Some Women Actually Like Islam...

In order to avoid a thread-jack...

Roxanne Appleby said:

Angela, I mostly agree with you. Some here won't be surprised by my big obection: You cite Saudi Arabia. Women there and in most other Islamic nations to a greater or lesser extent do not have the choice or the means to go where they are not made second class citizens and the victims of great injustice. When I say this here people always accuse me of wanting to invade or something stupid, and when I say that individuals should have the courage to assert that what is done to women in those societies is immoral and they should stop doing it, people tell me that just making the assertion is meaningless. I don't want to hijack this thread, but that seems to me an example of where a thing is not moral because it does rob an entire class of human rights and dignity, and yet the moral relativists are unable or unwilling to condemn it.

Click to expand...

Well, as I said above, *if* the individuals had the ability and freedom to leave, I would be OK with it.

And if pigs could fly...

On the other hand, there are a lot of women who - even given that freedom - would reject it. I have spoken to a number of American muslum women who not only believe in second-class status of women but like it that way.

In a sense, it is a kind of D/s thing. Some of them like having their husbands in charge of their lives in the same way that a lot of traditional American women do. Some women do not want to have to make their own decisions and don't want the responsibilities that go along with it.

As I understand it, "Islam" literally means "I submit". Some people like being submissive.

More in another post...

On the subject of the veil, boiling down another one of those conversations:

Angela: You don't have to wear the veil here in America. Why do you?

Veiled woman: In New York, you have to right to be topless on a public street. In fact, you can go topless on a lot of beaches around the country and around the world. Do you?

Angela (crossing her arms over her chest self-consiously): No, I would feel naked.

Veiled woman: And I would feel naked without my veil. Men would be staring at my face, fantasizing about what it would be like to kiss me and have sex with me. Why should I give that to them any more than you would give them your breasts to look at.

Of course, we can say that she has been conditioned all her life to live the way she does and that that conditioning is abusive.

Well, the French might feel the same way about my lack of willingness to take my blouse off in public - and in a way they would be correct. I would much rather have had a more liberal mother who would have raised me without all of the baggage of her sexual inhibitions but I didn't.

Erich Fromm made a point about the D/s nature of political and religious relationships in his book Escape From Freedom.

A lot of people like being not free. According to Fromm they gain their identity by submitting to a 'Great Idea'. They lose their own identity but gain the identity of the idea.

You can see that at work even here on the AH.

Fromm even touched on this hypothesis in regards to the D/s relationship itself. I worked it into one of my better BDSM pieces, Hypothesis.

I never miss a chance for a plug.

good points, angela. as you say, it's simply untrue that what an outsider calls 'second class status' is always forced on people. women in orthodox Judaism, Mormonism, Islam, and Xtianity have accepted such status, *even with* avenues of escape, education etc.

this is not to say that oppressed groups shouldn't try to improve their lives on their terms--e.g., Jordanian women's groups push for an end to 'honor killing.'

Also, wasn't there a thread on here recently about a Western woman who converted to Islam?

As I recall, it sounded as much as she was fleeing Western ideas, especially those towards women, as embracing Islam.

Wait 'til she finds out misogyny exists everywhere.

i formerly posted a statement by a western woman convert. such statements are not hard to find with google. here is another:

http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=saudiarabia&ID=SP43102

'The Testimony of Jemima Goldsmith Khan'[4]

{converted to Islam and married to Imram Khan}

"The media present me as a naïve, besotted 21 year-old who had made a hasty decision without really considering the consequences - thus effectively, condemning herself to a life of interminable subservience, misery and isolation. Although I must confess I have rather enjoyed the various depictions of a veiled and miserable 'Haiqa Khan' incarcerated in chains, the reality is somewhat different.

Contrary to current opinion, my decision to convert to Islam was entirely my own choice and in no way hurried. Whilst the act of conversion itself is surprisingly quick - entailing the simple assertion that 'There is only one God and Muhammad is his Prophet' - the preparation is not necessarily so speedy. In my case, this began last July, whilst the actual conversion took place in early February- three months before the Nikah [marriage] in Paris..."

Islam in America is an interesting phenomenon. Islam in general has not fully accepted the separation of church and state, as indicated by the amount of church law baked into the legal systems of Islamic countries, and agitation by fundamentalists for more. Obviously that will not fly in the U.S. and the condition that you specified in your original post in the other thread - you support "moral pluralism" so long as individuals in the particular minority have the ability and the means to get out of Dodge - does apply in the U.S.

Only time will tell what this will do to that religion. One thing is clear - the ability to make women virtual prisoners or second class citizens does not exist here, and so - surprise! - the status of women in Islamic communities in the U.S. is far better than in probably any Islamic country. I mean, if papa insists Fatima wear a burka, Fatima can say, "Fuck off, papa - I am her-sto-ry in this family! I got a job at The Gap, an apartment, and a nice Jewish boyfriend who gives great head - Sayanora!" Knowing this is possible, papa is less likely to be an intolerant ass in the first place.

Given all this, it's not at all surprising that many Islamic women in the U.S. feel no desire to leave their communities.

However, all this has little if any relevance to what is going on in Islamic nations. I have a funny feeling that it will be the target of firey fulminations in those places.

Roxanne Appleby said:

I mean, if papa insists Fatima wear a burka, Fatima can say, "Fuck off, papa - I am her-sto-ry in this family! I got a job at The Gap, an apartment, and a nice Jewish boyfriend who gives great head - Sayanora!"

Click to expand...

First of all, it's probably momma who's insisting ("stop dressing like a whore").

But more to the point, she *can* leave but she usually doesn't. For the same reason that catholic girls have a hard time breaking away from their oppressive families. It's a cold cruel world out there and it takes a lot of strength to leave the relative safety of the domineering parents.

here is the link to yvonne ridley's 'how i came to love the veil.'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/20/AR2006102001259.html

it might to be pointed out that western woman have NOT simply embraced islam *while continuing to live in their liberal, native setttings.* some have moved to islamic countries. the phenomenon is no different from an american jewish person of liberal background taking up 'orthodox judaism' and moving to Israel.

it is likewise not true that islamic communities in the west are always more liberal than in the middle east.

As I said, she seems more to be fleeing the West than embracing Islam.

I used to live across the hall from a Muslim family, and you know what- they were wonderful. They were the first Muslims I had ever known, outside of an Iranian uncle who is the epitome of the word bastard. This family was so different from what I had expected. The husband was the nicest, most intelligent man I've ever had the privilege to talk to outside of my grandfather(s) and his wife and daughters were all outgoing, vivacious and always so sweet, especially to a lonely young mother who had no way of leaving her house. There was a steady stream of family members and friends in and out of their home.

I was much more constrained than they were. While they could go together as a group, comfortable in their haircovers and their shared language on public transport, I couldn't even get on the city bus and go down to the doctor's office with my son, because in that part of town, a single white woman of my size was just asking for trouble without an escort. While I was making a cup of tea for one person, they were pouring coffee for a chattering group of friends, wives, sisters, cousins, daughters. Within a month of their moving in, they would simply knock on my door, open it and call my name, scoop my son up in one arm, and take both of us back across the hall. My son was passed from hand to hand, admired and spoiled, my husband, who was never home, was praised for being such a hard worker, and they welcomed me with open arms, hearts, and minds.

All of them were immigrants. When I timidly starting asking questions about whether America had made a difference in how they were treated, I was greeted with laughter and a sort of delicate, chummy scorn. You have to understand- Islam women are the treasures of their household. They are the ruling force within the confines of their home. If they say something is needed for themselves, or the family, or the children- their men get it for them. They are hardly uneducated, uninformed or ignorant of the "freedoms" Western women have. They simply have no need of them.

I saw this in action on a constant basis in the year I lived as their neighbor. A. simply had to say: "Husband. I need this, to make our life more pleasant," and it was handed to her as soon as he could get it. He spoke to her with respect, treated her like a queen, and his family and friends all treated their wives with the exact same honor. She was protected, secure in her own power, and cossetted like a princess, and she loved every moment of her life as a wife, a mother, and the absolute mistress of her household.

I am sure there are bad Islamic marraiges. There are bad Christian marraiges, bad Jewish marraiges, bad atheist, agnostic, and pagan marraiges. I should kbnow this- for years, mine was one of them. It has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with the rules of engagement, and the balance of power. I would not DARE to interfere in another person's beliefs or their way of life. What in the name of everything sacred gives any of US the right to judge THEIR lives, and how they live them?

I used to watch my neighbor with her husband and go home and cry. I would have killed to have that kind of respect, devotion, and honor in my marraige at the time. I would have gladly taken the veil and been a concubine, and subject to the wife's direction, if in return I had had someone love me and treat me the way she and her sisters and cousins and friends were treated.

Maybe I only saw an idyllic slice of the Muslim world, but I somehow doubt that. There were too many of them, and yes, they had complaints "Oh, that husband of mine, I'm going to smack him if he doesn't remember to get milk from the store" type things, but they were truly happy with their status in life. In the time I knew them, there were marraiges, a widowing, two births, a miscarraige, and a courtship, conducting between their eldest daughter (who had asked her father for permission to wear her hair uncovered and recieved it, although she chose, after her marraige, to cover her hair) and the eldest son of a friend. The match had been prearranged, but had the two not suited, they would have been allowed to look in other directions.

We don't have the right to judge them, or to force them out of the world they know, and for the most part, very much love. It's not a subject we have the right to make a call about whether it's wrong or right for them to live as they choose. It's something we can only see from the outside, and with our own prejudices.

Nicely said, Falling.

I live in a part of Toronto known as 'Little India' although 'Little Pakistan' could be just as accurate. A fair number of the families around here are Muslim. And I've seen most of the range of human behaviour in the ten years I've lived here.

They're just people.

"Maybe I only saw an idyllic slice of the Muslim world, but I somehow doubt that. " FTF quote

What you saw is typical I saw the same thing for three years in Turkey. I have neighbors across the street where I now live who are Islamic. I wantche three small girls grow to adulthood and marry. There were times when they did not cover, but after marriage they all did.

On the other hand, my wife was in line at a grocery check out with a full basket of stuff justa few months ago, when an Islamic male came up behind her and TOLD her, not asked, that he would go first because he was male. I won't tell what my wife said in return, but he did NOT go first.

angela146 said:

In order to avoid a thread-jack...

Well, as I said above, *if* the individuals had the ability and freedom to leave, I would be OK with it.

And if pigs could fly...

On the other hand, there are a lot of women who - even given that freedom - would reject it. I have spoken to a number of American muslum women who not only believe in second-class status of women but like it that way.

In a sense, it is a kind of D/s thing. Some of them like having their husbands in charge of their lives in the same way that a lot of traditional American women do. Some women do not want to have to make their own decisions and don't want the responsibilities that go along with it.

As I understand it, "Islam" literally means "I submit". Some people like being submissive.

Click to expand...

Women in Saudi Arabia need a male's permission to go to school, get a job, rent an apartment, or travel abroad.

They are forbidden under any circumstances to drive a car, check into a hotel alone, take a job as an attorney, take a leadership role in religious institutions, vote in elections, or run for public office.

In only a *very* small percentage of Master/slave style BDSM relationships would the guy in charge maintain this level of control over his partner. And even in those cases, she could walk into any courtroom and nullify the terms of their relationship in the Western world.

To compare the situation of Saudi women to a "kind of D/s thing," or the preferences of "a lot of traditional American women" is nonsense. The absence of freedom of choice renders use of the word "submission" outrageous in this context. And the level of control exerted over Saudi women renders the comparison utterly moot.

angela146 said:

First of all, it's probably momma who's insisting ("stop dressing like a whore").

But more to the point, she *can* leave but she usually doesn't. For the same reason that catholic girls have a hard time breaking away from their oppressive families. It's a cold cruel world out there and it takes a lot of strength to leave the relative safety of the domineering parents.

Click to expand...

All true, all very human. But also true is that the very fact that that she can leave has a powerful effect on how she is treated. Her treatment may still appear very harsh to us, but it is nothing compared to what is often is in places where she cannot leave.

~~~~~~~

I have an impulse to insert something in this thread that will stick out like a sore thumb, and so be it: In your tribadism thread I just posted a link to an "X-rated" tribadism thread that Vana started a year ago in LGBT. Take that, misogynistic fundie homophobes of all religions!

re. Falling's and Rob's posts ("I saw a nice family" and "they're just people"): There are nice people and rotten people in every culture. Is it unreasonable to speculate that having the kind of power that males in Saudi Arabia and some other Islamic nations have over women can have a toxic effect on some individuals who would otherwise be nice people, making them not-so-nice people?

angela146 said:

On the other hand, there are a lot of women who - even given that freedom - would reject it. I have spoken to a number of American muslum women who not only believe in second-class status of women but like it that way.

Click to expand...

Give me the raising of 100 female infants through age 13 and I can almost guarantee that more than 90 of them will go through life believing women are second-class chattel worth about half-a-cow, and do it without breaking their spirit or keeping them ignorant.

For starters, I would just have to expand on the kind of gender-role indoctrination my sister received in the fifties -- in a Christian home in a community that had maybe three muslims within fifty miles.

Many of my female contemporaries were subjected to much stricter gender-role indoctrination than my sister was and many of them rejected or opposed much of the "Women's Rights" agenda.

The point here is that, within my lifetime, Christian, American gender-roles were as tightly defined and not too dissimilar to Islamic gender-roles. Women who understood the "rules" and lived within them had no problem being happy and fulfilled.

I've lived through many of the changes that produced our current conception of Women's Rights, are being contrasted with Islamic gender-roles. It seems to me that there is a big element of impatience involved -- It has taken more than 100 years for western society to accept and integrate the basic principles involved, yet we expect cultures much older than ours to throw aside accept and integrate those changes "right now."

It ain't going to happen "right now" and it's unlikely my granddaughters will live long enough for Islamic societies -- and other patriarchal cultures -- to reach the level of Women's Rights that several centuries of change has blessed my granddaughters with. In large part, it's not going to happen becuase the women we're talking about "freeing" don't want to be free, because their mothers don't want to be free and their grandmothers weren't free -- they have no role models in their culture for how to be free.

Antoher factor is economics -- a large percentage of Islamic women can't afford to be "free;" there's nothing in most Islamic countries for "free women" to do. In order to be free and independent there have to be economic alternatives to traditional gender roles.

Weird Harold said:

Another factor is economics -- a large percentage of Islamic women can't afford to be "free;" there's nothing in most Islamic countries for "free women" to do. In order to be free and independent there have to be economic alternatives to traditional gender roles.

Click to expand...

As usual, you have hit a key point. The slave slips past the barbed wire and vicious dogs, swims the treacherous river, stands on the far side and proclaims, "I am free, marked down from 99 cents!"

Now, how does the slave make a living? Freedom is wonderful, but it does not by water, food or shelter.

In the South, after the Civil War the Negro slaves were free! They quickly found that free meant that no one had to feed, house or clothe then anymore. Not only that, the person(s) who formerly fed, housed and clothed them no longer had the means to do so, since the plantation was ruined by the war. Finally, they found that the only thing most of them knew how to do was to be a field hand slave or house slave. Of course, their state was of no concern to the abolitionists. After all, they had freed the slaves. The former slave's problems were now the problems of the former slaves. Neat and tidy.

R. Richard said:

As usual, you have hit a key point. The slave slips past the barbed wire and vicious dogs, swims the treacherous river, stands on the far side and proclaims, "I am free, marked down from 99 cents!"

Now, how does the slave make a living? Freedom is wonderful, but it does not by water, food or shelter.

In the South, after the Civil War the Negro slaves were free! They quickly found that free meant that no one had to feed, house or clothe then anymore. Not only that, the person(s) who formerly fed, housed and clothed them no longer had the means to do so, since the plantation was ruined by the war. Finally, they found that the only thing most of them knew how to do was to be a field hand slave or house slave. Of course, their state was of no concern to the abolitionists. After all, they had freed the slaves. The former slave's problems were now the problems of the former slaves. Neat and tidy.

Click to expand...

Your point? Put them back in chains? Call the whole deal off unless you are able to wave a magic wand and make everything perfect? I apologize for my sarcasm, I don't mean to attack you personally, but such notions grow tiresome. Let me share something from Eric Hoffer:

"Free men are aware of the imperfections inherent in human affairs, and they are willing to fight and die for that which is not perfect.

"They know that basic human problems can have no final solutions, that our freedom, justice, equality, and so on are far from absolute, that the good life is compounded of half measures, compromises, lesser evils, and gropings toward the perfect.

"The rejection of approximations and the insistence on absolutes are the manifestations of a nihilism that loathes freedom, tolerance, and equity."

R. Richard said:

As usual, you have hit a key point. The slave slips past the barbed wire and vicious dogs, swims the treacherous river, stands on the far side and proclaims, "I am free, marked down from 99 cents!"

Now, how does the slave make a living? Freedom is wonderful, but it does not by water, food or shelter.

Click to expand...

True enough. But at least the master can't rape you and sell your children down the river anymore.

And while we're on the subject of sex and violence....


"All country reports highlight domestic violence as a serious problem in the Arab Middle East. Contributing factors include lack of legislation criminalizing domestic violence, lack of government accountability and protections for women's rights inside the home, and social stigmas associated with women victims instead of social disapproval of the perpetrators of domestic violence.

Domestic violence can range from wife-beating and marital rape to the brutal battering of female family members by male family members. Gender-based violence such as practices that force women and girls to have virginity tests or undergo female genital mutilation (FGM), as well as the severe physical violence or murder inflicted on women by male family members in the name of family honor also present problems in the region. While domestic violence is widespread, no country in the region has adopted a law that clearly outlaws all its forms and ensures that those guilty of domestic abuse be punished.

Violence against women within the family is a serious and complex global problem. While no part of the world is immune from the stain of spousal abuse, the Middle East is unique in the array of laws, practices, and customs that pose major obstacles to the protection of women or the punishment of abusers. The problem is intensified by a legal structure that places the burden of proof entirely on the female victim in cases of gender-based violence, something that discourages women from reporting acts of violence or demanding legal redress.

In many countries, laws exist that actually condone domestic violence. Particularly troubling here is the practice, widespread in the region, of legally encouraging men who rape women to marry their victims. Women are often coerced by social pressure to marry their rapists in order to avoid the social stigma associated with being raped."

Source: here.


If the purpose of this thread is a PC nod to the idea that Muslims are people too, and Islam is no more evil than Christianity or Judaism, then consider me nodding too.

But if comparisons are being made between the preferences and challenges faced by women in the U.S., now or 50 years ago, and the oppression of women in the Arab world, then consider me shaking my head in disagreement.

For those with an interest in learning more about the plight of women in the Middle East and North Africa, I recommend the country reports found at this link to get an idea of what's really going on.

JMohegan said:

But if comparisons are being made between the preferences and challenges faced by women in the U.S., now or 50 years ago, and the oppression of women in the Arab world, then consider me shaking my head in disagreement.

Click to expand...

I can't speak for anyone else, but as far as I'm concerned, I wasn't making a comparison to "women in the Arab world" as much as making a comparison to women's lot in Islamic society where the ALL laws of Islam apply instead of perverted, misogynistic, fundamentalist interpretations of Islam twisted to support misogynistic cultural elements that predate Mohamed.

But, there is also the very relevant point that the very real and immediate problems of blaming the victims for being raped and legal blindness to domestic violence aren't all that different than the first "baby steps" addressed a century or two ago in America and Western Europe.

Correcting those problems are just the first, tiny step in a very long process of changing cultural values and addressing economic issues to provide alternatives.

Arab and other "Fundamentalist" societies -- of ALL religions -- need to be brought up to the fifteenth century idea that women are actually human before they can even begin to consider the idea that women might have rights, let alone that they might be the equals of men.

Hopefully, it won't take 500 years for Arabs and others to make the leap from "maybe human" to "fully equal" like it did mainstream "Western" society.

JMohegan makes a lot of sense, and does so coherently. But he does not nullify Weird's point. I think we must take (from JMohegan) courage enough to judge other cultures to a standard. Are we not attempting to find the good way to live?

And I think we must learn (from Weird) that all the actual solutions are going to be decades in the making. Power is not given, but taken. Taking power in the face of opposition (and it is always taken in the face of opposition) requires will.

As usual, R Richard has nothing in particular to contribute, but we have grown accustomed to that. Roxanne answers him well, and makes him vanish.

hi cant,

you probably noticed, but it's worth saying. "freedom house", the website you linked to rates the various arab countries for freedoms, rights and status of women. saudi arabia is at the bottom, followed (nearby) with the UAE.

now which of these countries are closest to the US, and most receptive of US aid. saudi arabia and UAE.

Yeah. We love the dictators and the tyrants, and we support the closest the ones with the fewest human rights. That's the empire for ya. But it was not I who provided the link.

*agreeing with what Weird said*

in my humble opinion, it's best not to judge a value of any cultures by imposing our own standard as the absolute assessment tool.