Muslim Apartheid: Sexism

[August1991]

In Saudi Arabia, women cannot drive a car. In Iran, women cannot shop alone.

In the Muslim world, a woman is legally half of a man. She must be covered.

In the Muslim world, young girls defer to their brothers; women are less than men.

=====

In the past, the colour of one's skin determined whether one was a slave. Nowadays, modern slavery is deteremined by an appendage between one's legs.

I am absolutely astonished that any Western Leftist would defend Palestine, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia. Do these Leftists understand how women are treated in these countries?

Even Lebanon deserves reproach, if you are a progressive western feminist democrat.

======

For several years, I lived in Damascus and Beirut. I travelled to Riyadh. I have been to Tunis, Cairo and Annaba.

For me, the most disheartening scene was not a Muslim father striking a son on his head in public, it was the older daughter walking submissively behind a younger son.

Even Chinese and Indian families do not treat girls the way Muslim families do.

====

We in the West have a large education campaign before us.

The world does not lack for children, but it lacks educated children.

Edited June 6, 2010 by August1991

[Guest American Woman]

I am absolutely astonished that any Western Leftist would defend Palestine, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia. Do these Leftists understand how women are treated in these countries?

I'm astonished that you're absolutely astonished that any western leftist would defend such countries, while apparently not astonished at all that any western conservative would.

[Shady]

I'm astonished that you're absolutely astonished that any western leftist would defend such countries

Western leftists defend them with their silence. I guess they're always too busy targeting Israel.

[BCMan]

There is no need discussion hate speech. I bet I can go find 1000 words of hate against any person/religion/country.

[Guest American Woman]

Western leftists defend them with their silence. I guess they're always too busy targeting Israel.

And this is an example of a western conservative not supporting Saudi Arabia?

My link

[August1991]

I'm astonished that you're absolutely astonished that any western leftist would defend such countries, while apparently not astonished at all that any western conservative would.

Uh, so why did they call it the MV Rachel Corrie?

AW, the question is not Israel's behaviour, or America's, the question is the behaviour of Iran, Palestine, Saudi, Egypt and Syria - for example.

For me, this double standard is astounding.

For the Western Left, the meaning of "apartheid" no longer applies to women. Saudi women don't matter.

[Guest American Woman]

Uh, so why did they call it the MV Rachel Corrie?

What does the ship that headed to Gaza have to do with Muslim Apartheid?

AW, the question is not Israel's behaviour, or America's, the question is the behaviour of Iran, Palestine, Saudi, Egypt and Syria - for example.

Are you confusing two threads? But I'll agree that as far as the topic of this thread goes it's the behavior of Iran, Saudi, et al in question. In other words, it's not the behavior of the Western Left, as you seem to be making it out to be.

For me, this double standard is astounding.

What double standard are you talking about?

For the Western Left, the meaning of "apartheid" no longer applies to women. Saudi women don't matter.

I have no idea where you are getting "the Western Left" from. You seriously don't think the Western Right supports Saudi Arabia? I posted a reminder of Bush's support. That's where we get a lot of our oil, as I'm sure you realize. Do you think Saudi women mean more to the Western Right than oil does? Because I don't recall seeing a lot of nonsupport for Saudi Arabia coming from the Right. I'm speaking in terms of 'relative to the Western Left' here, as I see that as the issue being raised.

I'm left wondering if you want to actually discuss Muslim Apartheid or if you're just making an attempt to dis the Western Left.

[bloodyminded]

I think someone's been doing a lot of reading of unfortunates like David Horowitz and his ilk. For these fellows, the two Great Evils are these monstrous, monolithic entities called "Muslims" and "The Left"....and the Horowitzes and the Becks, so overcome by hate and partisanship, get mighty confused at times as to which one they're talking about.

[WIP]

In Saudi Arabia, women cannot drive a car. In Iran, women cannot shop alone.

In the Muslim world, a woman is legally half of a man. She must be covered.

In the Muslim world, young girls defer to their brothers; women are less than men.

=====

In the past, the colour of one's skin determined whether one was a slave. Nowadays, modern slavery is deteremined by an appendage between one's legs.

I am absolutely astonished that any Western Leftist would defend Palestine, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia. Do these Leftists understand how women are treated in these countries?

Even Lebanon deserves reproach, if you are a progressive western feminist democrat.

