CANADIAN ISLAMIC CONGRESS SPONSORS PINK HIJAB DAY" FOR BREAST CANCER RESEARCH II
Thu, 2007-10-25 23:06
#1
remind
CANADIAN ISLAMIC CONGRESS SPONSORS PINK HIJAB DAY" FOR BREAST CANCER RESEARCH II
Thu, 2007-10-25 23:06
#2
remind
As the other thread was over 100 posts, I have restarted it, so that women may respond to what vision artist has put forth below.
quote:
Originally posted by Vision Artist:
[b]Well I think it's a big step when 'white', 'secular' sisters are willing to admit that they are under 'operant conditioning' themselves. My operant conditioning trained me to believe that i was only valuable if I was sexy, attractive in the eyes of men, and my power was measured by how much I was able to get men to drool over me (=thus weakening them). My operant conditioning taught me that being a bit overweight reduced my worth. My conditioning taught me to believe I had to play into the mysterious/exotic role that the media cut out for women of my race. I was never happy in relationships, because I never found a man who wanted to engage with my mind instead of my body. I lived freely unveiled, 'uncovered', and due to the messed up society I live in, I could not go about without men being attracted to me, touching me, smelling me, making comments about my body or hair, making advances at me- and yes it bothered me. I used to dance in a circle with my girl friends, and as I was walking out this creepy guy tells me he was watching me all night and loved how my body moved. And I wore long dresses back then (but no covering arms, neck, cleavage, hair)! Why can't guys just leave me alone! I asked...I lived my free and secular life, without God, without faith, and even without rules. I've been there, done that. And I still was not happy. I started studying all belief systems, philosophies, and ideologies. And in the end, Islam made sense.
Unionist, I would love to give excerpts and proofs from our books that prove Islam gives all of those rights, and more (rights to animals and plant life), but I don't know if that should be a seperate thread.... it's up to you guys if you want to challenge me [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
And so as not to go into religiousity, I can say my experience after wearing a jacket and placing a piece of fabric that normally went around my neck in winter, over my head/hair full time totally changed the way primarily men, and women dealt with me. And so as to take it into a sociology discussion: I brought up in the beginning how I interviewed women for a documentary I was working on, who felt the need to shave their heads, and felt liberated doing so (not only because it feels good to not have all of that heavy hair on your head!). Why should these women have to do that to be left alone and respected my men? Yes, Why can't men just control themselves? What can we do in society to change that?
And why, when a woman shaves her head, especially as a feminist stance, why does a change in dress- pants, baggy clothing usually accompany this move? Why does removing the overtness of her sexuality feel liberating to her? And why on society do women, who decide to cover up, or shave their head, or dress more manly have to feel alienated if they reject looking like barbie dolls and flaunting their sexuality?
Both hijabi women and shaved head women told me that men started respecting them and their ideas more once they removed the overt sexual components of their dress or appearance. ["Ok, i'm following you, but how is hair 'overtly sexual'? I agree! But go asked the women who shaved their heads...] Why? Are men better able to focus on our minds when they are not distracted by the other things? That sucks! Men have to change themselves, not us.But do they? So far, no. In the Quran it tells MEN to lower their gaze in the same sentence it tells women to. Ladies if a Muslim man flirts with you, you can flat out tell him he's out of bounds in his religion. Men are prohibited from flirting and making sexual advances at women outside of marriage. They have to cover most of their bodies, too. Men in the middle east actually cover from head to toe- in modesty. Wierd, you say. Some ppl think if women all dressed modest, then men would have to behave themselves. I know in Muslim communities, that's what I see. I'd like to hear from Amish women or women in puritan/covered communities, and see what they think.
I'm not making a statement that everyone should cover; but bringing up mine and other women's experiences, just pretend I'm a woman who shaved her head, and have proclaimed I will keep it so, even though I truly desire to let my hair flow [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] ...and yes, the discussion about why do we have to cover up? Why don't guys just back off!? And what, really, are societal solutions we can come up with? Does walking naked in 'take back the night' marches on campuses work? (some groups do that...) What do you think?[/b]
I am going to reply to this tomorrow, after some thought.
Fri, 2007-10-26 01:05
#3
remind
bumping to remember tomorrow to respond
Fri, 2007-10-26 04:11
#4
Maysie
Vision Artist, what you have posted has left me with a great deal to think about and reflect upon. As a non-Muslim woman in the West, who's an anti-racist feminist, I've gone through my own learning curve for the past decade or so regarding dumbass crap I've learned from the mainstream about Islam. Your words are very much appreciated.
I've struggled on babble many times, overwhelmingly unsuccessfully, with some white feminists here and the issue of the veil or headscarf as a symbol of "the most oppressive way to oppress women ever" and I think I'm done with those fights.
Your voice has been missing here, and reflects levels of complexity that are hard to achieve on a discussion board, and that reflect the conversations I've had with my Muslim feminist friends and colleagues.
My sincere thanks again for your engagement with this issue.
Fri, 2007-10-26 14:30
#5
remind
Agsin thank you Vision Artist for your openness and your detailing the surface why's behind your choice to wear a hijab and jacket.
While mulling this over, in compare to my life experience, garment wearing and being sexually objectified, I found that, for me, clothes wearing is much like changing a mental hat for different situations arising.
While a teenager, I wore halter tops, short shorts, no bra, as did all my girl friends. But then, as opposed to now, where those items of clothing are sexualized, such clothing was liberating and showed freedom and confidence to stand apart from the norm of society as my enculturation was protestant, rural religiousity, but of the Tommy Douglas - socialist- type.
And throughout the ensuing years I have worn whatever styles and types of clothes that I felt suited where I was at taste and circumstance wise and never felt pulled to express myself according to societal partriarchial objectification needs. Having said that, that does not mean that I never dressed sexy, but I did so because that is where MY mood was, and how I wanted the evening/time period to flow.
