'Gender Jihad' in the Service of Women's Right
-
It is true. You misunderstood. What i meant was that women who are feminists mostly focus on women's rights. They don't focus much on giving men rights. Men are also abused in society. How often do you see feminists protesting against violence of women (mentally and physically) against men?
...It is you who misunderstood, once again. Feminism excludes men. It is about women supporting women. Therefore feminism is an excluding philosophy/mentality, not an including philosophy/mentality.
David, you can't tell another person that you know better than themselves what they think.
I am a feminist, and I most definitely think or act the way you describe. How many have you actually met, talked to, had a discussion with?
You seem to attach a label to people and painting them all with the same brush. But that doesn't make sense.
Also, there are many women who are clearly feminists yet refuse to call themselves that, because the word seems to evoke very negative connotations and prejudices. For example the things you mentioned here. And some people still seem to think feminists are man-hating tomboys, usually dressed in men's suits or army pants, sporting short hair and lacking any feminine features or behaviour. ;D
In one Islamic pamphlet whose author, like so many of his kind, hated feminists, I even read that some of them go to such extremes in their desire to be men that they start growing a beard.
rotflAgain, think of the example of a Muslim talking to a non-Muslim. How would you feel / react if someone who has obviously not been involved in the Muslim scene tells you how Islam is and how all Muslims think? Wouldn't you educate this person and let them know there is a huge difference between you, for example, and an ultra-orthodox Salafi, and that you don't share many views with the latter?
Hope you get my point.
peace -
peace all,
Leyna,
Thanks for clarifying. Yes, you meant in general. If one does not add this word then one makes an absolute statement, which would be incorrect, as shown/admitted.Fahad,
The original person who made this observation simply selected one of the possibilities and extrapolated from it. As I said, the evidence and reasoning is baseless. Using this approach, one could choose any theoretical option and extrapolate from it, as I did in my example, but there are many more e.g. this shows adam, as in the man, does not always make correct decisions thus if anything this story shows the woman should not follow the man in everything or "take his lead" as you might put it.
Let's say, at most, this evidence/reasoning is weak but usable, it is completely refuted by AQ itself, see Quran434.com with ample evidence. -
Fahad,
The original person who made this observation simply selected one of the possibilities and extrapolated from it. As I said, the evidence and reasoning is baseless. Using this approach, one could choose any theoretical option and extrapolate from it, as I did in my example, but there are many more e.g. this shows adam, as in the man, does not always make correct decisions thus if anything this story shows the woman should not follow the man in everything or "take his lead" as you might put it.
Let's say, at most, this evidence/reasoning is weak but usable, it is completely refuted by AQ itself, see Quran434.com with ample evidence.Of course man does not always make the correct decision, and of course women shouldn't follow man over God. I'm sorry, I don't see how that refutes anything that I've said.
-
David, you can't tell another person that you know better than themselves what they think.
Show me where in my post I have said that I know better than another person what they think?
I understand your points, and I know the difference between radical/extremist feminism and positive feminism. But the things you said in your last posts do not refute the arguments I wrote in my last post. You just brought up other things which had nothing to do with my arguments.
Feminism excludes men. It is about women supporting women. Therefore feminism is an excluding philosophy/mentality, not an including philosophy/mentality. When I said club i was speaking metaphorically (it was not literally). If feminists want to get more men on their sides, they should call themselves women rights activists/supporters or human rights activists/supporters. Labels and concepts can divide people, and especially labels and concepts which are mostly women-oriented.
If you don't follow the excluding approach of feminism, and one-dimensional approach of feminism, then you are an exception. Let me explain what I mean through a comparison. A man visits a cafe with his friends. When he is there, all his friends drink coffe/soda/juice and eat lunch, while he doesn't drink or eat anything. A cafe is a place where people drink or eat something, so if the man does not drink or eat while he is there, then he is an exception. If a person does not drink or eat anything while he is there, he is an exception, not the rule. A cafe is a place where you drink or eat. Most people who visit a cafe, do it to eat or drink something. So if someone just sits on a chair by a table, without drinking or eating anything, then he is an exception, not the rule. So if you do not follow the excluding mentality/philosophy of feminism, then you are an exception. And you are not a part of the mentality/philosophy of feminism. The fact that the mentality/philosophy of feminism is exclusive can not be denied.
-
...see Quran434.com with ample evidence.
Can you please point out the part with the evidence? I can't go through the entire article right now. Thanks.
-
Show me where in my post I have said that I know better than another person what they think?
In those, for example
You misunderstood. What i meant was that women who are feminists mostly focus on women's rights.
Therefore I believe the best thing to do is to be a women rights activist/supporter or human rights activists/supporter, not a feminist.
However, women who support the rights of women should not forget men (which most feminists do).
It is you who misunderstood, once again. Feminism excludes men.
If feminists want to get more men on their sides, they should call themselves women rights activists/supporters or human rights activists/supporters.
You are basically saying that my opinions or convictions which I stated here have nothing to do with feminism. Then you define what "feminism" means to you and claim that the majority of feminists fit that description. Basically, you are telling me that my definition is wrong and that you know better.
ignore
You also did not take into consideration the fact that those labels are not that clearly defined. So while you make a clear difference between a "feminist" and a "women rights activist" / "human rights activists", my point is that in many cases there might not even be a difference between those.If you don't follow the excluding approach of feminism, and one-dimensional approach of feminism, then you are an exception.
My experience tells me otherwise. The overwhelming majority of "feminists" to whom I've talked to, befriended, read or heard do not cling to a one-dimensional approach and believe in excluding men.
And you are not a part of the mentality/philosophy of feminism. The fact that the mentality/philosophy of feminism is exclusive can not be denied.
Yes, it can be denied. You just have to realize that my definition is just as valid as yours. http//www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/aktion/action-smiley-064.gif
Feminism is a broad and historical movement, with many different branches of thought, which has evolved and changed over time and will keep evolving and changing. Naturally, there are major differences of thinking within this movement. So it does not make sense to define "feminism" in static and limiting terms, which is what you've been doing.
Personally, I think we are not that far apart in our thinking, but differ in perspective and disagree about the labels. peace
That was one of the reasons I asked you how many feminists you personally know, have spoken to. That question was serious. I was wondering what your opinions are based on ? the kind of people you encountered, things you've read or heard or experienced and so on.
-
Of course man does not always make the correct decision, and of course women shouldn't follow man over God. I'm sorry, I don't see how that refutes anything that I've said.
So if man does not always make correct decisions, why are you or anyone implying women should "take his lead"? The position, implied or otherwise, is nonsensical. But let's say we disagree, I'm curious, is this the best evidence you have of such a view? If so, I am more than happy to allow readers to weigh up the debate and make up their own minds, rather than continue discussing it.
The part of Quran434.com is part 2 discussing "qawwamoon". There is other direct/indirect evidence throughout but that is most relevant to what we were discussing.
-
I completely agree with Amina Wadud on this one. Men are not genetically or otherwise predisposed for being "caretakers".
You just repeated the same response! I explained to you why Amina Wadud and her like are wrong. You didn?t address it!
Here http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9601114.msg258087#msg258087
Fahad, you didn't answer my question
Sorry, but I don't believe that any gender should be "obedient" to the other. Why?
In 4/34, is a person from any specific gender supposed to be ?obedient? to his/her ?caretaker? from another specific gender, for whatever reason? Tell me.
-
Two extremes (Or tooo extreme? hmm )
Feminists women are superior; you really can't deny such groups exist, in heaps. Yes, I do have personal experience with such women. Frightening to say the least; female powah and all that. And I deem it no different than my dealings with male chauvinists, as in many cases it rationalizes/encourages misogyny.
Proponents of misogyny woman should obey the man. The man is superior. Blah blah blah. Just a load of nonsense.
I seek a balance, personally.
Again, think of the example of a Muslim talking to a non-Muslim. How would you feel / react if someone who has obviously not been involved in the Muslim scene tells you how Islam is and how all Muslims think? Wouldn't you educate this person and let them know there is a huge difference between you, for example, and an ultra-orthodox Salafi, and that you don't share many views with the latter?
I don't know if that analogy works. 'Muslims' are the majority.
-
So if man does not always make correct decisions, why are you or anyone implying women should "take his lead"?
I said ?and of course women shouldn't follow man over God?. She should not follow him when he is contradicting God.
The position, implied or otherwise, is nonsensical. But let's say we disagree, I'm curious, is this the best evidence you have of such a view?
It will do, for now.
If so, I am more than happy to allow readers to weigh up the debate and make up their own minds, rather than continue discussing it.
I'm happy too. Thanks! )
-
Proponents of misogyny woman should obey the man. The man is superior. Blah blah blah. Just a load of nonsense.
For you may be, In speeches and in world that doesnot exist this may be load of nonsense, but when you come to the world of reality it is all the way different
According to what the Buddha taught about the Law of Karma, one is responsible for one's own action and its consequence, as Quran teaches us mentioned in the Verse discussed in other thread.
But Despite the fact that the Buddha elevated the status of women, he was practical in his observations and advice given from time to time in that he realized the social and physiological differences that existed between men and women. These were depicted in the Anguttara Nikaya and Samyutta Nikaya. It was clearly mentioned that a man's duty is his unending quest for knowledge, the improvement and stabilization of his skill and craftsmanship, and dedication to his work and ability to find the wherewithal for the maintenance and sustenance of his family. On the other hand it was stated, as a matter of fact, that it was the woman's duty to look after the home, and to look after her husband.
she is to look after home, therefore Man is responsible for her caretaking as mentioned in Quran and as he has to maintain and sustain his family he is the HEAD of family, like in 90% of families of the world.Therefore either you are just using the name of Budha and not aware of his teachings, or you are knowingly decieving Mulsims.
Allah Ho Akbar
-
and thankyou Khalid for pointing this out
according to Budha..
They were requested to honor and respect their husband's relatives and friends, thus creating a congenial and happy atmosphere in their new homes. They were also advised to study and understand their husband's nature, ascertain their activities, character and temperament, ........and should safe-guard their husband's earnings and see to it that all household expenditures were properly regularized.some one wrote (Breinden O Niel)
The most striking thing is how different real Tibetan Buddhism is from the re-branded, part-time version imported over here by the Dalai Lama?s army of celebrities.Question? Can a women in followers of Budha become
?the perfectly rightfully Enlightened One,? ?the Universal Monarch,? ?the King of Gods,? ?the King of Death,? or ?Brahmaa??the five highest, holiest positions in Buddhism -
She should not follow him when he is contradicting God.
So fact is ? you keep saying that a woman has to be obedient to her husband. hypno
That's exactly what traditional scholars say. She has to obey him as long as he doesn't ask her to do anything that contradicts God's law.
But why in the world should women be "obedient" to their husbands etc. in the first place? What does entitle husbands to that "obedience", and what should be its purpose?
Men are not by default more intelligent, more experienced, educated, wiser and so on and so forth. They are not better at making decisions, they are not superior to women in any way. There is nothing that inherently comes with being a man that makes this person by default better at making decisions. There is nothing in the Qur'an which supports that women have to be obedient to their husbands by default.
So why in the world should a mature grownup woman be "obedient" to another person, just because this person happens to be her husband? That does not make the slightest bit of sense, and it does not sound like a healthy, loving relationship between two mature adults.
Actually, I can't believe I'm even discussing this. wow I have never met anyone in real life who believes in this bizarre stuff. And if I was going to get involved with a guy who told me such crap, I wouldn't waste my time discussing this. I would laugh at him and show him the door ... no use trying to change the mindset of such a person.
) -
Peace Leyna
So fact is ? you keep saying that a woman has to be obedient to her husband. hypno
That's exactly what traditional scholars say. She has to obey him as long as he doesn't ask her to do anything that contradicts God's law.
But why in the world should women be "obedient" to their husbands etc. in the first place? What does entitle husbands to that "obedience", and what should be its purpose?
Men are not by default more intelligent, more experienced, educated, wiser and so on and so forth. They are not better at making decisions, they are not superior to women in any way. There is nothing that inherently comes with being a man that makes this person by default better at making decisions. There is nothing in the Qur'an which supports that women have to be obedient to their husbands by default.
So why in the world should a mature grownup woman be "obedient" to another person, just because this person happens to be her husband? That does not make the slightest bit of sense, and it does not sound like a healthy, loving relationship between two mature adults.
I agree with everything you said, except the words I have underlined. As you know, men and women are different. Most men are physically stronger than women. So we can say that men are superior when it comes to physical strenght. And most women are physically more beautiful than men. So we can say that women are superior when it comes to physical beauty.
And you are right, a wife should not obey her husband. No verse in the Quran tells us that a wife should obey her husband. And a husband should not obey her wife. No verse in the Quran tells us that a husband should obey her wife. However, a husband can have rules that he wants her wife to accept. And she can either accept or reject those rules. And a wife can have rules that she wants her husband to accept. And he can either accept or reject those rules. As you can see, there is difference between accepting something (willingly) in a relationship, and obeying something (unwillingly) in a relationship. To see a more detailed explanation of this philosophy, read this post
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9601102.msg258179#msg258179
Obedience will not make a relationship between a man and a woman healthy, loving. If you trust someone, you should let them be free. When you don't trust someone, it is like putting a bird into a cage. The reason why a man puts a bird into a cage is because he thinks it will escape. The man does not trust it. If the man trusted the bird, it would let the bird be free. And the bird would come back to him. A man should let his wife do what she wants to do, and know that she can make her own decisions. When a man loves a woman, he will trust her. He will not say to her You can not talk to other men while I am not around. Because he knows that his partner will not cheat on him. He trusts her when she is far away from him. He trust her enough to let her be free. Because he knows that she will always come back, pure, untouched. When she loves him, she will come back. And she will not do anything to jeopardize their love. Because if there is true love between a woman and a man, they will not let anyone pollute that love. Without trust, love can not exist. If a man does not trust her woman when she is far away, he does not trust a woman when she is with him neither. Trust is not something you believe in only when you are near the one you love. Trust is something which must be there all the time. Trust is something which is flowing all the time, just like a peaceful and quiet river. When you love someone all the time you trust someone all the time. Part time trust is not true love. True love is there all the time, therefore trust must be there all the time. If a man does not trust her wife when she is not around, then he does not trust her when she is around neither. And if a man does not trust the one he or she loves, and tell her to obey him, it would be like putting a bird into a cage. And when a bird is in a cage, it can never have freedom. Only when a wife is free, she can have freedom. And when both the husband and the wife are free, both of their wings will be free, and then they can fly anywhere they want, in the sky of love. And they can fly longer than ever before, in the sky of love. And they can reach unbelieveable heights together, in the sky of love. And then they will be happier than ever, in the sky of love.
-
Leyna
So fact is ? you keep saying that a woman has to be obedient to her husband.
No, not me, It is Buddha, It is Quran, it is Hinduism as they call it, It is Jews, it is Christians.. and I am one of the follower..
Why do you consider being obedient as a Slave?
When we obey our parents do we become their slaves?
It is clearly a Feminist issue and nothing else. -
Leyna
Men are not by default more intelligent, more experienced, educated, wiser and so on and so forth. They are not better at making decisions, they are not superior to women in any way.
You are taking it on wrong side, you are correct but these are duties assigned by Allah.
In the organization in which I work, may be my President is not as intelligent or educated as his subordinate, but he is assigned as the head and he has to be obeyed.
System cannot run without this, and one in the family has to lead that is obvious, now it is Man, as i pointed out.Leyna
I would laugh at him and show him the door ... no use trying to change the mindset of such a person
just re read what you have written than assess yourself. What about your mindset?
imagine the drama if leyna was married to raaajah!!
I can marry up to four at a time and the count is missing by one laugh
-
I can marry up to four at a time and the count is missing by one laugh
classic example of ignoring part of a verse, you make no mention of orphans and doing them justice which is the only reason for the verse, also claiming to know better than Allah that you can deal with them all justly and fairly which Allah says He knows you cant.
-
Ayisha
classic example of ignoring part of a verse, you make no mention of orphans and doing them justice which is the only reason for the verse, also claiming to know better than Allah that you can deal with them all justly and fairly which Allah says He knows you cant.
You want to take away even this freedom from MEN, but for yourself you want all the freedom,,, Sad -X
Well Ayisha, when your signature is longer than your post it does not look nice at all.
and yes, what I said was just reply to Princess's post, don't take it serious and be fast to label me for misusing the verse.
What do you think is it better to marry or have an illicit relationship? just a question?
