CANADIAN ISLAMIC CONGRESS SPONSORS PINK HIJAB DAY" FOR BREAST CANCER RESEARCH

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]If someone were to write misinformed things about Jews here that spread disinformation tailored to promote intollerance, I would feel obliged to respond.[/b]

---

There's a rather large gulf between writing "misinformed things about Jews" and "writing misinformed things about Judaism".

I think Islam - like Judaism and Christianity and all the rest - is a superstition not worthy of rational human consumption. That's just my opinion.

But even if someone doesn't share my opinion, why would progressive people waste two seconds defending the doctrine of any religion? Why not do as we do in the trade union movement and ban discussion of religion in our meetings, because it's inherently divisive and has nothing to do with our common cause?

As far as misinformation or stereotyping or hatred directed against [i]people[/i] are concerned (including people who are adherents of one religion or another or who are atheists), that of course is anathema and must be countered in every way possible. But scorning their beliefs (or scorning my beliefs) is fair game.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bliter:
[b]I shall not be so cowed as to not comment.[/b]

---

Now, isn't that a lovely example of entrenched societal male superiority notions.

quote:

---

[b]That two mens' discussion is described as a "pissing match" is insulting and carries a man-hating tone, in my opinion.[/b]

---

Well, that would be your opinion and nothing more than that. Furthermore, your calling me a man-hater is beyond belief, especially in the feminist forum.

quote:

---

[b]It invited a response for which, it appears, the poster has been suspended or banned.[/b]

---

It was not an invitation to respond, it was a statement of their needing to stop, as the men dominating the thread had been asked to do numerous times.

quote:

---

[b]If input from males is not wanted in the Feminist forum, should it not be clearly stated?[/b]

---

It is, and always has been been, clearly stated, yet some men, like yourself, just seem to want to tell us females how to perceive things, what we should be thinking about these things, and what we should or should not be doing.

quote:

---

I shall not be so cowed as to not comment.

---

“Cowed”? How cute, I could just bite your head off.

So I will.

Nothing in this thread invited sexist remarks like “bitch” or “cowed” or accusations of man-hating. Michelle, who is the mod by the way, articulated the situation quite clearly, no inviting was done. But here you are forcing your opinions on us.

Babble is a progressive space, and truly progressive men get that they shouldn’t talk over women’s voices on women’s issues and take it with grace if called on getting to carried away with their need to debate. It’s not rocket science on how discourse about Feminist issues should be conducted, women talking about themselves get priority. They are kind of default experts on their own experiences. The only people who don’t get it and need it spelled out don’t belong here in the first place.

And for the record I don’t hate men, I just hate you.

Not at all, quite nicely put.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
[b]Thanks oldgoat, and scout well put.

But really, I want to know, why is it when women want to discuss something, especially between women of different cultures, men just take over the whole discourse, and take it in their own direction?

Then women do not bother continued discussion and the thread dies, with so much left unsaid between the women who had been participating.

I mean, is it an unconscious action of dominance and control, or an active action? Because it just keeps on happening even by long term community members here.

Frankly, I want to hear what Mona, and other Muslim women have to say about this and their ideals of modesty and where they come from, and how wearing a hijab prevents them from being objectified, or how it is helping their own perceptions of not being objectified because of it.

And I want hear what other, non-Muslim, women think about this and how they feel. And how they feel about "modesty" and what it is exactly to them.

Does covering up preventing men's gaze falling upon mean controlling one's persona/body, or does it mean something else?[/b]

---

I can certainly see how "covering up" could be empowering and could help with the whole objectification thing. I think there are some troubling aspects. For example, sometimes (only sometimes, note) I think the status quo is simply accepted - what about changing a society that objectifies women? And sometimes (again, only sometimes, because I have seen muslims make this very point) I think insufficient allowance is made for cultural differences - in western cultures, uncovered hair does not have the meaning it does in some other cultures, just as uncovered breasts have a different significance in different parts of the world. (In fact, if you allow for cultural differences, I do "cover up". In my culture, though, that doesn't mean covering my hair. But I realize that it does in other cultures, and in those cultures, I would cover my hair.)