Yes, of course I have encountered events like you detailed of being harassed by males, intent upon touching, smelling and unwanted coming onto, but I have handled it, or at least tried, with what the situation warranted to give myself maximum empowerment at that time based upon, those circumstances, and chose not to carry it forward as baggage, where I would be forced to take actions that may at first appear empowering, but then become a cage.
As I became older, how I conducted myself, as opposed to what I wore, was the tool that I used the most. Having said that, there were some extreme occassions where harsher conduct was needed. For example, one time, a very insistant male would not leave a group of us girls alone, who were out and about as a breakk from studying and he was sure 1 of us wanted him. Finally, I told him he had to leave us alone, he said; "what are you going to do if I don't", and I told him that I would take him outside and give him a shot in the head if he didn't. The end result was, he got a shot in the head outside the bar and landed on his ass in the parking lot.
I am sure he did not believe a 5'7" "pretty" grrrrrl, weighing 126lbs, would be much of a threat. He learned a lesson that night, and so I am sure did a lot of his friends. Now I am aware that the good majority of women, young nor old, feel they have the capability of doing that.
However, I ask why not?
Just as I ask, why do we women accept that clothes define us, when it is we who should be defining ourselves and what we wear, at any given point in time.
IMV, as long as we are manipulated, by any action of society, into choosing what we wear, or do not wear, in order to foster "respect" we will never be equal in our own minds, let alone in the minds of men.
Mon, 2007-10-29 00:06
#6
Thanks grrls for inviting me back to continue the discussion, and for all of your comments. Remind, I thoroughly enjoyed your post, and your points were excellent. I’m excited to engage in this discourse. I spent yesterday night compiling my response, but I didn't get a chance to finish; hopefully I'll get a chance to post tommorrow! [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Mon, 2007-10-29 22:47
#7
The hijab is discriminatory and derogatory to women.
Unfortunately I feel that most women in Canada are pressured to wear it by their family members, and the ones who wear it freely that's great- I have no qualms with that.
I think we should follow Frances leader and ban ALL religious garments from public institutions to format equality.
Mon, 2007-10-29 22:48
#8
Cueball
Head scarves are discriminatory? Alrighty then. Blue jump suits then for everyone... Mao caps? Waddaya say? That should "format equality", even between genders.
You say, you think some people feel forced to wear certain types of cloths. Solution: Force them to wear other clothes.
[ 29 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Tue, 2007-10-30 21:30
#9
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b] Just as I ask, why do we women accept that clothes define us, when it is we who should be defining ourselves and what we wear, at any given point in time. [/b]
Yes, I understand. You are trying to say: “Why do I have to be covered from head to toe to be recognized as a moral woman? Why do my clothes define me? Why can I not just wear whatever I feel like and still be recognized as a woman worthy of respect?” And I have two responses.
1) If I desired to walk around in a tank top and shorts, then yes, I would be oppressing myself. But, ‘wear whatever I feel like’ is what I’m doing now. I like to dress this way, I feel comfortable, confidant, and gracious. I’m not rationalizing or accepting my fate. I feel at peace, and I would actually be very uncomfortable otherwise. It’s like how you’ve been wearing shirts so long that you’d be uncomfortable walking around in public topless.
2) And why does not wearing hijab, and walking around in a tank top and pants define me as a liberated woman? Are you defining for yourself what you wear or are you going along with the definitions of society?
3) What if these concepts are different in other social groups? For Muslim women, you are hardcore (recognized as a strong person) if you can wear hijab. It takes a lot of guts and self discipline. And it is not only a way of dress but a state of mind, and a way of conducting yourself. (Much like how you were saying: “ I .”)
4) For these same women, hijab is a rejection of society telling us we have to show skin and be a source of pleasure for men and public.
5) Yes, who should define for me what I wear? If I choose to cover or wear modest dress, I’m branded as being an oppressed blind sheep. Are others not putting new confines on me?
6) And again, who says wearing less clothing supposed to be liberating? One is actually more likely exposed to UV rays, germs, bee stings (lol). But really, how come men, on average, do not show much skin? Even in the worst heat, most men do not wear tank tops and shorts. I see them in pants and short sleeve shirts. Their clothes are baggy, comfortable. Manufacturers even make men's clothing and shoes far more comfortable then women's. If we believe in equality, why don't women do the same? When women wear “less”, it may be out of comfort, but often it is intended to show off to men or subconsciously to defy traditional values that tell you to cover, declaring, "I won't be told what to wear!" Is it possible that it is sometimes not actually a desire or want to dress this way but a challenge or disobedience to the ‘moral authority’ that threatens to tell you what to do?
Tue, 2007-10-30 21:32
#10
In no way can I (or do I intend to) convince anyone “this is for you”… I can only speak for how it makes my life more peaceful, powerful, and meaningful. How it doesn’t decrease my intellect, nor change my ability to be a tough, assertive, strong woman who refuses to be denied my rights as a human being equal to, if not better than, men. --And that’s what I want anyone to come away from my posts; it’s what pretty much any 'hijabi' will tell you: “Just because I cover my hair doesn't mean I am oppressed, passive, robotic, uneducated, forced, or brainwashed. I am just as hardcore, if not more [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] than most women, but I choose to express myself in a different way”.
I teach my daughter to be tough, assertive, independent, and intelligent. At age 4, I taught her that her body is her own and no one has the right to mess with it-- and what to do if anyone tries to violate her space or body (“I punch them, like this”, she says). I try to keep her away from pink and princesses, but I give her the freedom to choose (not wanting to impose my personal beliefs on her). I will not force her to wear hijab. I’ve encourage my son from a young age to cook and do housework with me. I will not let him date or do anything my daughter cannot do. I gave my son (8) and daughter (4.5) a lecture today about how the toy stores are trying to brainwash them and force them into believing what colors and toys they must like and play with (in response to his statement that transformers are for boys only)... “Wow, she must be a ‘progressive’ Muslim” you may say- but no, I am part of the status quo.
