Hypocrisy of the left: Feminism and Islam.
Not long ago a female staff member at my work loudly proclaimed that we should all see the play, The Vagina Monologues. It was to raise money to help women who were victims of domestic violence you see.
On hearing this a male member of staff (myself) commented to another male member of staff that it must be a c&**! of a show! Was there also a 'Penis Monologue' or would that be a bit of a w*@#? I am not normally one to use profanity but the temptation was just too great. (I have used self censorship here but the worldly among you will understand the meanings).
The annoying assumption that everyone would be on board was soon superseded by some other questions in my mind. What were the premises? Why was only domestic violence against women considered? What about domestic violence against men and children or was it assumed that those things did not exist, at least not perpetuated by women? Wikipedia figures state that in 27% of cases men initiate domestic violence and women 24% of the time. the rest were mutual. Some figures for violence against children show women playing as big or bigger part than the father. When males were involved it was more likely to be a defacto. Two other factors are that males are more likely to do greater damage to a partner but if they are on the receiving end they may be too embarrassed to report it. Whilst violence towards women is to be abhorred why alienate half the population by pretending it doesn't happen to males?
Another thought came in to my head. I have since discovered that the play also raised money for women in countries overseas but why do we not see demonstrations against the treatment of women in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran etc? After all there are places where women can not move freely unless they wear a mobile tent and preferably with a male family escort. Children are sold in 'marriage' to pay off debts or for some strange concept of family 'honour'. In Iran women are hung for 'adultery' or whipped for wearing makeup. Of course not all Muslim societies treat their women this way; at the other extreme we have Turkey, a country which protects its citizens from such abhorrent behaviour.
The position of women in Afghanistan has improved marginally since the western invasion; a minority can now go to school and move around more freely. Yet if a woman does not wear the approved attire or she works as, say a news reader, she is considered a prostitute and will be accosted in the street. Recently a thirteen year old girl was sold by her family to another family as a 'bride' for a son who insisted she make money for them as a prostitute. The girl, who resisted, had her hair torn out, pieces of meat cut off her body, beatings and acid burns. Only the intervention of Afghanistan's president made the police treat the case seriously! This seems to suggest that mistreatment of Afghan girls is not something that is normally discouraged by the law.
So why are western feminists not protesting? The reason is 'cultural sensitivity'. Yet I remember the days of apartheid and the indignation South Africa's pass system and separate development engendered. Feminists strongly allied themselves with the anti-apartheid movement. But weren't they interfering with the culture of the majority of South African whites, especially the Afrikaners who supported this? Come to think of it why are there no mass protests about the genocide in Zimbabwe against white farmers, something which has, to a lesser extent, spread to South Africa? The reason is the cultures to be respected are non-European in origin.
Come to think of it ,no protests were made against ANC supporters who 'necklaced' other blacks who supported the white regime or even rival African organisations. (For those who were not around then necklacing involved a burning tyre full of petrol placed around a victim's neck. It was a painfully terminal experience).
The confining of millions of Muslim women to their homes and forcing them to wear burquas, acid attacks on women for bringing 'dishonour' to their families and the terrorizing of girls by husband's families are if anything worse than any indignities suffered by black Africans under apartheid yet the silence from western feminists is deafening.
The reality is that unqualified respect for culture is not compatible with concern for the safety and happiness of others. Among the British Empire's great achievements were abolishing widow burning and thuggee in India; both these things originated in indigenous religion. Unfortunately Afghanistan has not experienced a couple of hundred years of the British rule of law to advance its civilization.
It never ceases to amaze me to watch Islamic clerics say with a straight face that Islam teaches respect for women but incidentally they need to keep covered up - that bloody tent again- and incidentally, marry young.
The recent riots in Afghanistan over the, apparently accidental, burning of Korans shows the utterly medieval mentality which exists in many Muslim countries. Ironic too, given that Muslims scoff at the Christian Trinity as idolatrous. Yet an actual object such as a Koran can elicit such veneration without being recognized as idolatrous in itself.
In the Middle Ages Muslims were among the most advanced people, progressive in science, architecture, poetry and maths. Yet now many Muslim countries are still in a medieval state of mind.?
Many Muslims are envious of western countries standard of living and freedom but disparaging of its morals and culture. And they have some points to make. Many western females, emulating pop celebrities strive for the hooker look with its revealing or skin tight clothes. When I was a child tattoos were largely reserved for men in the armed forces, convicts and - hookers. Now women everywhere are seeking tattoos, bold ones or little shy ones hidden away in secretive places.
The family laws enable women to drain their ex-husbands and partners dry, so much so that, given the divorce rate, there is little incentive for men to marry. Many women find little incentive to keep their men either as the government provides for them. The woman, living off welfare and alimony, with ten children to seven fathers is not a total exaggeration. The educated woman would scoff that what woman would want to live that way on such a low income?. The answer is uneducated or unintelligent women who have no other 'skills' to offer. The resultant children repeat the pattern and frequently are only good for breeding more welfare litters.
What is interesting is that western conservatives often have as their ideal 'golden age' the 1950s with its family stability and shared values. Many Muslim cultures ideal age is medieval. yet it is western conservatives rather than 'progressives' who criticise Islamic societies and large scale immigration because even they don't want society to regress that far. We have come a long way from the days when witches were burnt in Europe.
Nearly one hundred years ago women in the USA and Britain got the vote. In some Australian colonies the vote was earlier. The first thing the American women did was vote for prohibition. Muslims also, officially, prohibit alcohol consumption and they may be right. The damage that alcohol does, especially to the brains of teenagers and the unborn is huge and under stated.
Iranians who point to the promiscuity of westerners do not see any contradiction in the institution of 'temporary marriage' which is a form of serial monogamy and in some instances is little better than prostitution. So in this instance a huge hypocrisy is evident.
Given the silence of western feminists about the oppression of women in Muslim countries and their apparent unhappiness with conditions in western countries perhaps we should do a swap; the feminists can move to Afghanistan and the foreign Muslim women can move to the western countries. The latter will find even the most sexist western males gentle compared to the Taliban. However I cannot promise reciprocity when it comes to Western women burning their burkas.
On hearing this a male member of staff (myself) commented to another male member of staff that it must be a c&**! of a show! Was there also a 'Penis Monologue' or would that be a bit of a w*@#? I am not normally one to use profanity but the temptation was just too great. (I have used self censorship here but the worldly among you will understand the meanings).
The annoying assumption that everyone would be on board was soon superseded by some other questions in my mind. What were the premises? Why was only domestic violence against women considered? What about domestic violence against men and children or was it assumed that those things did not exist, at least not perpetuated by women? Wikipedia figures state that in 27% of cases men initiate domestic violence and women 24% of the time. the rest were mutual. Some figures for violence against children show women playing as big or bigger part than the father. When males were involved it was more likely to be a defacto. Two other factors are that males are more likely to do greater damage to a partner but if they are on the receiving end they may be too embarrassed to report it. Whilst violence towards women is to be abhorred why alienate half the population by pretending it doesn't happen to males?
Another thought came in to my head. I have since discovered that the play also raised money for women in countries overseas but why do we not see demonstrations against the treatment of women in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran etc? After all there are places where women can not move freely unless they wear a mobile tent and preferably with a male family escort. Children are sold in 'marriage' to pay off debts or for some strange concept of family 'honour'. In Iran women are hung for 'adultery' or whipped for wearing makeup. Of course not all Muslim societies treat their women this way; at the other extreme we have Turkey, a country which protects its citizens from such abhorrent behaviour.
The position of women in Afghanistan has improved marginally since the western invasion; a minority can now go to school and move around more freely. Yet if a woman does not wear the approved attire or she works as, say a news reader, she is considered a prostitute and will be accosted in the street. Recently a thirteen year old girl was sold by her family to another family as a 'bride' for a son who insisted she make money for them as a prostitute. The girl, who resisted, had her hair torn out, pieces of meat cut off her body, beatings and acid burns. Only the intervention of Afghanistan's president made the police treat the case seriously! This seems to suggest that mistreatment of Afghan girls is not something that is normally discouraged by the law.
So why are western feminists not protesting? The reason is 'cultural sensitivity'. Yet I remember the days of apartheid and the indignation South Africa's pass system and separate development engendered. Feminists strongly allied themselves with the anti-apartheid movement. But weren't they interfering with the culture of the majority of South African whites, especially the Afrikaners who supported this? Come to think of it why are there no mass protests about the genocide in Zimbabwe against white farmers, something which has, to a lesser extent, spread to South Africa? The reason is the cultures to be respected are non-European in origin.
Come to think of it ,no protests were made against ANC supporters who 'necklaced' other blacks who supported the white regime or even rival African organisations. (For those who were not around then necklacing involved a burning tyre full of petrol placed around a victim's neck. It was a painfully terminal experience).
The confining of millions of Muslim women to their homes and forcing them to wear burquas, acid attacks on women for bringing 'dishonour' to their families and the terrorizing of girls by husband's families are if anything worse than any indignities suffered by black Africans under apartheid yet the silence from western feminists is deafening.
The reality is that unqualified respect for culture is not compatible with concern for the safety and happiness of others. Among the British Empire's great achievements were abolishing widow burning and thuggee in India; both these things originated in indigenous religion. Unfortunately Afghanistan has not experienced a couple of hundred years of the British rule of law to advance its civilization.
It never ceases to amaze me to watch Islamic clerics say with a straight face that Islam teaches respect for women but incidentally they need to keep covered up - that bloody tent again- and incidentally, marry young.
The recent riots in Afghanistan over the, apparently accidental, burning of Korans shows the utterly medieval mentality which exists in many Muslim countries. Ironic too, given that Muslims scoff at the Christian Trinity as idolatrous. Yet an actual object such as a Koran can elicit such veneration without being recognized as idolatrous in itself.
In the Middle Ages Muslims were among the most advanced people, progressive in science, architecture, poetry and maths. Yet now many Muslim countries are still in a medieval state of mind.?
Many Muslims are envious of western countries standard of living and freedom but disparaging of its morals and culture. And they have some points to make. Many western females, emulating pop celebrities strive for the hooker look with its revealing or skin tight clothes. When I was a child tattoos were largely reserved for men in the armed forces, convicts and - hookers. Now women everywhere are seeking tattoos, bold ones or little shy ones hidden away in secretive places.
The family laws enable women to drain their ex-husbands and partners dry, so much so that, given the divorce rate, there is little incentive for men to marry. Many women find little incentive to keep their men either as the government provides for them. The woman, living off welfare and alimony, with ten children to seven fathers is not a total exaggeration. The educated woman would scoff that what woman would want to live that way on such a low income?. The answer is uneducated or unintelligent women who have no other 'skills' to offer. The resultant children repeat the pattern and frequently are only good for breeding more welfare litters.
What is interesting is that western conservatives often have as their ideal 'golden age' the 1950s with its family stability and shared values. Many Muslim cultures ideal age is medieval. yet it is western conservatives rather than 'progressives' who criticise Islamic societies and large scale immigration because even they don't want society to regress that far. We have come a long way from the days when witches were burnt in Europe.
Nearly one hundred years ago women in the USA and Britain got the vote. In some Australian colonies the vote was earlier. The first thing the American women did was vote for prohibition. Muslims also, officially, prohibit alcohol consumption and they may be right. The damage that alcohol does, especially to the brains of teenagers and the unborn is huge and under stated.
Iranians who point to the promiscuity of westerners do not see any contradiction in the institution of 'temporary marriage' which is a form of serial monogamy and in some instances is little better than prostitution. So in this instance a huge hypocrisy is evident.
Given the silence of western feminists about the oppression of women in Muslim countries and their apparent unhappiness with conditions in western countries perhaps we should do a swap; the feminists can move to Afghanistan and the foreign Muslim women can move to the western countries. The latter will find even the most sexist western males gentle compared to the Taliban. However I cannot promise reciprocity when it comes to Western women burning their burkas.
It can be seen as an unholy alliance and contradictory it is, but the common desire to criticize and tear down unites. But of course, both feminists and the Muslims are just puppets in the hands of the master(s). There's a revolution from above going on.
ReplyDelete