On the other hand, I think that muslims (and others) who point out that the way western women are compelled (and it is "compelled") to dress is objectifying are absolutely correct.

I agree with Remind on this (remember the Modesty Bathing Suit in an earlier thread?). I also agree with Unionist. I would not wear a hijab, or anything else from any other religion as a form of protest for the exact same reasons I would not wear a modesty bathing suit.

I can understand how different people might and do view covering up as empowering, but for me, I just don't. Likewise, I don't think dressing in next to nothing is empowering. Either way women go we are damned if we do and damed if we don't.

Also, I don't think that pointing out patriarchal portions of any religious doctrine should be out of bounds. I support women's rights first and foremost and for me religion, in all it's major forms, has been the bane of our existence.

The problem is sexism. Period. If that sexism comes from religious texts, it is not out of bounds and I won't have anyone determine for me when and how I am other women are to define what sexism is, and when and what sources it derives from.

The problem is Cueball, that religion in all it's forms has been used to keep women down. That's fact.

All religion, (I am not talking about Stalin or secularism here because that isn't in the OP) is used against women in some form or other. Why should we be okay with that just because it is coming from a Muslim source?

I also like to see who it is calling for the covering of women. Is it women themselves, or is it men?

How many women lead the CIC? I see women's names at the end of this callout, but what I want to know is, how many women have real power in that organization? [url=http://www.canadianislamiccongress.com/who_is_who.php]Precious few, I see.[/url] One, by my count.

How many women have real power and real leadership positions in mosques? I'm not talking token positions (I know all about those, having been a churchgoer long enough) but actual real positions of power.

Those are the questions that come to my mind when I try to figure out, as an outsider, whether religious calls for women to behave in certain ways is sexist or not.

quote:

---

If you think someone trying to respectively engage with you about what is an is not sexist, and how sexism is expressed in ideologies, including religious ideologies, and interpret such as "telling" you what to think, then there is really no point in discussing it. I agree.

---

Well, you sure put me in my place. You weren't talking down to me (or us) after all with this:

quote:

---

The problem is not pointing out sexism in religious doctrine. The problem is asserting that those concepts, which are largely interpretted from the traditions and texts of those doctrines, are necessarily concretely embeded in the docterine by the authority of the text.

---

Which is essentially a tautological proposition. What are you saying? We are reading sexism into things where sexism does not exist? Can you break this down in plain English here? Because the sentence makes no sense. What "authority" of the text? The reader, the interpreter? What? Who? Who is asserting what concepts where and when?

Break it down hammer!

So, Cueball, it sounds to me like you're describing the Muslim equivalent of Phyllis Schlafly. It's amazing how patriarchal organizations and religions can find so many women willing to oppress their sisters in order to get positive strokes from the guys in charge.

BTW, just to be clear, my problem isn't so much with the manner of dress (because I know there are lots of strong women who choose to cover for reasons other than the usual patriarchal ones) - my problem is with who is requesting it of us and why. That matters. In this case, it sounds like a pretty conservative religious organization is trying to appeal to left-wing women with anti-oppression principles to don traditional religious garb. It feels like a trick. It matters who asks. I might feel differently if it was an anti-racist feminist women's group asking us to show solidarity in order to protest some sort of injustice (like, say, if they were to make veil-wearing illegal, or, say, forced Muslim women to unveil for bus drivers and polling station clerks).

[ 25 October 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]So, Cueball, it sounds to me like you're describing the Muslim equivalent of Phyllis Schlafly. It's amazing how patriarchal organizations and religions can find so many women willing to oppress their sisters in order to get positive strokes from the guys in charge.[/b]

---

Sure possibly. However, my point is that this phenom appears neither less nor more among Muslim women than Christian women, or women from the rest of secular society. There is nothing particularly Muslim about it. For instance Anita Bryant.

On the other hand the opposite seems also to be true, so we have Monia Mazig, for example, and numerous other women who are Muslim, who wear Muslim dress, and express much more Liberal ideas, and are quite vocal as well, though the media seems to pay much less attention to them.