I believe my strength, my education, my respect as a woman, my rights, my courage are given to me by a merciful God, exemplified to me by women in my history, and is indeed part of my religion. The women in the time of the prophet were merchants, warriors, scholars; brave, outspoken, and honorable. That’s what Islam tells us, but many nowadays have tried to deform it to suit their needs. Yet the actual text is unchanged, the majority knows the truth; and if you want to fight oppression in Islamic societies, I suggest you use the original texts to wipe it out, the way it did when it was first sent down. Muslims don’t need reform. They need revival.
To think that our liberal, secular ways is THE way, and that the world would be better off living the way we do is one thing; but to put others’ customs down as ‘disgusting’ and to try to impose our beliefs on them (through war or activism) is imperialistic and supremacist to say the least. Again: Islam, according to the majority and classic scholars, gives countless rights and protections to women (and all other commonly exploited groups like children) and is against all oppression. And even still, there exists marital abuse, female circumcision, forced marriages, and honor killings*. But these are cultural and misogynistic traditions (most of which happen under all belief systems) sustained by false understandings of the religion and lack of education. They did not exist in Islamic societies before, and that’s why Muslims are saying their religion has been hijacked, by small factions like the Wahabists backed with a lot of money. But there is hope. There has recently been much positive Islamic revival and education, with amazing improvement (even with those mocking and fighting it). There is a new Islamic satellite channel called IQRA. Besides the wealth of programming led by women, young scholars, scientists, and much criticism of societal ills and social injustice; world renowned ‘traditional’ scholars have been going on air and re-educating Muslims against oppressive practices like I mentioned above*. So I say to my feminist activist sisters, if you hate these things going on, instead of attacking Islam, please educate yourself about the religion and use it to combat misogyny. We need to use the Muslim vehicles already out there trying to eliminate these things.
And we also need to focus on the oppression existing here at home. Muslims here and overseas are skeptical of groups accusing Islam of being oppressive to women when they see that the majority of woman in ‘free societies’ are used, abused, neglected, abandoned, overworked, underpaid, objectified, commodified, debased, disregarded; and boxed into stressful, unstable, and unhealthy lifestyles. In cultural anthropology, the belief exists that a society cannot objectively analyze itself; it has to be analyzed by an outsider. If that is true, maybe we need to stop judging and criticizing the homes and yards of others and tend to the roses in our own backyard.
Tue, 2007-10-30 21:40
#11
And that's why it took me so long to post! I hope I have not offended anyone in anyway; I am merely trying to open up dialogues and reveal 'the other side of the coin'. If anyone is familiar with the 'Nacirema' observations and it's spin offs (http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/nacirema.htm), I've learned that we have to make less hasty judgements of others and take a look at our own bizarre practices and at how odd we look to others. Only then can we leave our egocentricites and become a true part of the world community (and thus successfully, and respectfully, heal the wounds of others as well as our own).
And please forgive any prejudices I also carry, for I am only human, too!
Tue, 2007-10-30 22:08
#12
Correction: i left out your quote remind!
3) What if these concepts are different in other social groups? For Muslim women, you are hardcore (recognized as a strong person) if you can wear hijab. It takes a lot of guts and self discipline. And it is not only a way of dress but a state of mind, and a way of conducting yourself. (Much like how you were saying:
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]As I became older, how I conducted myself, as opposed to what I wore, was the tool that I used the most.[/b]
)
Tue, 2007-10-30 22:33
#13
Sorry I posted so much. I was actually enthralled by remind's post. It really was a thoughtful introspection into the questions that all women come across and have to journey through. And you asked some potent questions which I hope you see I was not arguing against, but asking more questions [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Since I was gone for a few days, remind, may I take your points in another direction? Hijab aside...
You know, I am an activist, and the end question after everything I read or see continues to swell in my head, “What can we actually do to change our social and world conditions?”
So you asked an important question: what methods can we use to command respect from men and make them approach us respectfully? What can we do about Male harassment, aggressiveness, and unwanted touching, advances, gaze, physicality?
A lot is already being done, but I think more aggressive work and funding should go into solving this problem.
1. Education, education, education. Girls and women have to learn that they do not need a man’s flirtation, advance, or gaze to be of value. Once they have achieved that they must know how to be assertive, and if need be, aggressive.
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b] Now I am aware that the good majority of women, young nor old, feel they have the capability of doing that.
However, I ask why not? [/b]
I would have popped that guy, too. Thus, you and I are indeed fortunate to have that inner and physical strength. But many women do not. Solution:
2. Acquiring funding to launch nationwide, if not worldwide, campaigns to give free assertiveness and ‘self defense’ (or combat training/karate) to every girl and woman in every city, state, country; maybe at least start with the youth and making it part of school and college curriculums.
3. Similarly making it part of school and college curriculums to teach boys and young men to respect women and their space. Discussions on masculinity and its falsehoods can ensue.
4. EPutting pressure on filmmakers and TV shows to promote this assertiveness in women and denounce the aggressiveness of men. Many men think that we want this kind of behavior from them & are trapped in what they think it means to be masculine. What are we doing to change the way pop culture, music, and the media tells guys how to behave with women? Not enough.
5. Money talks. Running networks and campaigns to protest products, films, shows, and artists that promote male aggressiveness and female passivity, and teaching women how doing so indirectly affects them.
I've heard a couple of projects in the inner city going in this direction; and at my college there was a lot of assertiveness training targeting incoming freshman. But I'd like to see more. Does Canada support programs similar to what I mentioned above?
Ok I'm going to sleep now! [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img]
Wed, 2007-10-31 00:32
#14
Catchfire
Wow. Thank you.