Off the top, your analysis is flawed, so I have to wonder about what sort of education you are advocating here! Even in Saudi ARabia and Iran, the rules of patriarchy are starting to crumble. The stupid thing to do in the West is to give the conservatives evidence that we are attacking their religion and seek to invade and take their oil and whatever natural resources they have. You say "women have to be covered?" Couldn't you at least have done a quick search to reveal that this is complete bullshit? Many Muslim women don't wear any hair coverings, even in Muslim nations. The burqas and niqaabs are not universal, and even the hijabs are a recent development over the last three decades...not a Muslim tradition. They could continue or get scrapped largely depending on how confident and open Muslims feel in those nations.

I'm not familiar with enough of your work to know how progressive you are on the issue of women's right. I know from previous reading that you come across as a social darwinist when it comes to economic issues. And that in itself compromises whatever good things you might have to say about women's rights, since women are more likely than men to end up in poverty because of divorce and the needs of their children.

If you want to know why those of us on the left...including those of us who have abandoned the right in recent years...refuse to get on the bandwagon everytime one of these Arab and Muslim-bashing threads gets started, it's because we know full well that the religious right leaders who occupy the moral center of this movement that highlights abuse of women in the Muslim World, have almost identical contempt for women here in the West!

The motivations behind the over-concern for abortion are not about "life," it's about getting more women back in the baby-making business. That's why they are also against birth control...but they are still soft-selling that fight for now. At church, the Christian Right is starting to put more emphasis on those Bible verses that call for women to be silent and submissive to their husbands...this is what "family values" is all about! Women who have control of when or whether they decide to have children, have fewer children in general, and are more involved in the workplace as well as in politics. For several decades, a number of conservative philosophers have noted that the emancipation of women has hurt the conservative agenda since their whole philosophy is dependent on the continuation of patriarchy.

One conservative theorist who's name I don't recall at the moment, blamed the rise of the Welfare State on women's voting rights. He noted that previously, governments only grew during times of war, and then scaled back afterwards. But after women got the right to vote, there was a greater voting block in favour of expanding social services, and needless to say, this is why conservative ideologues, both religious and secular, want to turn the clock back to the time before women's rights. They don't want government to spend money on things other than military and war-making.

So, to summarize, unless this is a rhetorical question, don't ask why we don't support Christian conservative patriarchs over Muslim conservative patriarchs. There are Muslim women's rights organizations in every Arab and Muslim country, and I'll follow their advice on how we in the WEst can assist them. So far, I'm not seeing any who consider Western Neoconservatives to be of any help to them!

======

For several years, I lived in Damascus and Beirut. I travelled to Riyadh. I have been to Tunis, Cairo and Annaba.

For me, the most disheartening scene was not a Muslim father striking a son on his head in public, it was the older daughter walking submissively behind a younger son.

Even Chinese and Indian families do not treat girls the way Muslim families do.

When I lived in Italy for about a year, many years ago, I saw the exact same things! I saw men beat their wives right out in public, while their cowering children watched, and when I stepped in to stop it one time, my friend pulled me back, apologized to the husband, telling him that I was a foreigner who didn't know better; and insisted to me afterward that I was making the situation worse. And the looks from bystanders indicated that I would have had a mob turn on me if my friend didn't pull me out of there. But now, even in the rural parts of the country, things are changing, and the traditionalists aren't happy about it. It has only been about 25 years that a husband who accused his wife of adultery, is charged for murdering her. Over there, it was called a "crime of passion"...but it was essentially the same thing as an honour killing! So, cut the bullshit about abuse of women and children being an exclusively Muslim thing.

The ground is shifting under the feet of the patriarchs in the Muslim World as well. There are movements in every Muslim nation that want to break with the past, rather than maintain the stifling patriarchy. We are not helping them by bashing all Arabs for whatever abuses we see, and telling them that they have to abandon their religion. That solution only hardens the resolve of those in the middle, and be more resistant to change. It's not for us to decide how Muslims will adapt their religion to modern life, science, and dealing with different religions as well as sects within their own. If you really want to help the forces of change there you listen to what they have to say....hint, telling them we're going to kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity doesn't work!

[dre]

This post is pretty silly and misquided.

Its not the left that deserves credit for these things. If anything its the conservative social right.