Maliah Chisti comes to mind.

[ 25 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

You may think this. But this is not the way that the thread has progressed now has it?

This thread has been rife not just with the idea that religion is a more sexist paradigm that "secular" ideologies, but even that Islam is more inherently sexist than Christianity.

Here one person in the conversation did not simply say, "oh I think its silly for the CIC to ask for non-Muslim women to wear pink Hijab", they went on to say that Muslim people "promoting" their religion with non-Muslim women was "disgusting."

Lots of religions cross promote their icons. Nothing unusual about it, nor is it particularly "disgusting," IMO.

To me this just looks like the CIC trying to "normalize" themselves in a Canadian context, by attaching themselves to a popular cause. It is a very typical kind of manipulative populist branding used by all kinds of organizations.

[ 25 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Cueball, that 1 person who said that was not even a female, nor a member of this community, and it progressed because you decided to follow that path and have it extended into a progression, with of course only yourself participatingnt that progression with him. Did any of the rest of us follow suit? NO!

But yet here you are broadbrushing ALL of us into, who had nothing to do with it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Two persons.[/b]

---

Oh, you are correct it was 2 people, Elysium started it. Ok 2 males and you, cueball, had the progession of discussion. All the while being asked to cease, as you were males. However, you were not to be stopped, and would not start another thread about it.

So excuse me, if I think your assertations where sexism does, or does not, exist to ring a little hollow. You don't even see your own.

quote:

---

[b]I see no reason not to correct people making false statements that are an essential part of a narrative that promotes bigotry against ALL Muslims.[/b]

---

Of course you don't, that is the point, we are are concerned with, right here in this thread, and forum, what promotes SEXISM. And allowing you to takeover our forum and threads, because YOU feel the cause is just, does just that!

Edited to add: It appears that some "progressive" men feel that bigoty, is more important than sexism, and sexist actions, to address. And that sexism should take a back seat and be forgotten about when dealing with matters of bigotry. Sadly it is not seen that sexism, is just another form of bigotry. Trivializing sexism is what is being done.

[ 25 October 2007: Message edited by: remind ]

Gosh a lot has happened since I logged on. And there is a lot to respond to. I spent 4 years doing my BA in UC Santa Cruz, one of the most liberal feminist campuses in the U.S.; I've worked, studied, and written in feminist discourse, heck, I even acted, directed and produced in years of Women's Theatre (mostly political). And the problem I and many women of color sometimes feel, is that the feminist movement, much like the male dominance it repulses, also dictates and defines our rights and imposes on us what we should be feeling or accepting or rejecting. So when we step outside the world of men and women we see the other dominance relationships come to play like race, religion, imperialism, subjectivity, and so on. The only way to truly respect each other is to give each other space to feel how we feel. That's the only way we can be a true and powerful sisterhood is to learn from each other's perspectives and to accept each other no matter what.

And when I read the PR for the CIC, I read it as a feminist (the true definition of feminism) social experiment ("hey, you think I'm oppressed just cuz I wear a piece of fabric over my head- step into my shoes and understand your sister for one day") and concurrently a unified stance against a cancer that discriminates to no woman.

Yes, I thought you were discussing the issues brought up by Unionist, and the general theme I raised when talking to Proletariat. In doing so I was accused of "taking over" the discussion. So, it seemed to me on the one hand the things I was saying were being discussed directly, both by men and women on the board, while at the same time I was being chastised by Remind.

So, this set up a strange dichotomy where things I was saying were being discussed, and challenged, while at the same time I was being told that my reentry into the discussion was not welcome.

I felt this set up a pretty unfair dynamic, where my arguments could be challenged without a response. I don't think this was intended by you, or even Remind. But this was the net effect I think.

Can a self-centered view come to see itself asd self-centered and overbearing without becoming even more self-centered and overbearing in its process of arguing whether it really is or is being misunderstood, since from the self-centered view it isn't, it is just following Main Program? Can anyone else - indeed can the original issue be perceived - be heard in such a din?