Wed, 2007-10-31 03:21
#15
Maysie
Vision Artist, deep thanks for the time and thought you put into your posts.
[img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Wed, 2007-10-31 12:52
#16
*sigh*
I guess it's too late to reply now to messages addressed to me, I'll simply state my thoughts and perception concerning hijab, Islam, and women's rights.
A lot of people here have stated that the occurring misogyny in Islamic states is due to culture rather than religion. I disagree with this. Islam itself, based on Bedouin culture (the 'original' Arabs), is not just a religion, but also a way of life and society under a set of strict laws (sharia) to be followed.
The Qur'an and Hadiths are full of [url=http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Women_are_Deficient_in_Intelligence]misogy... passages[/url], indicated how Muhammad himself, who is the central prophet of Islam, treats women.
I have no problems with liberal Muslims like Vision Artist or Irshad Manji, however even 'moderate' Muslims like [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qaradawi]Qaradawi[/url] call their beliefs heretical. Islamic misogyny isn't limited to the extreme Salafists. Islamists such as the late Sayyid Qutb considered the reviver of modern islamism are disturbingly revered by the MSA at my university.
As for the headscarf, one last question. Why is it only women that have to wear it?
Wed, 2007-10-31 13:17
#17
Cueball
Lots of men in Arabia wear scarves around their faces. One of the reasons that veil becomes popular in desert cultures is because it keep the frikkin dust out of your mouth. In fact its hard to find pictures of traditionally dressed Arab men, not wearing Hijab, specifically for this reason.
In fact anyone who does not wear something on their head when outdoors in Arabia likely has psychological issues.
[img]http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1998/1948/gaza1967.jpg[/img]
![http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1998/1948/gaza1967.jpg[/img]](http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1998/1948/gaza1967.jpg[/img]){kind=link}
quote:
Originally posted by Elysium:
[b]*sigh*A lot of people here have stated that the occurring misogyny in Islamic states is due to culture rather than religion. I disagree with this. Islam itself, based on Bedouin culture (the 'original' Arabs), is not just a religion, but also a way of life and society under a set of strict laws (sharia) to be followed.[/b]
Yeah that is why the same creation myth that appears in the Judaism and Christianity appears in the Qur'an, and Jesus is a central prophet. I had no idea that Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David were all nomadic Bedouin Arabs, and here I thought Jesus was an urban Jew. It is also fascinating to hear that Sharia law is the primary tradition that informs Islam.
Thanks for bringing us all enlightenment from our ignorant beliefs.
[ 31 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Wed, 2007-10-31 14:34
#18
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Lots of men in Arabia wear scarves around their faces. One of the reasons that veil becomes popular in desert cultures is because it keep the frikkin dust out of your mouth. In fact its hard to find pictures of traditionally dressed Arab men, not wearing Hijab, specifically for this reason.In fact anyone who does not wear something on their head when outdoors in Arabia likely has psychological issues.
[img]http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1998/1948/gaza1967.jpg[/img]
[/b]
You mean the turban wearing male with a scarf covering his face while in a desert storm? They're wearing it for utilitarian purposes, a not religious one. That's apples and oranges compared to women required by Islam to wear the veil, especially those wearing black polyester during summer (now that's insane!).
I'll give you one credit though; the only Islamic derived culture I can think of that have males wearing wear scarves over their face for religious purposes (as well as utilitarian ones) are the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuareg]Tuaregs[/url], but the religious aspect for wearing them is for protection against spirits, not modesty.
quote:
[b]Yeah that is why the same creation myth that appears in the Judaism and Christianity appears in the Qur'an, and Jesus is a central prophet. I had no idea that Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David were all nomadic Bedouin Arabs, and here I thought Jesus was an urban Jew. It is also fascinating to hear that Sharia law is the primary tradition that informs Islam.[/b]
Muhammad borrowed a lot from the Jews, Christians, and the religious practices of the Quraish (meteorite animism, moon veneration, stoning of devil idols), including their creation myths. And Sharia is a [url=http://www.readingislam.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1123996016202&pagename... component[/url] of Muhammad's Islam.
quote:
[b]
Thanks for bringing us all enlightenment from our ignorant beliefs.[/b]
You're quite welcome. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 04 November 2007: Message edited by: Elysium ]
[ 04 November 2007: Message edited by: Elysium ]
Wed, 2007-10-31 14:37
#19
Cueball
Arabs males wear "Turbans" now. Even more enlightenment served up by you.
[url=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/lifestyles/links/turbans_27.html]Its called kaffiyeh, and it is not a Turban:[/url]
quote:
The kaffiyeh is not technically a turban. It is really a rectangular piece of cloth, folded diagonally and then draped over the head — not wound like a turban. Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader, has made the kaffiyeh famous in recent times. However, the kaffiyeh is not solely Palestinian. Men in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Arab Persian Gulf states wear kaffiyehs in colors and styles that are particular to their region. Jordanians, for example, wear a red and white kaffiyeh, while Palestinians wear a black and white one. And a man from Saudi Arabia would likely drape his kaffiyeh differently than a man from Jordan. The black cord that holds the kaffiyeh on one's head is called an ekal.
But whats a little inaccuracy when you are ignorant on a grand scale? Just a drop in the bucket of the sea of misinformation you are promoting.
Many utlitarian practices become enshrined as socially enforced cultural practices. It is obvious where veiling comes from, as a utilitarian cultural practice, and lets not forget that you are talking about [i]Hijab[/i], not only veiling, and clearly in Arabic culture men also wear head coverings as part of normal daily practice.
Stoning appears in the Torah, not in the Qur'an, for lighting a candle on Saturday, for example. In fact the only time stoning does appear in the Qur'an is when Mohammed applies the law of the Torah to an adulterous couple because they are Jewish. He applies the Judaic law, for Jews you see.
But lets get back to the Turbans. Why no outcry from you about the evils of men being obliged to wear Turbans in Sikh culture?
PS: None of your links work.
[ 31 October 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Thu, 2007-11-01 15:27
#20
quote:
Originally posted by leahwis:
I think we should follow Frances leader and ban ALL religious garments from public institutions to format equality.
So why do you support the JDL?
Thu, 2007-11-01 15:59
#21
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Max Bialystock:
[b]So why do you support the JDL?[/b]
Good catch Max, I suppose it must be because some religions are more chosen than others, and as such, would be exempt.
Thu, 2007-11-01 17:53
#22
Remind, I agree with the spirit of your remarks, but try to keep on this side of offensive please.
Thu, 2007-11-01 17:57
#23
remind
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Remind, I agree with the spirit of your remarks, but try to keep on this side of offensive please.[/b]
Unionist the day you can start telling what to do, will be never. And I was not being offensive.
Thu, 2007-11-01 17:57
#24
Remind's post falls way over the line Unionist thank you for calling it.He should apologize.
Thu, 2007-11-01 18:02
#25
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]Unionist the day you can start telling what to do, will be never. And I was not being offensive.[/b]
Remind, listen to me. We agree on all important issues (in my perception anyway). I read your posts with interest because you always have an important perspective to bear. But you know what? You seem totally incapable of recognizing, far less admitting, or far far less apologizing, when you make a mistake.
So let me say it more clearly. It's ok to revile, ridicule and scorn the JDL, who are a bunch of neo-fascist scum. But you can't associate them with [b]the Jewish people[/b] or [b]the Jewish religion[/b], and especially not by tossing off an ancient anti-Semitic canard (which I know you do not mean or intend) about the Jews thinking they are "chosen". It's very hurtful, it's totally unwarranted, and you're a lot better than that.
But of course, what you say is definitely up to you. So I'll leave it in your hands.
ETA: ohara, remind is a "she" not a "he", and I'm more interested in her just thinking about what she said and how it might affect people than in an apology.
[ 01 November 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]
Thu, 2007-11-01 18:03
#26
remind
That won't be happening ohara, so don't hold your breath. And I do not cross any line as a matter of fact.
quote:
Originally posted by ohara:
[b]He should apologize.[/b]
Thu, 2007-11-01 18:23
#27
remind
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Remind, listen to me. So let me say it more clearly. It's ok to revile, ridicule and scorn the JDL, who are a bunch of neo-fascist scum. But you can't associate them with [b]the Jewish people[/b] or [b]the Jewish religion[/b], and especially not by tossing off an ancient anti-Semitic canard (which I know you do not mean or intend) about the Jews thinking they are "chosen". It's very hurtful, it's totally unwarranted, and you're a lot better than that.[/b]
Look unionist, I would use exactly the same wording if was in respect to the little net caps Mennonite women wear around here, or indeed any other religion that wears garb and who would think they should be exempt for religion centric reasons, if such a ridiculous ban was put forth.
And I do not asociate the JDL with other ALL Jewish persons, and though I have never had a Bat Mitzvah, nor indeed been raised "Jewish", as my father and his family rejected it for secularism, I still am very aware of what my ancestors went through fleeing and living with pogroms for generations.
Contary to what you and Ohara seem to believe, the Jewish religion was/is not the only religion holding the copyright on thinking they were/are the "Chosen" ones.
Let's see to date we have:
1. Mormans
2. Jehovah Witness
3. Catholics
4. Jews
5. Muslims
6. Scientology
7. All the Protestant offshoot cults
Edited to add: And actually I did think about using the word and disregarded not using it, as every damn religion out there thinks they are the "chosen" one, and that is the point I was making.
Edited again to add this that I was not going to respond to as I just rolled my eyes.
quote:
But you know what? You seem totally incapable of recognizing, far less admitting, or far far less apologizing, when you make a mistake.
But you know unionist, you seem totally incapable of recognizing, far less admitting, or far far less apologizing, when you make a mistake. In fact, I have never once saw ya do it here, not even when you have posted too many times in the feminist forum, when men were asked to step back. So frankly, IMV your comment is hypocrisy.
In fact, very very few men here ever do, but yet they are constantly demanding apologies, or retractions, in particular from women, if they feel they have been slighted for being called sexist.
So maybe when men start apologizing around here when they are wrong, or over the line, I will too, eh, until then not a chance!
[ 01 November 2007: Message edited by: remind ]
Thu, 2007-11-01 19:08
#28
Remind your anger has taken over your logic.
"Jews as Chosen people" is a biblical concept that has been used by anti-Semites as a canard against Jews. I accept Uninoist's view that you did not mean it as stated but your refusal to acknowledge your error in judgement is far more disconcerting now.
Why you let this anger cloud your thinking is beyond me. However I do hope you re-think what has been written in this thread. Rare is the time that Unionist and I agree. Unionist though beleieves that you are incapable of recognizing when you need to apologize. I believe you recognize it perfectly fine but your anger won't permit you to do so.
Thu, 2007-11-01 19:10
#29
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]But you know unionist, you seem totally incapable of recognizing, far less admitting, or far far less apologizing, when you make a mistake. [/b]
I apologize for raising this issue with you. It was a mistake.
Thu, 2007-11-01 20:08
#30
remind
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]I apologize for raising this issue with you. It was a mistake.[/b]
Yes it was, you never see woman, or even POC, here demanding apologies for every damn sexist, racist, patriarchial canard that comes past us, nor even for over posting in the feminist forum and highjacking threads.
How you can fail to realize that for woman, those type of remarks, and disregarding our requests, are just as [i][b]anti-female[/i][/b] to us, as apparently using the word "chosen", in respect to ALL religious centrism is to some people from Jewish origins. And that fact makes me angry yes.
You knew darn well that I did not mean it in an anti-semetic way, and you admitted so, but yet you still decided to single it out as if it was. And yes, that too has made me angry.
2 facts:
ALL religious people feel they are the "chosen", and the time is long since gone that was/is used to apply to only 1 group of religious persuassion.
Most men, apparently believe they have a right to make demands and disregard the very real plight today of [b]billions[/b] of women who suffer from [i][b]anti-female[/i][/b]patriarchial oppression, real and current abuse, every nano-second of everyday. So, excuse me, if I have a hard time feeling like I should apologize for a slight, or retract something, where you know it was in non-existance in the first place!
[ 01 November 2007: Message edited by: remind ]
Fri, 2007-11-02 02:40
#31
Maysie
remind, you are correct in that all, or almost all religions, feel their people are the "chosen ones" or the "special ones" or the "right religion and the rest of you are wrong".
But.
Only the Jews have been referred to in the popular North American and European vernacular as "the chosen ones" or "the chosen people".
Your comment, then, is calling up this collective knowledge in a way that invokes, however unintended, anti-Semitism.
You and I both know that intent is often/mostly irrelevant when it comes to using words or phrases that are hurtful and/or offensive, and that all of us, none of us are exempt, occasionally make a mistake.
None of us here think you're anti-Semitic of course (now I'm speaking for all babblers, jeez the ego on me, eh? [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] ).
quote:
remind: ALL religious people feel they are the "chosen", and the time is long since gone that was/is used to apply to only 1 group of religious persuassion.
Although I somewhat agree, we can't bring about change by simply stating that it must be so. I could argue that the time has long gone to end violence against women as a way to assert masculine domination, but the words are meaningless in the world that we all must inhabit. It is action (and words and many other things) that will change the world, not merely words on their own.
I hope that you hear this in the manner in which I intend, with respect for your contributions on babble and in the spirit of conciliation.
Fri, 2007-11-02 04:04
#32
Thanks for that, bcg. I agree with you. remind, just I'm sure you would appreciate it if a person who has unintentionally said something sexist acknowledges it when it's brought to their attention, perhaps you should also be willing to rethink it if you've unintentionally said something offensive about a traditionally persecuted group. I mean, this isn't the usual group on babble crying anti-semitism when you say something bad about Israel. It's unionist, who always takes a strong stand on the side of anti-oppression and never cries wolf. If we want our allies to listen to and respect us, we have to listen to and respect them too.
I also echo bcg's sentiments:
quote:
None of us here think you're anti-Semitic of course
...
I hope that you hear this in the manner in which I intend, with respect for your contributions on babble and in the spirit of conciliation.
[ 02 November 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Fri, 2007-11-02 07:39
#33
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]Thanks for that, bcg. I agree with you. remind, just I'm sure you would appreciate it if a person who has unintentionally said something sexist acknowledges it when it's brought to their attention, perhaps you should also be willing to rethink it if you've unintentionally said something offensive about a traditionally persecuted group.[/b]
Actually, I have thought about all last evening and this morning. And admit that I should have made an extended comment instead of lumping ALL religions under the guise of a word that has been used towards a persecuted group.
quote:
[b] I mean, this isn't the usual group on babble crying anti-semitism when you say something bad about Israel. It's unionist, who always takes a strong stand on the side of anti-oppression and never cries wolf. If we want our allies to listen to and respect us, we have to listen to and respect them too.[/b]
Yes, I agree. And it is in that spirit, I admit I could've used a different selection of wording.
Fri, 2007-11-02 07:47
#34
Thank you, remind, that is very much appreciated. And in the same spirit, I plan to review whether the quantity and quality of my interventions in the feminism forum has been appropriate or excessive. I expect you to keep being there to "remind" me whenever I step over the line.
Sat, 2007-11-03 17:59
#35
Deleted
[ 05 November 2007: Message edited by: Max Bialystock ]
Sat, 2007-11-03 21:15
#36
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Max Bialystock:
[b]Ohara how come I never see you denouncing anti-Muslim bigotry or sexism on this board? I guess you don't take what Alan Borovoy said to heed - fighting for justice for Jews means fighting for justice for all people.[/b]
Max, well seriously, I am denouncing your action in baiting ohara as sexism, unconscious, or otherwise, as you just don't have a right to bait and troll in the feminist forum, and that you think you do, says much.
Now I am going to take a shower.
Sun, 2007-11-04 15:17
#37
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Arabs males wear "Turbans" now. Even more enlightenment served up by you.[/b]
I was referring to the Tuaregs when I meant turban. The men there wear it for a religious reason (but apparently the women do not). Besides, some religious Arabs actually do wear turbans.
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b][url=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/lifestyles/links/turbans_27.html]Its called kaffiyeh, and it is not a Turban:[/url] [/b]
Dude, I know what a kaffiyeh is, and guess what? You can use it as a turban! But getting back at the topic, unlike the hijab, it's not headgear mandated by religion. It's a political symbol representing Palestinian solidarity at most.
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]But whats a little inaccuracy when you are ignorant on a grand scale? Just a drop in the bucket of the sea of misinformation you are promoting.[/b]
[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Many utlitarian practices become enshrined as socially enforced cultural practices. It is obvious where veiling comes from, as a utilitarian cultural practice, and lets not forget that you are talking about [i]Hijab[/i], not only veiling, and clearly in Arabic culture men also wear head coverings as part of normal daily practice.[/b]
If veiling does come from a utilitarian practice, then how come men didn't adopt it in the same religious mandate to women? Do you even know the history of the hijab and the Islamic justifications for it? Besides, a cumbersome black abaya or chador, and niqab are hardly utilitarian, unless you consider it as a tool for misogynists to keep women isolated.
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Stoning appears in the Torah, not in the Qur'an, for lighting a candle on Saturday, for example. In fact the only time stoning does appear in the Qur'an is when Mohammed applies the law of the Torah to an adulterous couple because they are Jewish. He applies the Judaic law, for Jews you see.[/b]
For Jews only? Not only is this a red herring but it's also bullshit. The more credible hadiths say otherwise; that rajm was a punishment used for specific crimes in Islam, which are still in use in Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Iran. And the fact that Muhammad actually condoned the stoning, regardless if he was following Islamic or Jewish law, is a good indicator that he was far from a saint.
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]But lets get back to the Turbans. Why no outcry from you about the evils of men being obliged to wear Turbans in Sikh culture?[/b]
A good proportion of Sikh men actually do cut their hair, and therefore have no need to wear turbans. I haven't heard any backlash from the Sikh community about this subject, so it's safe to assume that their religion is chosen freely, compared to a great deal of women living the Islamic world.
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]PS: None of your links work.[/b]
I fixed them now.
Sun, 2007-11-04 15:54
#38
Cueball
quote:
Dude, I know what a kaffiyeh is, and guess what? You can use it as a turban! But getting back at the topic, unlike the hijab, it's not headgear mandated by religion. It's a political symbol representing Palestinian solidarity at most.
Any piece of cloth, including Kaffiyeh can be worn as a Turban. But Arabs do not use it as such. Kaffiyeh is common headress worn by most Arabs, of the Levant, Syria, Iraq, and the Gulf Arabs. There is nothing particularly Palestinian about it. Its symbolic value as an symbol of resistance among Palestinians, is precisely because it is an emblem of traditional Arab culture.
What is unique about the Palestinian Kaffiyeh, as a symbol of Palestinian resitance is not the fact that it is a Kaffiyeh, but that it is a [b]black[/b] Kaffiyeh. Presumably it is "black" because of its association as the colour of the Arab revolt that appears on most Arab flags, as the colour of war, and resistance, in traditional Arab society. Black headress is the traditional colour going back before the time of Mohammed for armies marching to war.
quote:
Originally posted by Elysium:
[b]If veiling does come from a utilitarian practice, then how come men didn't adopt it in the same religious mandate to women? Do you even know the history of the hijab and the Islamic justifications for it? Besides, a cumbersome black abaya or chador, and niqab are hardly utilitarian, unless you consider it as a tool for misogynists to keep women isolated.
[/b]
In fact the same religious authorties demand that men wear beards, and in the countries where such edicts are enforced by the law, it is also a legal compucntion. So in fact dress code is enforced for men as well as women.
quote:
For Jews only? Not only is this a red herring but it's also bullshit. The more credible hadiths say otherwise; that rajm was a punishment used for specific crimes in Islam, which are still in use in Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Iran. And the fact that Muhammad actually condoned the stoning, regardless if he was following Islamic or Jewish law, is a good indicator that he was far from a saint.
I am not arguing that Mohammed was a saint. What I am arguing is that there is nothing particularlly "Islamic" about stoning. One can see this by studying the Qur'an in comparison to the Torah. Fact is that stoning is not a very Islamic practice, except in that some Sunni religious doctrines apply it, while in fact it is an article of the [i]law[/i] in the Torah. It is a very Middle Eastern punishment, that appear variously.
In fact the only time that Mohammed calls for it is specifically in order to enforce the Torah among Jews, as he is their governor at the time.
quote:
A good proportion of Sikh men actually do cut their hair, and therefore have no need to wear turbans. I haven't heard any backlash from the Sikh community about this subject, so it's safe to assume that their religion is chosen freely, compared to a great deal of women living the Islamic world.
In fact in 99.9 percent of all cases the only people I hear complaining about Hijab as and example of misogyny are non-Muslim people. I never hear Muslim women complain about it. In fact 99.9 percent of the comment favourably upon it. There is no great hue and cry coming from that quarter.
Cite please the general outcry from Muslim women complaining about being forced to wear Hijab, and that their religion is not "freely chosen", as in "a great deal of women living the Islamic world."
On the other hand, unlike your statement, which seems entirely made out of thin air. It is not safe to assume anything. You will find plenty of Sikh traditionalist who consider cutting ones hair sacraligious, it just so happens that there is no big media scare about the clash of civilizations and Sikh culture, except perhaps in India.
Sikh men wearing Turbans to keep their long hair tidy is fine, while Muslim women feeling compelled to wear Hijab in keeping with their religion, and keep their hair tidy, is the very height of misogyny according to you.
[ 04 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Sun, 2007-11-04 16:28
#39
quote:
Both hijabi women and shaved head women told me that men started respecting them and their ideas more once they removed the overt sexual components of their dress or appearance.
But if you change your appearance to appear less provocative to men, are you not just as much enslaved by male perception as if you dressed in halters and micro-miniskirts?
I sense a deep prudishness in this point of view. If (straight) men are distracted by the beauty of women, isn't that a basic part of their humanity?
Is emancipation for all sexes only possible if we expunge all traces of sexuality from the public sphere?
Sun, 2007-11-04 16:45
#40
quote:
Fact is that stoning is not a very Islamic practice, except in that some Sunni religious doctrines apply it, while in fact it is an article of the law in the Torah.
Where does the tradition of stoning come from?
Sun, 2007-11-04 17:01
#41
Cueball
I don't know, but it certainly does not originate in the Qur'ran. Elysium suggests otherwise, listing stoning, as a specific Islamic punishment and [i]that the Qur'an is solely a product of pre-Islamic Arab culture.[/i]
quote:
A lot of people here have stated that the occurring misogyny in Islamic states is due to culture rather than religion. I disagree with this. [b]Islam itself, based on Bedouin culture[/b] (the 'original' Arabs), is not just a religion, but also a way of life and society under a set of strict laws (sharia) to be followed.
I have pointed out that the Qur'an is actually a metamorphisis of existing monotheastic religions, such as Judaism and Christianity, imported and applied to pre-Islamice culture, as can be shown by the fact that it contains almost all of the traditional Christian and Jewish mythology. It is more or less a Readers Digest version of Christian and Jewish text, updated and disambiguated. Even the single example of Mohammed's use of stoning as punishment, where he is applying the law of the Torah, amongst his Jewish subjects, [i]is a direct import from the Torah.[/i]
In fact, if one was going to assert a moral judgement based on the prevalence of barabric legal practices, it would seem that the Qur'an is a substantial advance from the Torah, which is rife with stoning as punishment, for everything from lighting a candle on Saturday, to committing adultery, whereas it does not appear as a punishment among Muslims at all.
[ 04 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Sun, 2007-11-04 17:09
#42
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Even the single example of Mohammed's use of stoning as punishment, where he is applying the law of the Torah, amongst his Jewish subjects, [i]is a direct import from Judaism.[/i] [...]In fact, if one was going to assert a moral judgement based on the prevalence of barabric legal practices, it would seem that the Qur'an is a substantial advance from the Torah, which is rife with stoning as punishment, for everything from lighting a candle on Saturday, to committing adultery, whereas it does not appear as a punishment among Muslims at all.[/b]
Is there some point to proving the moral superiority of ancient Islam over ancient Judaism - now that you've made this point about half a dozen times?
Sun, 2007-11-04 17:20
#43
Frustrated Mess
Vision Artist, that was a very interesting series of posts. It provides some wonderful insight.
quote:
Is there some point to proving the moral superiority of ancient Islam over ancient Judaism
I don't think that is his point. There is a predominant presumption in the Fox News educated West, that stoning, indeed executions, are unique to Islam. For that matter, that cultural violence is unique to Islam.
So he repeats himself. But so do those that would demonize Islam.
Sun, 2007-11-04 17:48
#44
Most Jews don't follow the letter of the Torah anymore than most Christians do, some things I'm pretty sure are no longer observed at all. I don't believe the Hijab is even mentioned in the Quran, but just another cultural accredation like female circumcision or the now unfashionable custom of Haram. Imams and Mullahs can distinguish between such things, if they want to.
I don't personally like the underlying concept that women should feel they need to cover their faces because of how "men" are supposed to react, but like everything a people believe is "traditional" I think it should be up to them to decide what they will or won't follow. It only becomes a concern for other Canadians if its enforced by outside coercion or threat of violence; then civil authorities have a right to step in. It's really not that complicated.
The focus on this by Canadian conservatives however is IMV nothing more than ethnic chauvinism hiding behind the idea that only "Western" (Christian) nations are truly "free" and "equal". (or can be) (and therefore justified in invading those who aren't) This kind of two faced rhetoric is used all the time by the American right, nothing new either but not much justification for it in the sexist New Testament either.
[ 04 November 2007: Message edited by: Erik Redburn ]
Sun, 2007-11-04 18:54
#45
Anyway, I grew up in a pretty strong Orthodox Jewish milieu and I can't recall stoning anyone.
Getting stoned, yes.
Which is probably why I can't recall.
Sun, 2007-11-04 18:57
#46
Cueball
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Is there some point to proving the moral superiority of ancient Islam over ancient Judaism - now that you've made this point about half a dozen times?[/b]
Yes, considering that in the first instance Elysium was straying from his original point, which was that Islam is an extension of Bedouin tribal practices, and not a recasting of Jewish and Christian theology, and in the second, the train of logic was confused at the point that CMOT asked his question. Lets get this straight, Elysium was making the point that Jewish religious practices, and Christian religious practices were more civilized than Islamic practices. Islamic practices, he asserted did not have their origins in Judaic and Christian practice, but in Bedouin cultural traditions.
This is false.
I see not reason not to directly refute this comparison made by him, in particular in regard to the practice of stoning which is often wrongly associated with Islam specifically, when in fact, it hardly appears at all, in comparison to other religions of the same general origin, and which share the same liniage.
Lets get this straight, "stoning" as a punishment is no more an Islamic practic, than wearing turbans, is an Islamic practice.
Or perhaps you are making this point generally about my posting here on Babble? If that is the case, I wonder why you rehash continuously the same points reagarding the war in Afghanista, again and again and again.
[ 04 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Sun, 2007-11-04 18:58
#47
Funny, I can't even recall if I inhaled. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Sun, 2007-11-04 19:05
#48
Cueball
Is there some point to attacking me and supporting Elysium's view that Islam is inately more barbaric than Judaism and Christianity, and that it is not in fact a religion which directly shares a common ancestry, but is actually derived from Bedouin tribal practices, and that "stoning" is part of that practice?
[ 04 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]
Sun, 2007-11-04 19:08
#49
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Lets get this straight, Elysium was making the point that Jewish religious practices, and Christian religious practices were more civilized than Islamic practices. [/b]
See, that's why I asked my question. I couldn't see where Elysium said that - so I couldn't understand why you kept making your point. Where did Elysium call Jewish and Christian practices more civilized than Islamic ones?
Sun, 2007-11-04 19:12
#50
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
[b]Is there some point to attacking me and supporting Elysium's view that [i]Islam is inately more barbaric than Judaism and Christianity,[/i] and that it is not in fact a religion which directly shares a common ancestry, but is actually derived from Bedouin tribal practices, and that "stoning" is part of that practice?
[/b]
Um, who ever argued [i]that[/i] besides Elysium here? I don't believe Islam is anymore "inately" anything than any other Western mosaic religion.
Sun, 2007-11-04 19:17
#51
Cueball
Well it seems that you Erik, are in agreement with me, that Elysium is arguing that Islam is ontologically an outcropping of Bedouin culture, and Unionist is saying that he is not saying that. Why don't you guys sort it out.
[ 04 November 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]