Religion is famous for treating women like crap. And its conservative orthodox hardliners that are ALWAYS behind these policies, and more progressive types that are always trying to get rid of them (with quite a bit of success often).

Women are still heavily descrimnated against in the Christian religion as well.

For whatever reason... orthodox social conservatives dont like women much, no matter where they are in the world.

[naomiglover]

What a terrible argument.

Wanting justice and a fair treatment of the Palestinians does not mean that I support the unfair treatment of women in parts of the Muslim world.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Wanting justice and a fair treatment of the Palestinians does not mean that I support the unfair treatment of women in parts of the Muslim world.

Then why not expend just as much energy on their behalf, instead of the focus on Israel. Frankly, what you want or support is just another level of arrogance...just like any other view expressed here.

[dre]

Then why not expend just as much energy on their behalf, instead of the focus on Israel. Frankly, what you want or support is just another level of arrogance...just like any other view expressed here.

Thats a stupid question really.

People become emotionally attached to various causes all the time. Its human nature. Just because Naomi posts a lot about the middle eastern conflict without giving equal time to every other injustice in the history of the human race doesnt mean shes a hypocrit.

You could flip that coin, and attach a feminist for not giving equal time to the middle east conflict... and it would still be equally silly.

[bush_cheney2004]

Thats a stupid question really.

No it's not...your answer is an exercise in avoidance.

People become emotionally attached to various causes all the time. Its human nature. Just because Naomi posts a lot about the middle eastern conflict without giving equal time to every other injustice in the history of the human race doesnt mean shes a hypocrit.

That wasn't the point at all....whatever the member may want or support is his/her own desire, which is quite selfish if you think about it. Kind of runs counter to the idea of self determination entirely. We see a lot of this around here, as if someone's own sense of moral outrage means more than another perspective. I have more respect for Rachel Corrie.

You could flip that coin, and attach a feminist for not giving equal time to the middle east conflict... and it would still be equally silly.

Silly to point out the recurring deaths of millions in SubSaran Africa if only to highlight the pointed assault on Israel?

[dre]

No it's not...your answer is an exercise in avoidance.

That wasn't the point at all....whatever the member may want or support is his/her own desire, which is quite selfish if you think about it. Kind of runs counter to the idea of self determination entirely. We see a lot of this around here, as if someone's own sense of moral outrage means more than another perspective. I have more respect for Rachel Corrie.

Silly to point out the recurring deaths of millions in SubSaran Africa if only to highlight the pointed assault on Israel?

Yup. Silly.

You could apply that standard to denigrate virtually any activist for every cause in history. I remember that argument got used lots during the preamble to the Iraq invasion. The people who wanted to level the place and replace the government kept invoking humanitarianism, and the anti war crowd kept saying "if you cared about humanitarianism youd be focused on a bunch of other places (darfur, sudan, haiti, etc etc etc)".

Its a form of logical fallacy.

[kimmy]

I think August's inspiration for this thread was the thread about female circumcision that's currently going on elsewhere on the board.

That thread referenced a newspaper article where a couple of academics try and soft-sell a more tolerant attitude towards female circumcision by condemning criticism as "cultural imperialism" and invoking cultural relativism (to paraphrase: "we might be upset by this, but they think they're doing the best thing for their daughters!")

I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find examples of tolerant, high-minded folks arguing in favor of beliefs that are at odds with womens' rights in cases where those beliefs are held by some oppressed minority. I'm guessing discussions about Sharia in Canada would be a good place to start looking.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

...I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find examples of tolerant, high-minded folks arguing in favor of beliefs that are at odds with womens' rights in cases where those beliefs are held by some oppressed minority. I'm guessing discussions about Sharia in Canada would be a good place to start looking.

Or the lack of Selective Service (military draft) registration for females in the USA.

Edited June 7, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

Yup. Silly.

Silly for you...not others...just more of the same idea.

You could apply that standard to denigrate virtually any activist for every cause in history. I remember that argument got used lots during the preamble to the Iraq invasion. The people who wanted to level the place and replace the government kept invoking humanitarianism, and the anti war crowd kept saying "if you cared about humanitarianism youd be focused on a bunch of other places (darfur, sudan, haiti, etc etc etc)".

Ditto the bombing of Serbia (Kosovo). Not so silly after all.

Its a form of logical fallacy.

Not in this case....I am challenging the very notion of personal conviction being anything more than an opinion on this forum (including mine). None of which constitutes the "right answer". In the end, I can only think that such judgements are more to soothe their own discomfort and naive expectation that all in the world must be "fair", when nothing could be further from the "truth" (another symptom of the same disease).

Edited June 7, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Argus]

I'm astonished that you're absolutely astonished that any western leftist would defend such countries, while apparently not astonished at all that any western conservative would.

I think you miss the point. Are Western Conservatives supposed to be bastions of progressive equality between the sexes? Is that what they claim? Is inclusiveness their watchword? Do they conduct and have they conducted long and complex legal battles over allegations of governmental discrimination of the most minute kind directed towards women?

So then one would expect them to be considerably less outraged over the treatment of women than the "progressive" Left, wouldn't we?

Besides, conservatives are usually not all that concerned at the social development of foreign nations. They're arguments, when they concern foreign nations, revolve around geopolitical goals and strategy.

No, it is the Left one would presume would be outraged at the way women are treated. And yet.... they're not.

Edited June 7, 2010 by Argus

[Argus]

For me, this double standard is astounding.

I thought those Israeli-Apartheid gays were the more astounding in their double standard. The only country in the whole area where gays could actually have a pride parade without being machinegunned, and they still campaign against them and on behalf of societies which would bury them alive if they ever went there and announced their sexual preferences.

[Argus]

What a terrible argument.

Wanting justice and a fair treatment of the Palestinians does not mean that I support the unfair treatment of women in parts of the Muslim world.

I dunno. I have to wonder about some of these Lefties marching under Palestinian flags - a society where women and gays are treated as terrible unequals - without a word of criticism, appearing with and supporting Palestinian political figures who have appalling records with regard to human rights issues, including gender equality. And not only don't they criticize them they make mouth noises trying to explain it away. In fact, it's damn sure the second you try to criticism their glorious Palestinian comrades, however correct your criticism is, they'll immediately shout you down with what they think Israel has done.

I like to amuse myself imagining one of those noble, high minded HR activists marrying a Palestinian man and moving into his home. And the first thing he does is say "Now get in the kitchen, and don't talk again unless I give you permission."

[naomiglover]

Then why not expend just as much energy on their behalf, instead of the focus on Israel. Frankly, what you want or support is just another level of arrogance...just like any other view expressed here.

There is no debate or questions here, at least on these forums, that women are subject to discrimination in parts of the Muslim world. None of the western countries support discrimination against women in those parts of the world.

However, many of the western countries, including U.S. and Canada support Israel's discrimination of Palestinians and we have many apologists, such as yourself who try to justify the discrimination directed at the Palestinians.

This is the difference.

[bush_cheney2004]

There is no debate or questions here, at least on these forums, that women are subject to discrimination in parts of the Muslim world. None of the western countries support discrimination against women in those parts of the world.

Women are still subject to discrimination even in "western countries"...the UN has not let Canada off the hook yet for discrimination and violence against women.

However, many of the western countries, including U.S. and Canada support Israel's discrimination of Palestinians and we have many apologists, such as yourself who try to justify the discrimination directed at the Palestinians.

I am not an apologists...I am an enthusiastic supporter! Go Israel! Rah! Rah!

This is the difference.

No difference.....yours is a political crusade, not humanitarian....otherwise you would be on about Haiti instead.

[August1991]

The ground is shifting under the feet of the patriarchs in the Muslim World as well. There are movements in every Muslim nation that want to break with the past, rather than maintain the stifling patriarchy. We are not helping them by bashing all Arabs for whatever abuses we see, and telling them that they have to abandon their religion.

I think I'll stop you there, WIP.

There are not movements in every Muslim to break with the past. On the contrary, women's freedom to choose, if anything, is shrinking. And please don't compare practicing Christians in the West with observant Muslims elsewhere. Modern atheists and agnostics do great damage to understanding the world when they lump all religious people together. Just because you see two people with a credit card doesn't mean they use teh card to buy the same things.

When I lived in Italy for about a year, many years ago, I saw the exact same things! I saw men beat their wives right out in public, while their cowering children watched, and when I stepped in to stop it one time, my friend pulled me back, apologized to the husband, telling him that I was a foreigner who didn't know better; and insisted to me afterward that I was making the situation worse.

There is simply no comparison between the way women are treated in the Middle East today, in Muslim communities, and they way women were treated in Italy 25 or even 50 years ago.

In Saudi Arabia today, women ride in the back of pick up trucks with sheep while the father and other young males ride in the cab.

----

WIP, I find strange your argument that we should stop "bashing" Arabs on this point. Would you have argued that we should not "bash" white South Africans for apartheid because this "bashing" would only force them to be more restrictive?

What double standard are you talking about?

...

I have no idea where you are getting "the Western Left" from. You seriously don't think the Western Right supports Saudi Arabia? I posted a reminder of Bush's support. That's where we get a lot of our oil, as I'm sure you realize. Do you think Saudi women mean more to the Western Right than oil does? Because I don't recall seeing a lot of nonsupport for Saudi Arabia coming from the Right. I'm speaking in terms of 'relative to the Western Left' here, as I see that as the issue being raised.

I'm left wondering if you want to actually discuss Muslim Apartheid or if you're just making an attempt to dis the Western Left.

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the Western Left.

It attacks "Israeli Apartheid" on one side while ignoring the blatant "Muslim Apartheid" on the other. IOW, I object to the Western Left's claim to moral purity. It's just another hypocritical political movement.

----

But AW, I have to agree with your point about US (Bush Republican) support for Saudi Arabia. Moreover, Saudi oil doesn't even go to America; most goes to Europe, China and Japan.

IMV, a western politician should have the courage of Churchill and stop kowtowing to these wahabite bedouin.

There is no debate or questions here, at least on these forums, that women are subject to discrimination in parts of the Muslim world. None of the western countries support discrimination against women in those parts of the world.

However, many of the western countries, including U.S. and Canada support Israel's discrimination of Palestinians and we have many apologists, such as yourself who try to justify the discrimination directed at the Palestinians.

I think that it's telling, Naomi, that few Palestinians - citizens of Israel - want to leave Israel and live in a different Middle Eastern country.

Many women in the Middle East however support their husband's decision to emigrate.

IOW, the relatively minor discrimination of Palestinians within Israel (they can study in Arabic and have political parties in the Knesset) is minor compared to the draconian discrimination that women in Muslim countries are subject to.

It is like defending the case of an unjust shoplifting charge while ignoring an innocent sitting on death row. If I were seeking an injustice in the world to fight, it would not be the Palestinian cause. It would be the cause of women in the Middle East.

Edited June 8, 2010 by August1991

[bloodyminded]

There are not movements in every Muslim to break with the past. On the contrary, women's freedom to choose, if anything, is shrinking. And please don't compare practicing Christians in the West with observant Muslims elsewhere. Modern atheists and agnostics do great damage to understanding the world when they lump all religious people together.

Wow! You're shamless about your own contradictions and hypocrisy. You always lump all Muslims together; of course, you receive all your information from reactionary ideologues and knuckledraggers, so it's no surprise.

Just because you see two people with a credit card doesn't mean they use teh card to buy the same things.

Unless they're Muslim, after which August1991 suddenly, conveniently, and ever-so-temporarily becomes a feminist.

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of the Western Left.

It attacks "Israeli Apartheid" on one side while ignoring the blatant "Muslim Apartheid" on the other. IOW, I object to the Western Left's claim to moral purity. It's just another hypocritical political movement.

The only people claiming moral purity are the sanctimonious nationalists, mostly (though not exclusively) from the right side of the spectrum.

In fact--as you well know, but can't admit--no one is more boringly moralistic and sanctimonious that the dainty little political Right. Hell, your own posts here drip with sanctimony.

What's worse is that you pretend to care about oppressed Muslim women. You don't, August. You're just following the thoughtless and unimaginative Left-hatred of Mark Steyn, David Horowitz et al., passing off second-rate polemical dreck as your own. (That's embarassing...it would be bad enough if your obsessive left-hatred were your own ill-conceived and ill-considered notions. But it isn't.)

At any rate, people who have an elementary concern about moral matters must always be more critical of themselves and their allies than they are of official enemies. That's a fundamental truism.

You didn't know that???? How sad. That's the very essence of morality. Six year olds can understand it: but nationalists and Muslim-bashers aren't quite intelligent enough.

Any coward can glare with laserlike fixity at the crimes of enemies, while expressing bafflement at "the left's" moral criticism of its own society.

Edited June 8, 2010 by bloodyminded