And even though everyone is attacking Cueball, I think you should respect him (btw I didn't know he was a man, based on his comments, I thought it was an educated Muslim woman) for doing something that is very difficult to do nowadays. Trying to play the devils advocate and trying to look outside our biases and witch hunting.

Please take a step back and review all of the information you are bombarded with daily; whether it be tv, newspapers, magazines, feminist publications, popular books-- Muslims are (and have been for decades) villified and the subject of spins and biased media representation, pigeon holing, stereotypes and generalizations. Back to feminism, I remember in every book, conference, or film festival representing women of color, there would always be a token story similar to the usual saudi princess that ran away to America to learn about blue jeans and freedom, screaming "yes, I am oppressed Muslim women, please come save me and enlighten me". Ok, so she probably exists. But is that the voice of the MAJORITY of Muslim women? No.

Please read cueball's comments, otherwise I would have to repeat everything he said, because really, it hits a lot of key points home.
'Fundamental' 'Extremist', 'Wahabist' Islam is a very new rendition of Islam. Read about Women in Islam in the time of the Prophet Muhammad, in the generations after that when thousands of women scholars studied along side their male counterparts, and were also teachers in these scholarly circles (and still are at the most popular islamic universities like Al Azhar in Cairo, Egypt). Female circumcision, wife beating, honor killings, forced burqas, refusal of the right to education and working in the workplace, and other misogynistic/oppressive CULTURAL traditions did not exist in the beginnings of Islam nor does it in the original preserved text, nor does it exist amongst mainstream sunni scholars. General sexism and male dominance is very prevalent in Muslim societies! But I contend that it is not due to the religion, it is due to the sexist tendencies of the men (and women) who allow it and feed into it. And since it was not prevalent in the first or following Muslim societies, some writers reflect that this misogynistic thought that crept into religious thought is a result from biblical "original sin"-type thought, where women is temptress and is the cause of mankind's fall from grace (Islam does not believe in this). Furthermore, all Muslims believe that Islam effectively abolished sexism (including female infanticide), racism, and classism in the Arabian society it first arrived to.

And yes, Islam is what is classically defined as a monotheistic, patriarchal religion, and there is no interpretation that can sugar coat that. But I, too, believe like cueball said, "in many aspects the Qur'ran can be shown to be far advanced of either the Torah or the Bible" and gives more liberties and protections for women[, men, and children] (in my view) than any other society ("a grouping of individuals characterized by common interests and distinctive culture and institutions")I know.

And I know that's a controversial statement in a feminist forum, but I hope I have revealed my valid feminista credentials enough to not be yelled at or defined as a brainwashed oppressed zombie! And yes, I'd love to have a HEALTHY, RESPECTFUL, self-reflective, philosophical, sociological discussion about that [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vision Artist:
[b]
And yes, Islam is what is classically defined as a monotheistic, patriarchal religion, and there is no interpretation that can sugar coat that. But I, too, believe like cueball said, "in many aspects the Qur'ran can be shown to be far advanced of either the Torah or the Bible" and gives more liberties and protections for women[, men, and children] (in my view) than any other society ("a grouping of individuals characterized by common interests and distinctive culture and institutions")I know. [/b]

---

Just out of curiosity: Why are you pushing your religion here? Is the counter-balance to Islamophobia and Muslim-bashing, a need to promote the superiority of one ancient superstitious text over others? Sorry, I just can't believe I'm reading this on a progressive forum.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vision Artist:
[b]And even though everyone is attacking Cueball, I think you should respect him [/b]

---

Cueball is respected as a member of this forum. And no one is attacking him, what is being attacked is his, and other male participation in this thread, over riding what women want to discuss/say about this topic. And making it male voice orientated. It is in the feminist forum for a reason.

quote:

---

...and other misogynistic/oppressive CULTURAL traditions did not exist in the beginnings of Islam nor does it in the original preserved text, nor does it exist amongst mainstream [b]sunni[/b]scholars.

