There's no universal definition of either feminism or feminist stances, which is why there's no way to discuss it and reach any universal agreement. There's simply no way to win when taking on "feminists", because anything and everything you say WILL be wrong. If you think women should be able to wear burkas you're oppressing them, but if you are for them wearing whatever they like you're objectifying them. It's all depending on what feminist you ask and where you're asking the question, and always the discussion is predetermined by the mindset that all womanhood is being oppressed and that manhood as a whole is oppressing them.

There are still areas where men and women are unequal, but you really have to realize that driving a wedge inbetween the people who hold those beliefs and trapping them in an argument where all answers are wrong won't further any thoughts on equality.
"Equal but different" is how my mother brought me up to look on men and women. There are people who don't see it that way; some who see it as men being superior to women, and relatively recently that women are superior to men, that's where you need to focus your attention if you ask me.

Feminism isn't about reprimanding people for complimenting a woman in a clumsy manner, about verbally attacking someone for making a joke or try to create some moral highground by drawing farfetched conclusions based on scewed movie statistics. Chastising the people who hold the equality beliefs will not further any feminist cause, because there's no corralation between enjoying Dita von Teese's burlesque show and objectifying women and viewing them as inferior to men.
Change comes from engaging the minds and views of persons who haven't been brought up into thinking humans are equal no matter their gender.

There was a political party who formed in Sweden called FI (feministic initiative) which fell apart in a matter of months. It did so because it couldn't agree on a political agenda, what policies to push and what parties to cooperate with, due to everyone having different ideas on what feministic initiative meant. There was no common ground to build a platform on, because on every issue one member wanted to pursue, another held the opposing view on the same argument.
The initiative ended up polarizing people even more and doing more harm than good, simply by attacking persons who held the view that everyone's equal by turning everything they did into an affront to women's suffrage.

The burka and hijab are symbolic of male domination over women. End of.

Im pretty sure the Koran doesnt demand women to wear hijab or burkas. Its more of a tradition imposed so that a wife wont be seen by other men and so that the men wont be turned on. Something like that...

What about burkas for Marge and Lisa? Are they gonna edit that in as well??

How the heck are they gonna do this?

moodonia wrote:

On the whole burqa thing, I agree with Clark. No one forces women to wear Burqas in my neighbourhood and I see dozens every day.

I think you, just like Clark are missing the point. In a culture or country that forces women to wear these things you are of course going to hear many or most of them say it is "their choice" even if it is not. No one is arguing that these women should not have the "freedom" to wear a burka if that is what they choose. But it's foolish to believe that in a country that "requires it by law" that they all "choose" to wear it.

How Clark shills for Clinton is embarrassing. He argues that we need to "talk" with Iran and when it is pointed how Hillary attacked Obama for saying he would talk to Iran, Clark makes the lame straw dog argument for Clinton that "without any preparation I don't think the president of the united states should meet with a foreign leader like Ahmadinejad. That's what she was saying".

He even tries to defend countries that force women to wear burkas by saying that the women want to wear the burkas. Ignoring the fact that in many countries they don't have a "choice".

My only issue with this is the faulty logic of the people often ridiculing Victorian traditions* not recognising the inane traditions of the cultures they find "exotic" (in a very colonial manner).

So it's OK for a Sikh to wear a turban or a Muslim woman to wear a burka but the Amish are the ones that's nuts. It just doesn't make sense.

Coming from the most secularised country in the world (Sweden) where forced marriages are accepted (for those adorable minorities) this complacency bothers me to no end.


* not that I have any sympathy for those

GoogTube -

I just want to make sure I am hearing what you're saying and that you accept the logical consequences of the position it appears you are espousing...

You would find it morally acceptable if another society (as sineral mentions) enslaved another group of people along ethnic/racial/religious/gender lines if this was their "culture'? If beating these slaves or even killing them for culturally recognized transgressions were their norm - you would be ok with that and take the attitude, "who are we to judge?"

You point up some interesting cultural biases in our own society but unfortunately these do not rise to the level of denying self-determination that is seen in Saudi culture. If the enforced wearing of veils, burkas, hajibs, etc were the only inequality in Saudi society (indeed many muslim cultures) between the sexes, I could maybe accept your point as valid.

But denying women education, independence, freedom or any approximation of equality in male-female relationships cannot possibly compare in any sort of rational way to having separate bathrooms, or having to wear clothes (please note that you can wear just about any damn thing you want - male or female).

I will agree that these are cultural conventions and may differ from society to society (with perhaps some relatively minor infringements on personal freedom) but if that's the best you got, I'd say this argument is over.

THE MESSAGE IN THIS VIDEO IS HOW OPPRESSIVE AND FASCISTIC AN ISLAMIC SHARIA GOVERNMENT IS---not only to women but everyone who values Democratic Freedoms. Iran happens to be currently explicitly threatening unleashing unbridled violence via "bomb threats" on the world of Democratic values and any country trying to insitute such values as is the current situation in Iraq---which Iran is trying to de-stabilize in order to take over Iraq. I do not support the Islamic extremists in Saudi Arabia either or any other Muslim asshole fanatics. Thank Be To Goodness that they are not be-heading people in Afghanistan anymore. Those of you who think "Islamic Law" is "Just" should go and live in an Islamic country under "Sharia Law" and see how much freedom of "speech" or otherwise you would have.

I think Coupland and pho3n1x would definitly wind up "in the bus" and then jail in this so-called "most stable and secular Islamic state". TELL ME WHAT'S "SECULAR" ABOUT THIS "ISLAMIC" DRESS CODE ? Kudos to Garsh for his comments.

pho3n1x does not know what being oppressed is. The "this is not your country" comment suggests no one has the right to freely speak about the obviously oppressive policies of another country---and that IS stupid. Women beware of pho3n1x.

I could not stand the angry squawk of that oppressive and stupid Burka clad woman harassing women going about their daily business. Maybe that's the kind of "dress code" you like pho---let's put a burka on you and shut your mouth with Sharia Law.

I have close Iranian friends who know how bad the current situation is in Iran and are glad to be out of Iran.

This vid has propaganda. It is incumbent on any new Muslims to STOP THE VIOLENCE within their own religion which is being perpetrated on the world body. Stop hair trigger reactive violence or threats of violence against others opinions. As a Muslim, you must take responsibility for your own actions and stop blaming others. You must not allow Islam to become the world's biggest bully and perpetrator of violence.
It is not the "media" that has created an appropriate skeptical view of anyone involved in Islam when a very ugly percentage of those involved in Islam are out to violently kill innocent people with their bombs worldwide or forcibly institute an Islamic "Sharia" government which is by it's own structure is fascist and oppressive especially against women. I'm surprised Susan isn't wearing a burka.

"Literalism is a problem that plagues all religions.

Well that, I think is what we get from so easily accepting that its somehow a good thing, or even ok to believe things based solely on Faith.

I do not for a second doubt that there are millions of religious people who wouldnt hurt as much as a fly, and that have the most gentle view of the world imaginable, but unfortunately, they inadvertently act as enablers of faith-based extremism by thinking that belief without evidence is a virtue. its not. its time we stop fooling ourselves and each other and recognize how dangerous religious conviction can be. If you actually read the holy books, there is not much in there that suggest you should take this loose approach to it, you almost have to go out of your way to find this citations in there, while the things I critize are apparant on the very first page, and repeated throughout. every bit of it calls and suggest a literal interpretation.

Fortunately, I think rationality is not just better than religion, its also stronger, because most people do try to apply common sense to life, no matter the religion. They just know you shouldnt beat homosexuals to death with rocks, no matter what the Old Testament says, so Rationality and common sense wins, more often than not. But there are still problems and seemingly unsolvable conflicts between what makes sense and what the scripture says. Use of condoms in africa, stem cell research, pro-choice, gays in the military, faith-based separation of schools,"fashion crime" in baghdad, burkas, sharia, circumcision, the list goes on and on.

Now I'm going to bed, it was fun debating you Take care!

Another great post!

Thee argument over the Burka and the veil (niqab) comes down to different translations of the Qur'an and hadith.

For example, in Qur'an 33:59, the key word is جُيُوبِهِن (juyubihinna). This word is translated inccorectly by supporters of the veil as 'face'. In fact, the word derives from an Arabic root which means neck or collarbone. Similarly, the word 'face' does not appear in the oft-cited hadith about Aisha (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60: 282). Wrongly translated the verse says that the women covered their faces when Qur'an verse 33:59 was revealed. The word which is mistranslated is 'fakhtamarnabiha' - which is derived from the word خمار (khimar). A khimar was a veil used to cover the neck and the top of the head.

How do we know it wasn't used to cover the face? In another important hadith narrated by Aisha (Abu Dawood, Book 2: 0641) we read that Muhammad said "Allah does not accept prayer of a woman who has reached puberty unless she wears a khimar." It is well accepted by all Muslims that women are not allowed to cover their faces when they pray so the khimar can not be a veil used to cover the face.

In reply to your comment:
“"Ban the Burkah, or any such coverings for the women of Islam.....a symbol of species decay, subjugation, and demeaning inhumane treatment."

I agree with banning the Burka - there is nothing in the Qur'an or the hadith which says that women should be covered, and the burka is a barbaric and cruel institution. As for the hijab, women should be able to make their own mind up whether they wear it or not. One of the key principles in Islam is that 'there is no compulsion in religion' لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّين (Qur'an 2:256). Unfortunately this is a principle which many reactionary elements choose to forget! ”



What of the women who choose to wear the Burkah, as seen numerous times in your recent post http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Women-of-Islam-Veiling-Seclusion-Great-Documentary . Wanting to wear the veil/hijab/burqa/niqaab is, according to those women, a personal choice. But it hints at how much trust they have in their society, a grave conclusion to be made there.

Besides being a personal choice, what about the direct mention and demand of such things in numerous religious documents? (setting aside the 'no compulsion in religion' issue we've talked about briefly)

Gwaan, honestly I'm not so sure you can say that "nothing in the Qur'an or the hadith which says that women should be covered" is true... Depending on the translation of these verses, you could justify that the best women of Islam (the role models for other Muslim women, the wives of the Prophet) were commanded to veil up (to what extent? depends on translation)

In the Quran - 33:59 and 24:31
In the Hadith - Volume 6, Book 60, Number 282 (Sahih Al-Bukhari), Volume 1, Book 8, Number 368 (Sahih Al-Bukhari), Volume 1, Book 4, Number 148 (Sahih Al-Bukhari), and a number of others in Abu Dawood books...

It just seems like a battle over semantics to me over how much clothing = modesty...

"Ban the Burkah, or any such coverings for the women of Islam.....a symbol of species decay, subjugation, and demeaning inhumane treatment."

I agree with banning the Burka - there is nothing in the Qur'an or the hadith which says that women should be completely covered, and the burka is a barbaric and cruel institution. As for the hijab, women should be able to make their own mind up whether they wear it or not. One of the key principles in Islam is that 'there is no compulsion in religion' لاَ إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّين (Qur'an 2:256). Unfortunately this is a principle which many reactionary elements choose to forget!

"What is it like for a muslim woman in Afghanistan, as it compares to any country in the western world, that took part in a reformation, and democratic governments, etc? Are they treated equally, with dignity? Are they able to avail themselves of rights and privelidges granted to the men of that country?"

I agree - life for women in Afganistan can be terrible. Since the American invasion they have constitutionally been granted equality - as they should be - but the reality is often a life as oppressed second class citizens. There are some female politicians, and things were improving for women, but the illegal American/British invasion of Iraq, and the continued oppression of the Palestinians and Lebanese has created new support for the hardliners.

I had a conversation with an Afghani refugee in September - a former member of the Taliban - about the situation of women in Afghanistan. I told him that women had been treated barbarically under the Taliban and that there was no excuse for such treatment. His response (and I'm not saying I agree with it - but it's interesting) was this: After years of war Afganistan was a complete mess - the poorest country in the world, ruled by warlords and rival tribal factions. The Taliban brought order to this mess. The number of executions/amputations was exagerated by the Western press and it quickly brought order. As far as women were concerned he said that before the Taliban his sister couldn't go out of the house at all for fear of being raped. After the Taliban came she was safe in a Burka. Now I'm not saying that I support the Taliban - I certainly don't. But I'm saying that the situation is Afganistan is very complex.

"more female Imamas might do the freekin' trick!"

I couldn't agree more and I, and many others in the Islamic community have been pushing for this for years. There is an Islamic female pressure group here in Britain which is attempting to ensure that women have complete equality of access to Britain's mosques. Furthermore, men have traditionally had a monopoly over the interpretation of religious texts in many Islamic countries and this monopoly must be broken.

As far as the link you have posted - this is my initial reaction. The clip is from Memri TV - a site which specialises in painting the Islamic world in the worst possible light - it only shows clips of extremists, and those criticising the Islamic world. I agree with the woman that there are problems in the Islamic world and that there needs to be major reform and rethinking in many countries. I agree with the woman that the medieval legal divisions between Muslims and non-Muslims are outdated and innapropriate. Islam teaches لَكُمْ دِينُكُمْ وَلِيَ دِين - "To you be your Religion/Way, and to me mine." (Qur'an 109:6). The constitution of Medina - written by the Prophet - guaranteed freedom of religion and worship to Muslims, Jews, Christians and polytheists.

But what I don't agree with is the implication that all Muslims - or indeed a majority of Muslims - hold these beliefs. Nor do I believe that the state of Israel was founded peacefully, or that the Israeli government hasn't continually persecuted the Palestinian people for over fifty years. Unfortunately elements in Islam do attack Christians and other non-Muslims - which I utterly condemn. But if you look at the race riots in India you will see that Hindu militants have attacked mosques and lynched Muslims, much like militant Jewish settlers have attacked Muslims in Palestine.

I condemn all religious extremism and intolerance.

I am sorry - but I completely convinced that this is fake. It may have been made by expats living in Afghanistan. The music is computer generated, but the band members appear to be playing instruments. The lyrics don't make sense - men don't wear Burka's - and I don't think its meant to be ironic. Most Afghans couldn't afford, or get hold of the instruments in this video. Furthermore, the accent is wrong.

My problem with this video is it trivialises the daily struggle of real Afghani singers and musicians who are fighting to be heard. If you want to hear real Afghan women singing try Salma, Qamar Gula, Wajiha Rastagar (look on youtube).