Muslim Apartheid: Sexism

[WIP]

Your points are not legitimate. No one here is calling for military action, just saying the Muslim faith has it wrong WRT women. August is not trying to fool anyone. He doesn't do that. He's simply calling a spade a spade, and the left on this forum won't because it's an idea that came from the unclean right. And that rigid ideologue mentality seems to grow in forums like this.

No, it's because those of us on the left (I guess that's where I am now) are aware that there is not just one "Muslim faith" that you warmongers on the right have created; since the right is always in need of an external threat, and they have been frantically searching for one since the fall of communism.

[bloodyminded]

Your points are not legitimate. No one here is calling for military action, just saying the Muslim faith has it wrong WRT women. August is not trying to fool anyone. He doesn't do that. He's simply calling a spade a spade, and the left on this forum won't because it's an idea that came from the unclean right. And that rigid ideologue mentality seems to grow in forums like this.

I'm afraid you're not looking clearly at August's posts. He is more of a rigid ideologue than most of the people here.

Virtually all his posts are about the horrible iniquities of this thing he calls "the left."

In fact, he isn't really talking about Muslim women....as usual, they're his introduction--his actual thesis being about this sinister "Left."

In short, he is doing exactly what you are decrying...moreso than most posters, actually.

[sharkman]

I'm afraid you're not looking clearly at August's posts. He is more of a rigid ideologue than most of the people here.

Virtually all his posts are about the horrible iniquities of this thing he calls "the left."

In fact, he isn't really talking about Muslim women....as usual, they're his introduction--his actual thesis being about this sinister "Left."

In short, he is doing exactly what you are decrying...moreso than most posters, actually.

I've been reading August's posts since 2005. I have a better idea than you about his leanings. Think want you want, that goes for you too, wip.

[bloodyminded]

I've been reading August's posts since 2005. I have a better idea than you about his leanings. Think want you want, that goes for you too, wip.

Sharkman---this thread, the very post you responded to in total agreement, was about how roten "the left" is.

which is fine; it's his opinion, clearly.

but you then go on about entrenched attitudes and so on..well, ol' august is one of our best examples of this.

Even in THIS thread.

[Argus]

Here's a reiteration of the point: since most of us don't feel that many of the critiques of the oppression of women are sincere, or are meant seriously at all except as a way of demonizing official enemies and castigating this monolthic entity called "the Left,"

When I criticize Muslims, which, on rare occasions, has been known to happen, it is normally in the terms of one who despises the cultural practices of Islam (and say whatever you like, many cultural similarities exist throughout the Islamic world). Now what they do in their own countries is up to them. But we're pulling in tens of thousands of Muslims from these cultural backgrounds every year. The Muslim faith is the fastest growing in Canada, doubling in numbers every five years. And I don't want to import the cultural practices which world-wide Islam clings to. Many of those abhorrent practices involve Islam's treatment of women and gays, which I tend to like to point out to Lefties because they're so eager to support third world immigration - yet don't seem to see that this means growing the extremely homophobic and misogynistic practices of Islam HERE. And aren't gender and gay equality two of the Left's most sacred cows?

You know, the treatment of women in many Muslim countries is beyond deplorable. It sickens me. But I don't like to play these two little games, that are the points of so many born-again, temporary feminists-of-convenience who bemoan the fate of Muslim women:

I can assure you that despite your assumption that those not on the Left don't care about the welfare of women, most of us on the Right subscribe to the somewhat conservative machismo belief (old fashioned as it might be) that protecting women is one of our jobs. Importing people who treat local women like whores and their own women like chattel is not, to our minds, a very wise idea.

I'll say it flat out; if you have any interest in the welfare of women or the equal treatment of women and gays in Canada you should not be supporting the kind of immigration system we currently operate. And yet, the Left, including feminist groups, continue to do unrepentantly devoted to the support of third world immigration, somehow, as Kimmy says, filled with the belief that as soon as they step off the airplane they will abandon their biased, bigoted ways and blossom into tolerant secularists.

[bloodyminded]

When I criticize Muslims, which, on rare occasions, has been known to happen, it is normally in the terms of one who despises the cultural practices of Islam (and say whatever you like, many cultural similarities exist throughout the Islamic world). Now what they do in their own countries is up to them. But we're pulling in tens of thousands of Muslims from these cultural backgrounds every year. The Muslim faith is the fastest growing in Canada, doubling in numbers every five years. And I don't want to import the cultural practices which world-wide Islam clings to. Many of those abhorrent practices involve Islam's treatment of women and gays, which I tend to like to point out to Lefties because they're so eager to support third world immigration - yet don't seem to see that this means growing the extremely homophobic and misogynistic practices of Islam HERE. And aren't gender and gay equality two of the Left's most sacred cows?

I can assure you that despite your assumption that those not on the Left don't care about the welfare of women, most of us on the Right subscribe to the somewhat conservative machismo belief (old fashioned as it might be) that protecting women is one of our jobs. Importing people who treat local women like whores and their own women like chattel is not, to our minds, a very wise idea.

I'll say it flat out; if you have any interest in the welfare of women or the equal treatment of women and gays in Canada you should not be supporting the kind of immigration system we currently operate. And yet, the Left, including feminist groups, continue to do unrepentantly devoted to the support of third world immigration, somehow, as Kimmy says, filled with the belief that as soon as they step off the airplane they will abandon their biased, bigoted ways and blossom into tolerant secularists.

While I don't agree with you point for point here, Argus, I don't doubt your sincerity. I was not referring to you.

[Remiel]

Your subject, that the Muslim faith is sexist and treats woman as property is well known, as is the Western left's silence on the matter. Yet what kind of responses do you get? Mostly denials, personal attacks and the typical knee jerk that the right is wrong, blah blah blah.

Even if we were to say that the " Muslim faith " was sexist, what exactly would that prove? Under a similar burden of proof, we could also say the " Christian faith " is sexist. No one owns sexism; it is a singular phenomenon. And, by the way, you are also flat wrong. A more apt comparison for the way women are treated is not property, but as permanent children.

August has done a very poor job of learning the lessons of Israeli Apartheid Week. A number of good arguments have been made for why the situation between Israel and Palestine is not one of apartheid. Reasons ranger from claims that it is not as bad, to it just not being analagous, to apartheid referring to a specific South African phenomenon, and so on. The current subject could easily be substituted into such arguments.

Especially when you consider his generalization under such a light, it should be clear it is false. An argument could be made that particular countries treat women in ways that is comparable in severity of apartheid, but not an entire religious community.

Then, of course, you get the threads that are nothing but a thinly veiled attack on a group, be it Musims, Jews, Christians, gays or fill in the blank. And the posters who do nothing but argue as if it the best arguer should win out instead of the truth.

When two people disagree, how exactly do you establish the truth except through debate and argument? This sounds far to much like you just saying that what you believe to be true must be true.

I have started to realize that these forums can actually curtail discussion and learning and even pressure one to 'take a side'.

You have been on these boards many years and you just figured this out now?

Instead of agreement of at least the fact that the Muslim faith is sexist, which is so obvious a blind man could see it, not one person from the left will admit it. They circle the wagons and pull out the Winchesters. How sad.

The problem is that what you mean by the " Muslim faith is sexist " and what is obvious are actually two different things. What is obvious is that the majority of religions are sexist and that the majority of people are sexist. What is not obvious is that being a member of a particular religion requires a person to be de facto sexist, which is what the argument of this thread, or at least you, really wants to say.

I have also begun to suspect that it is of no benefit to discuss things with those who have no absolutes guiding their morals. It's like you are talking to someone from Mars, there is simply no common ground from which to start.

You are confusing " no absolutes " with the same absolutes as you. I am sure that the way you mean it would imply that consequentialists have no absolutes guiding their morals, which would be false.

Edited June 16, 2010 by Remiel

[sharkman]

Even if we were to say that the " Muslim faith " was sexist, what exactly would that prove? Under a similar burden of proof, we could also say the " Christian faith " is sexist. No one owns sexism; it is a singular phenomenon. And, by the way, you are also flat wrong. A more apt comparison for the way women are treated is not property, but as permanent children.

Your comments are filled with so many inaccuracies that it's not worth bothering. However, I knew what was coming after I read the above. Good grief man, this is what I mean when I say with some people it's like they are from Mars. I suppose you defend honor killings too. WAIT! don't respond, I want to remember you as you are.

[Remiel]

Your comments are filled with so many inaccuracies that it's not worth bothering. However, I knew what was coming after I read the above. Good grief man, this is what I mean when I say with some people it's like they are from Mars. I suppose you defend honor killings too. WAIT! don't respond, I want to remember you as you are.

I have a question for you: What do you call a person who decries personal attacks and arguing to win on the one hand and implies that their opponent supports honour killings on the other?

And, by the way, if you are not able to actually point to what I said and say what you think is wrong with it, it just makes it look you are trying to avoid digging yourself a deeper hole. You know, copping out?

[sharkman]

You respond anyway, oh well. Believe whatever your little heart desires, friend. I don't debate with people that can't recognize simple open truths. There's no point in telling someone that the sky is blue.

[WIP]

When I criticize Muslims, which, on rare occasions, has been known to happen, it is normally in the terms of one who despises the cultural practices of Islam (and say whatever you like, many cultural similarities exist throughout the Islamic world). Now what they do in their own countries is up to them. But we're pulling in tens of thousands of Muslims from these cultural backgrounds every year.

My neighbourhood has a fairly sizeable Muslim population, if the hijabs are any indication, but I have not seen any Muslim woman in the past eight or nine years that I have been living here wearing a full niqaab or burqa....therefore I am inclined to view 99% of the frenzy over Muslim garb as something akin to the Yellow Peril or the unhinged Red Menace hysteria fomented by the far right back in the day. In most respects, the Muslim Threat to Western Civilization is something concocted to fill the void left when other foreign threats disappeared or vanished.

The Muslim faith is the fastest growing in Canada, doubling in numbers every five years. And I don't want to import the cultural practices which world-wide Islam clings to. Many of those abhorrent practices involve Islam's treatment of women and gays, which I tend to like to point out to Lefties because they're so eager to support third world immigration - yet don't seem to see that this means growing the extremely homophobic and misogynistic practices of Islam HERE. And aren't gender and gay equality two of the Left's most sacred cows?

How well Canadian Muslims fit in here is going to depend a lot on whether they are influenced more by the Muslim Council of Canada, or the Canadian Islamic Congress. And I am of the opinion that efforts to vilify them encourage the Muslim leaders that want to keep their communities isolated. Moderation takes more courage than conservatism.

I can assure you that despite your assumption that those not on the Left don't care about the welfare of women, most of us on the Right subscribe to the somewhat conservative machismo belief (old fashioned as it might be) that protecting women is one of our jobs. Importing people who treat local women like whores and their own women like chattel is not, to our minds, a very wise idea.

The biggest threat that the right represents to the welfare of women is the modern anti-abortion movement that demonstrates little regard for life, but desires to take away the choice from young women of how to handle birth control and family planning. "Protecting women" is just going to come off as so much patronizing to most women. The only men women expect protection from are the men in their lives; I would be surprised if many women take conservative men's desires to protect them seriously. Unless it's a strange noise downstairs in the middle of the night, most women feel that they can protect themselves.

I'll say it flat out; if you have any interest in the welfare of women or the equal treatment of women and gays in Canada you should not be supporting the kind of immigration system we currently operate. And yet, the Left, including feminist groups, continue to do unrepentantly devoted to the support of third world immigration, somehow, as Kimmy says, filled with the belief that as soon as they step off the airplane they will abandon their biased, bigoted ways and blossom into tolerant secularists.

You could have said the same thing about Italians back when I was young, or the Irish and the French a few generations back. Most children of immigrants adopt most of the common culture and try to fit their traditions in the gaps. No doubt many Muslims who have emigrated here are concerned about having their religion diluted by Western values, but this is not London or Paris, most Muslims here are not as insular as conservative opinion tries to convey.

[Remiel]

You respond anyway, oh well. Believe whatever your little heart desires, friend. I don't debate with people that can't recognize simple open truths. There's no point in telling someone that the sky is blue.

I can play the analogy game too: You cannot show a dog to a man who has gone blind, but if you describe carefully the creature that pants and wags its tail, he will know what you mean.

[sharkman]

I can play the analogy game too: You cannot show a dog to a man who has gone blind, but if you describe carefully the creature that pants and wags its tail, he will know what you mean.

That was wonderful! You really are a clever person, you should right books! Thank you for taking the time to explore these things with me.

[Remiel]

That was wonderful! You really are a clever person, you should right books! Thank you for taking the time to explore these things with me.

I would thank you too, except you were not courteous (or brave) enough to actually explain what you objected to.

[sharkman]

That was wonderful! You really are a clever person, you should right books! Thank you for taking the time to explore these things with me.

Uh, Remiel? When I said those things, I uh...never mind. Thanks again, buddy.

[Remiel]

Uh, Remiel? When I said those things, I uh...never mind. Thanks again, buddy.

Quit the bullshit, sharkman. You talk big about why you are getting tired of these boards because people just argue, but now you insist on this one-upmanship crap that is EXACTLY THE SAME, when all I want is you to just post what you God-damned thought! Grow up or get lost.

[sharkman]

Quit the bullshit, sharkman. You talk big about why you are getting tired of these boards because people just argue, but now you insist on this one-upmanship crap that is EXACTLY THE SAME, when all I want is you to just post what you God-damned thought! Grow up or get lost.

I see. So the Remiel account has 2 posters, eh? One that may have english as a second language. That's alright buddy, you're doing fine, but maybe get your friend to take a chill pill.

[sharkman]

I would thank you too, except you were not courteous (or brave) enough to actually explain what you objected to.

I think I like this Remiel better.

[Remiel]

I see. So the Remiel account has 2 posters, eh? One that may have english as a second language. That's alright buddy, you're doing fine, but maybe get your friend to take a chill pill.

I am sure to someone as incompetent as yourself it may seem like I have multiple posters; that shrivelled raisin you call your brain does not have the capacity to keep up a conversation with anyone with a shred of intelligence, so when confronted you attribute to them more than one identity, rather like how Kasparov thought the computer cheated. Though of course, his mistake was arrogance, not stupidity.

[sharkman]

Yes, unfortunately my raisin brain can't figure out how you can be so naive and then street smart at the same time. But stranger things have happened I suppose...

But to repeat myself, I have become selective about who I choose to debate with. Those people who, for instance, think that Muslims are not mistreating women or that Christianity does the exact same thing are not worth my time. It is like they are from Mars and they have no absolutes in their philosophy or that they say whatever pops into their head to keep the 'game' going. I want to find the truth, not the propaganda, you see.

And since you equate the Muslim treatment of women to Christian treatment, you are from Mars, something that is so obviously incorrect, you must be from Mars. Nanoo nanoo, to quote Robin Williams.

Edited June 17, 2010 by sharkman

[BubberMiley]

But to repeat myself, I have become selective about who I choose to debate with.

That's true. When you consistently lose debates to certain posters, you always take your ball and go home.

[sharkman]

Really, why don't you come up with some examples? Or are you just doing more of those empty one liners again?

[bloodyminded]

The biggest threat that the right represents to the welfare of women is the modern anti-abortion movement that demonstrates little regard for life, but desires to take away the choice from young women of how to handle birth control and family planning. "Protecting women" is just going to come off as so much patronizing to most women. The only men women expect protection from are the men in their lives; I would be surprised if many women take conservative men's desires to protect them seriously. Unless it's a strange noise downstairs in the middle of the night, most women feel that they can protect themselves.

Well said. The condescending, "protect-the-women" notion is actually about protecting the male self-image as powerful, necessary Defender. It's about maintaining a social order that was sexist to begin with, under a pretence (or maybe delusion) of morality. It's more selfish than chivalrous.

I must accompany my girlfriend if she needs to walk the street at night, and I'm happy to do so; but that men must "protect" their women on some cultural level...well, that's just self-indulgent paternalism.

Edited June 17, 2010 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

I see. So the Remiel account has 2 posters, eh? One that may have english as a second language. That's alright buddy, you're doing fine, but maybe get your friend to take a chill pill.

Well, it takes real talent to unneccessarily provoke the even-tempered Remiel into anger. It can only be done by being intentionally obtuse, and trying specifically to be dishonest in one's debating methods.

[WIP]

But to repeat myself, I have become selective about who I choose to debate with. Those people who, for instance, think that Muslims are not mistreating women or that Christianity does the exact same thing are not worth my time.

If Christianity is so important to you, why is it that you have no appreciation for core Christian values?