---

Now really this is where the problem lies for those who want to understand the nature of Islam, does it not? According to what I have read, Shia came before Sunni, and Sunni are decendants from the Jannissaries. And therein lies the at odds of belief systems between the sunni and shia.

quote:

---

[b]General sexism and male dominance is very prevalent in Muslim societies! But I contend that it is not due to the religion, it is due to the sexist tendencies of the men (and women) who allow it and feed into it. [/b]

---

This is what has been said, over and over, here for years,and not just in relation to Muslim culture, but all religious cultures. And indeed within secular society.

quote:

---

[b]But I, too, believe like cueball said, "in many aspects the Qur'ran can be shown to be far advanced of either the Torah or the Bible" and gives more liberties and protections for women[, men, and children] (in my view) than any other society ("a grouping of individuals characterized by common interests and distinctive culture and institutions")I know.[/b]

---

Oh, choosing the best of a bad lot, is what you are saying?

Major religions of NO stripe has been good for women!

As yes, I do believe you are operating from an operant conditioning, that was entrenched from birth, just as I do believe that of all religion orientated peoples.

Point well taken Unionist. I'm not usually the proseltyzing type! I did not intend to preach superiority of my religion. I was getting a slew of "what about this verse and what about this one", and the dominant discourse about women in Islam is so biased and slanted, that I understood other feminists would like to know the truth, so they can be more educated in their statements about Muslims and Islam. Like I mentioned, it is a disability in the feminist movement where women need to do more listening to each other instead of always trying to 'speak for' women of other cultures/beliefs. And I am writing in response to comments like remind's:

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
[b]When women want/try to discuss something, especially between women of different cultures, men just take over the whole discourse, and take it in their own direction and it keeps happening time and again, as this time it is different somehow.

Then women do not bother continued discussion and the thread dies, with so much left unsaid between the women who had been participating.

I mean, is it an unconscious action of dominance and control, or an active action? Because it just keeps on happening even by long term community members here.

Frankly, I want to hear what Mona, and other Muslim women have to say about this and their ideals of modesty and where they come from, and how wearing a hijab prevents them from being objectified, or how it is helping their own perceptions of not being objectified because of it.

And I want hear what other, non-Muslim, women think about this and how they feel. And how they feel about "modesty" and what it is exactly to them.

Does covering up preventing men's gaze falling upon mean controlling one's persona/body, or does it mean something else?

Edited cause I did not really want to know why it is men keeep on doing it.

[ 25 October 2007: Message edited by: remind ][/b]

---

And I thought finally we could have a healthy debate about it.

Vision artist, the mandate of the feminist forumis to "hear" women's voices. Not male voices, giving their opinion of what is being said, or not said, and that is what the arguement has been aboutm as per usual.

I do want to hear what you are saying, though I suspect, my internalized operant conditioning to a secular society, and white feminist thought, will not afford maximum understanding.

Ok, men, please, could you let women discuss this? And let women take exception, or not, to what is being said by other women about this subject?

Really, or move this out of the feminist forum moderators.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Every religion I know - without any exception whatsoever - has to be dragged, kicking and screaming - long after society as a whole has made an advance - into recognizing:

* the rights and dignity of women
* the rights and dignity of children
* the rights and dignity of people with[/b]

---

Really? And I thought it was the Quakers who first recognized women as equals in their society, while the rest of England was under the boot of patriarchal monarchy? In fact the Quaker movement was one of the first movements to challenge the absolute authority of males in English society, and an essential force in the movement toward enfranchisement and equality for all.

Why do Quakers wear hats indoors? Because George Fox, founder of the Quaker church, (along with his wife Margaret Fell AKA Margaret Fox -- I have an original copy of her book on theology at home [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] ), was famous for saying "I will show obesiance to no man under god."

A fairly egalitarian assertion for the 17th centiry. Further I would argue that most socialist humanist morality is a direct derrivative of Christian theological concepts, and that Christianity in its essence is not just a humanist ideology based on the idea that people should be nice to each other, but actually a revolutionary ideology attacking unfettered capitalist relations, and imperial Roman opression.

In fact even Frederick Engels, asserts that "original sin" was the first "equality."

[ 25 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]