A ‘Twofold’ question for the Lit. Ladies:

[amicus]

If ‘Muslim‘, ‘Islamic’, ‘Sharia’ laws were somehow enacted overnight,
in the country in which you reside, what would you do?

Those, ‘laws’ essentially, relegate women to, ‘property’ status,
with no inherent rights, as it currently is in most Middle Eastern
nations…what would you do?

Would you quietly and happily accept the ‘full body clothing’,
customary in Arab nations and happily return to complete servitude
to the males in your society?

Would you refuse and suffer incarceration and imprisonment for your disobedience?

Would you take arms and rebel?

Part the second:

Knowing full well, (how could you not), that the war in Iraq,
is a precursor to a war against Islamic laws concerning women,
why the hell are you not vigorously sending your husbands and
sons into battle to fight for your rights?

Ahemmmmm….(clearing my throat)

Amicus…

 

[scheherazade_79]

I would either rebel (which may or may not involve the taking up of arms), or move to another country.

Knowing full well, (how could you not), that the war in Iraq, is a precursor to a war against Islamic laws concerning women, why the hell are you not vigorously sending your husbands and sons into battle to fight for your rights?

... I don't think that's quite what the Iraq war was about, Ami. If that were the case, wouldn't it have been better to attack Saudi Arabia, where all the really extreme Wahabi stuff comes from?

Why am I not sending my husband and son out to fight for my rights? Two reasons. Firstly, I have neither. Secondly, times have changed. These days women tend to do stuff for themselves, rather than run screaming to a man every time something goes wrong. If I felt that what's happened to women in some Islamic countries were about to happen here, I'd want to sort it out myself.

There are smarter ways of fighting than taking up arms, and do you know what the best thing of all about this 21st century world is? You don't have to have a penis to accomplish things of importance anymore!

No disrespect, Ami, but when it comes to women I don't see a huge amount of difference between your views and those of a hardline Islamic cleric. I would be equally alarmed if you suddenly took over my country and started imposing your beliefs about women and how they should behave.

 

[Chantilyvamp]

If ‘Muslim‘, ‘Islamic’, ‘Sharia’ laws were somehow enacted overnight, in the country in which you reside, what would you do?

Those, ‘laws’ essentially, relegate women to, ‘property’ status, with no inherent rights, as it currently is in most Middle Eastern nations…what would you do?

Would you quietly and happily accept the ‘full body clothing’, customary in Arab nations and happily return to complete servitude to the males in your society?

Would you refuse and suffer incarceration and imprisonment for your disobedience?

Would you take arms and rebel?

Can I just get on a plane and leave the country? Oh yes I could

I like my property...me I don't like wearing clothes period so full body clothing would send me mental. I'd be incarcerated or stoned in no time at all So it would have to be rebel or leave.

Part the second:

Knowing full well, (how could you not), that the war in Iraq, is a precursor to a war against Islamic laws concerning women, why the hell are you not vigorously sending your husbands and sons into battle to fight for your rights?

Ahemmmmm….(clearing my throat)

Amicus…

Ummm, dont have a son to send off and the hubby isn't to be trusted with a gun

I know not the serious answer that you wanted but if you want to line up a few men for me I'll shoot them for you Especially if they reek of aftershave like they have been pickled in it.

 

[amicus]

I would either rebel (which may or may not involve the taking up of arms), or move to another country.



... I don't think that's quite what the Iraq war was about, Ami. If that were the case, wouldn't it have been better to attack Saudi Arabia, where all the really extreme Wahabi stuff comes from?

Why am I not sending my husband and son out to fight for my rights? Two reasons. Firstly, I have neither. Secondly, times have changed. These days women tend to do stuff for themselves, rather than run screaming to a man every time something goes wrong. If I felt that what's happened to women in some Islamic countries were about to happen here, I'd want to sort it out myself.

There are smarter ways of fighting than taking up arms, and do you know what the best thing of all about this 21st century world is? You don't have to have a penis to accomplish things of importance anymore!

No disrespect, Ami, but when it comes to women I don't see a huge amount of difference between your views and those of a hardline Islamic cleric. I would be equally alarmed if you suddenly took over my country and started imposing your beliefs about women and how they should behave.

~~~

Well, 'Zade', apart from your distrust of me and my views, your post indicates things you may not realize.

Were my innate rights threatened or even challenged, I would have no second thoughts about taking arms against the intruder, who or whatever.

Secondly, it is not a matter of being personally involved with husbands or sons or brothers, but an abstract defense of human liberty, females included.

Thirdly, Saudi's or not, it is the basic theology that must be confronted, not the borders than contain the slight differences.

And having a 'penis' is not at all what it is about, and you know that, either you will defend your rights, or you will not, gender notwithstanding.

And you, it seems, would take it under consideration...and perhaps seek a majority opinion?

Sighs...


Amicus...

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=Chantilyvamp]Can I just get on a plane and leave the country? Oh yes I could

I like my property...me I don't like wearing clothes period so full body clothing would send me mental. I'd be incarcerated or stoned in no time at all So it would have to be rebel or leave.



Ummm, dont have a son to send off and the hubby isn't to be trusted with a gun

I know not the serious answer that you wanted but if you want to line up a few men for me I'll shoot them for you Especially if they reek of aftershave like they have been pickled in it.[/QUOTE]


Heh, I think you would be fun in bed, kid, but thas not a flirt, nor a proposition, just an old man's fantasy, (I use one small drop of Old Spice)

Amicus...

 

[Chantilyvamp]

Heh, I think you would be fun in bed, kid, but thas not a flirt, nor a proposition, just an old man's fantasy, (I use one small drop of Old Spice)

Amicus...

Bwahaha... See thats why you dont get put on ignore. You make me laugh sometimes and thats just not to be missed

 

[amicus]

Bwahaha... See thats why you dont get put on ignore. You make me laugh sometimes and thats just not to be missed

~~~
Making a Chantilyvamp smile, (you know what I like) (Chantilly Lace, a pretty face, a wiggle in the walk a giggle in the talk), why didn't you just say you love Old Spice, and a man who uses 'Head and Shoulders', (I once had a girl who said I smelled like her dad, go figure...), is what I'm all about, you made my day...

ahem...

Amicus...

 

[scheherazade_79]

Secondly, it is not a matter of being personally involved with husbands or sons or brothers, but an abstract defense of human liberty, females included.

Then why did you make a big issue out of the sons and husbands thing, and women encouraging them to take up arms on our behalf?

Thirdly, Saudi's or not, it is the basic theology that must be confronted, not the borders than contain the slight differences.

Must it? What's wrong with live and let live? Your argument seems to be leading in the direction that unless Islam is crushed, it'll take over the entire world. I believe a similar argument was used against the Jews and the Communists in the 1930s. A building of national importance was destroyed, a Communist was found in the rubble (the undamaged hijackers' passports did the trick on 9/11), and suddenly the media and state propaganda machine were alerting everyone to the fact that there were Jews and Communists in all areas of life, just waiting to take over the world.

And you, it seems, would take it under consideration...and perhaps seek a majority opinion?

Sighs...

God forbid, I might look in the direction of democracy for guidance, instead of listening to what Fox News has to say...

Ami, I'm not having a go at you. I just think you've allowed yourself to be influenced by all the wrong sources.

 

[impressive]

When the Great Burka Scourge reaches my homeland, and I need a compatriot to take up arms with me, I'd choose Zade over Ami. No contest.

Until that time, though, if Ami wants to take up arms and fight this looming threat on my behalf, I'll wish him well on his journey & send him cookies whilst he's on the front line brandishing his penis ... erm, sword ... in defense of my freedoms.

 

[scheherazade_79]

When the Great Burka Scourge reaches my homeland, and I need a compatriot to take up arms with me, I'd choose Zade over Ami. No contest.

Until that time, though, if Ami wants to take up arms and fight this looming threat on my behalf, I'll wish him well on his journey & send him cookies whilst he's on the front line brandishing his penis ... erm, sword ... in defense of my freedoms.

I'd be right alongside you, Imp

 

[amicus]

I'd be right alongside you, Imp

~~~

Chuckles...I love the ladies of Lit...but then I have always been a pussy hound...sighs, can I blame it on genes?

As an aside...a good night for me, this one was, I have three video screens working simultaneously, the computer, a small 15 inch for my Civilization game, in between posts, (been a busy evening) and NASA Channel on the big HD, and NASA did a thing on women aviator's over the ages, quite impressive and a quite a struggle for women to compete as pilots, a very sobering history of the struggle for women go gain acceptance in a formerly all male world.

So, like it or not, I still appreciate the ladies, in all aspects, some of which you have no idea.

But then, thas why I am Amicus and not you...


Ami...

 

[Liar]

Knowing full well, (how could you not), that the war in Iraq, is a precursor to a war against Islamic laws concerning women, why the hell are you not vigorously sending your husbands and sons into battle to fight for your rights?

Ami,

I could understand your argument there if you had been talking about Afghanistan. I do hope you're aware of that Iraq was one of the most secular and gender-equal countries in the region prior to the war. (Not good enough, but certainly better than it's neighbors.) Granted, Saddam was an evil despotic dictator, but at least he kept the church on a good distance from politic and jucidial power. And it's less gender-equal today than before.

Not gonna answer your other question, on account of not having a vagina.

(Nor access to one. *sigh*)

 

[Guest]

If ‘Muslim‘, ‘Islamic’, ‘Sharia’ laws were somehow enacted overnight, in the country in which you reside, what would you do?

Those, ‘laws’ essentially, relegate women to, ‘property’ status, with no inherent rights, as it currently is in most Middle Eastern nations…what would you do?

Would you quietly and happily accept the ‘full body clothing’, customary in Arab nations and happily return to complete servitude to the males in your society?

Would you refuse and suffer incarceration and imprisonment for your disobedience?

Would you take arms and rebel?

Part the second:

Knowing full well, (how could you not), that the war in Iraq, is a precursor to a war against Islamic laws concerning women, why the hell are you not vigorously sending your husbands and sons into battle to fight for your rights?

Ahemmmmm….(clearing my throat)

Amicus…

I was in the service, once, long ago. I'd have no problem taking up arms and defending my rights one way or the other. I would expect my family to back me just as they would expect me to back them. And I'd never send a husband or son into battle to fight for me, beside me maybe, but not for me.

 

[knitedreams]

If ‘Muslim‘, ‘Islamic’, ‘Sharia’ laws were somehow enacted overnight, in the country in which you reside, what would you do?

Those, ‘laws’ essentially, relegate women to, ‘property’ status, with no inherent rights, as it currently is in most Middle Eastern nations…what would you do?

Would you quietly and happily accept the ‘full body clothing’, customary in Arab nations and happily return to complete servitude to the males in your society?

Would you refuse and suffer incarceration and imprisonment for your disobedience?

Would you take arms and rebel?

Part the second:

Knowing full well, (how could you not), that the war in Iraq, is a precursor to a war against Islamic laws concerning women, why the hell are you not vigorously sending your husbands and sons into battle to fight for your rights?

Ahemmmmm….(clearing my throat)

Amicus…

I would like to say that I would leave the country if that happened, but I know that wouldn't be the case. I'm an army brat coming from generations of family members who have served in the military. Which means that I would take up arms and rebel along with my male AND female family members to fight any country who lands troops on our shores with malicious intent.

I'm also single with no children, but if I did have a husband and son I wouldn't encourage them to fight for me. I would let them make their own choices since they would be free individuals, and, if they decided to fight with me, I would be more than happy to have them back me up. If they decided to run to another country, I would wish them well.

 

[RogueLurker]

Read The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood - it was written before Islam was seen as the big bad boogieman, and in the book, it was the Christian right who relegated women back to being chattel.

 

[Recidiva]

At the moment I'd do what I need to do to ensure my children's health and survival. I'm not a free agent. If that requires a burkha, I'd wear one. It's clothes, and a bit more dignified than a tracksuit with "JUICY" on the ass. I'd probably rebel more if forced to wear that.

If I were a totally free agent, I'd probably go on a killing spree. Just because I was a free agent.

 

[RedHairedandFriendly]

My childrens' lives would come first, so I'd obey the laws in order to keep them safe.

My job is not to "send" my husband (37) and my son (who is 8) off to fight a war. My job is to support them if they chose to go.

 

[Guest]

If ‘Muslim‘, ‘Islamic’, ‘Sharia’ laws were somehow enacted overnight, in the country in which you reside, what would you do?

Ahemmmmm….(clearing my throat)

Amicus…

Are you going there, Amicus?

Cause when it starts, I'll be up in arms myself!

Maharat

 

[Guest]

No disrespect, Ami, but when it comes to women I don't see a huge amount of difference between your views and those of a hardline Islamic cleric. I would be equally alarmed if you suddenly took over my country and started imposing your beliefs about women and how they should behave.

POW! Right in the kisser. Nice one, 'zadey!

 

[BlackShanglan]

If ‘Muslim‘, ‘Islamic’, ‘Sharia’ laws were somehow enacted overnight, in the country in which you reside, what would you do?

Those, ‘laws’ essentially, relegate women to, ‘property’ status, with no inherent rights, as it currently is in most Middle Eastern nations…what would you do?

Would you quietly and happily accept the ‘full body clothing’, customary in Arab nations and happily return to complete servitude to the males in your society?

Would you refuse and suffer incarceration and imprisonment for your disobedience?

Would you take arms and rebel?

I think it's interesting that you think only women have a stake in this. If such laws were enacted for either gender, I'd be working actively for their overthrow.

Knowing full well, (how could you not), that the war in Iraq, is a precursor to a war against Islamic laws concerning women, why the hell are you not vigorously sending your husbands and sons into battle to fight for your rights?

Because said husbands and sons have the right to decide for themselves? Just a guess. Or possibly it's that Iraq did not operate under such laws and that you appear to be confusing it with Afghanistan? Or perhaps it's that the United States was quite willing to support a radical Islamic government in Pakistan when it suited our political goals, and therefore some citizens are a little leery of the claim that we're all for women's rights now?

We may need one of those "all of the above" thingies to tick.

 

[amicus]

I think it's interesting that you think only women have a stake in this. If such laws were enacted for either gender, I'd be working actively for their overthrow.



Because said husbands and sons have the right to decide for themselves? Just a guess. Or possibly it's that Iraq did not operate under such laws and that you appear to be confusing it with Afghanistan? