Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
Posted: July 22 2010 at 20:06
I totally agree that woman's rights ended up backfiring for society in a way because due to capitalist pressure, what happened wasn't that women's work was respected and appreciated, but was seen as something shameful and for weaklings. Rather than mothers and homemakers being lauded for their dedication and hard work, women rushed not to be a mother or homemaker at all because capitalism teaches that if you're not making money, you're a loser. This leads to homes where neither parent is really giving their full attention to the children and the home. What we need to do is not say it is shameful to stay at home and raise children, but to respect and listen to the people who do.
Joined: June 02 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10266
Posted: July 22 2010 at 20:03
The T wrote:
BaldFriede wrote:
The T wrote:
Baldfriede, if you think having to walk behind a man and not being able to work or go to school is just "gender roles", be my guest. I just doubt they would like your bald head in a muslim country very much. If I were you, I'd cherish western society which allows you to express yourself.
lol, I would actually not mind walking behind a man in Western society. it means that he is the one to step into the dog sh*t
Point for humour for you BF...
but what Jean's post was all about is that there are two ways of looking at it. Islamic men are not allowed to interfere in the kitchen, for example. are they therefore suppressed? no, it is only our society that says it is more important to do politics and the likes than to do the household. but it isn't actually. as any man who has ever done the household will pretty well know
Joined: October 03 2008
Location: Là, sui monti.
Status: Offline
Points: 10841
Posted: July 22 2010 at 19:59
Textbook wrote:
I think possibly because of who she is, BJ wants to argue for acceptance of everything. But I think others can see the problem of accepting the beliefs of a group of people who would cheerfully stone her to death.
Is this "group of people" only the "integrist" muslims (E.G. the Talibans) or the whole muslim community? You should be careful with your words.
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
Posted: July 22 2010 at 19:52
I think possibly because of who she is, BJ wants to argue for acceptance of everything. But I think others can see the problem of accepting the beliefs of a group of people who would cheerfully stone her to death.
Joined: October 03 2008
Location: Là, sui monti.
Status: Offline
Points: 10841
Posted: July 22 2010 at 19:50
Textbook wrote:
I think he literally meant he couldn't understand the post because of the way in which it was written.
Yes, that was the main problem. Because of this, I can't really "get" the points developed by BaldJean. To speak the truth, if I read the post of BJ as I started to understand it, I would begin to say that this text seems to carry some serious historical, social and cultural misconceptions.
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: July 22 2010 at 19:42
BaldFriede wrote:
The T wrote:
Baldfriede, if you think having to walk behind a man and not being able to work or go to school is just "gender roles", be my guest. I just doubt they would like your bald head in a muslim country very much. If I were you, I'd cherish western society which allows you to express yourself.
lol, I would actually not mind walking behind a man in Western society. it means that he is the one to step into the dog sh*t
Joined: June 02 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10266
Posted: July 22 2010 at 19:38
The T wrote:
Baldfriede, if you think having to walk behind a man and not being able to work or go to school is just "gender roles", be my guest. I just doubt they would like your bald head in a muslim country very much. If I were you, I'd cherish western society which allows you to express yourself.
lol, I would actually not mind walking behind a man in Western society. it means that he is the one to step into the dog sh*t
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Posted: July 22 2010 at 19:35
Baldfriede, if you think having to walk behind a man and not being able to work or go to school is just "gender roles", be my guest. I just doubt they would like your bald head in a muslim country very much. If I were you, I'd cherish western society which allows you to express yourself.
Joined: June 02 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10266
Posted: July 22 2010 at 19:24
CPicard wrote:
It's the second time I read this post, and I still have difficulties to understand a single sentence.
what is your difficulty with it? the post is about gender roles. there is nothing wrong per se with having gender roles. just because a society has gender roles you can't say one gender is suppressed (which one actually?)
Joined: June 02 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10266
Posted: July 22 2010 at 18:48
The T wrote:
A religion that treats half of the population as second-class beings is the problem. Really, the burqa is but a symptom. I think, after all, it doesn't solve anything, just will exacerbate tensions. It would be great if one could ban the entire muslim faith entire but alas, it can't be done. I guess it's better if we learnt to tolerate them, though they tolerating us is just as difficult.
But does Islam treat women as second class beings? This is your interpretation. Let me quote this excellent post of Jean again:
BaldJean wrote:
all this talk about suppression is quite interesting and amusing. I
think almost everyone will agree that women had been suppressed in the
Western world too and that only through years of fighting women finally
god rid of this suppression. but actually all of this is complete
nonsense, which can quite easily be proven. let me suggest the following
scenario:
at the beginning of the industrial age a law was made
in Germany that all profits from big companies down to the single
craftsman had to be shared equally with the whole population. other
countries soon followed that example. as the result of that the work of
men suddenly lost its importance as income source, but of course they
still had to work to keep the factories going. hence their status
deteriorated, and they tried to regain it by taking over territory that
had so far completely been reserved to women. they wanted to cook, they
wanted to do the washing, they wanted to clean the house and so on.
the
women felt their domain crumble and did all they could to hold the men
back, but they finally had to succumb to their struggle for freedom.
soon some men started complaining about the double strain they were
under and demanded that women should take care in political
affairs too and should vote and pick up duties in parliament. need I
continue?
no, the real problem was not that women had been
suppressed but that with the upcoming capitalistic system only money
started to count and all of what they did lost its value. women had not
been suppressed, and neither had men be suppressed, they just had their
own gender roles, and that was fine. as long as it worked out.
today
gender roles become less and less important, and both sexes behave and
are being treated more or less equally. and that is considered to be
"right", though why this is right no-one can tell. I prophecy that in a
thousand years men and women will almost look alike, and the only real
difference will be in their sexual organs. but they will no longer be
used for proliferation; women would not want to undergo the
discriminating pregnancy, so children will be bred in test-tubes, and we
will have a real better world. I am grateful I will not be alive then.
nothing
is wrong with having different roles at all; it only becomes wrong when
one role is deemed to be more important than the other. and this is
what happened at the beginning of the industrial age, and this is why we
had the so-called "emancipation of women".
"but women were
suppressed then" some may answer. "it was for example impossible for
them to enter a university". right, and it was equally impossible that a
man would have interfered with the cooking, for example.
the
deterioration of the female domain actually started before the
industrial age, when men suddenly discovered an interest in children in
the romantic age. this was the beginning of the landslide which finally
started the so-called "female emancipation".
and before someone
calls me completely outdated: hey, I am a successful business woman
myself. but I use my brain, and it always pays to question values that
are being taken for granted. it is a good and healthy mental exercise.
it
is also a good mental exercise to take the side of the opponent in an
argument for a change and defend their case with all you can; it helps
you understand the opposite side a lot. and it certainly cures you of
taking your position as granted and the right one. in the case of the
burka this means: put yourself into the mind of someone who is pro-burka
and defend your position as best as you can. it is the best way to get
rid of misconceptions and prejudices. Friede and I often take the
"wrong" position in discussions where everyone else is of the same
opinion and play advocatus diaboli for some case. it makes people
furious at you for your stupidity and is great fun, and it definitely
expands your mind
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
Posted: July 22 2010 at 17:35
Someone may have already mentioned this but Syria has just banned the niqab in schools. Interesting to see an Eastern nation take this step.
We really should be talking about the niqab anyway, that's all I have an issue with, not the rest of the outfit. "Ban The Burqa" seems to have taken off simply because of the alliteration.
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Posted: July 21 2010 at 18:57
Textbook wrote:
Whoops, what a typo. Of course I meant churches in the second instance, not mosques.
My motto is that if you are going to make a mistake in posting, make it a funny one because someone will come along and quote you before you get the chance to make a correction.
Edited by Slartibartfast - July 21 2010 at 18:58
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.313 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
French approve ban on burqas...
Topic Options
The T wrote:
Point for humour for you BF...
