don't think people with 'power' actually give a shit about what's better for society and other people. if there are some i've never met 'em.

self-serving power is the drug of their choice. imv it's an addiction.

i was at a pancake breakfast on Sunday and a bunch of men were  talking 'bout God. the opinion was all the stuff going on was 'cause God was mad. mad 'cause society strayed away from God's laws and  until we go back the world is going to be a mess. the micro translation to me in my hungover state was they had all lost their good forestry jobs and their wives were supporting them and their wives were getting uppity.

and to get all biblical on my own part i see men as being the same as they were in the garden of eden. unable to take responsibility for their own actions and they gotta blame "the woman".


NDPP
Offline
Joined: Dec 27 2008

 

The Hidden Feminine Side of Egypt's Revolution

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/rights/women-egypt...

"If not for a group of Egyptian women leading the way to Tahrir Square last January 25, said Muslim Brotherhood media researcher Sondos Asem, the revolution might never have begun. Even the male dominated Muslim Brotherhood has women in powerful places.."

www.400monkeys.com/God/


MegB
Offline
Joined: Nov 28 2001

Thanks for the links NDPP.  While it's true that the mainstream Western media didn't show many, if any, women protesting in Tahir Square earlier this year, they were there.  Relative to the men's presence they were a scant few, but it doesn't serve anyone to dismiss their role.

 


eastnoireast
Offline
Joined: Apr 26 2011


wasn't it a woman who set the whole thing off with her twitter or facebook posting? (a u.s. educated-maybe-cia woman, but that's another story..).

women in tahrir were generally not on the "front lines" for a variety of reasons, and so would tend to garner less coverage.  backline is often as, if not more, important.

here's an article speaking to women's role in the uprising.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/02/2011217134411934738.html#

Women of the revolution
Egyptian women describe the spirit of Tahrir and their hope that the equality they found there will live on.

Fatma Naib Last Modified: 19 Feb 2011 12:11 GMT

"I have never felt as at peace and as safe as I did during those days in Tahrir. There was a sense of coexistence that overcame all of the problems that usually happen - whether religious or gender based."


from what i've read, my sense of the muslim brotherhood is that they are, as has been mentioned here, pragmatic and compromised.  they were very slow and reluctant to back tahrir, and fairly cooperative with the powers that be, as they are one of the entrenched powers themselves.  that being said, they are not monolithic and contain old-schooler, ideological, power seeking, and reformer factions.  sorta like the ndp.

not at all to detract from legitimate concerns, inquiries, and actions regarding women's realities in any culture, but the western meme of "we're so righteous we need to intervene in country x to save the women" makes me want to puke.  hint: if peter mackay, harper, bush and obama flaunt something, it's probably shit.

often half the problems are originally caused by outside powers empowering the local strongman for their own purposes.  afghanistan/taliban anyone?

women never fare well in war zones, and neither does civil society as a whole. 

-



Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments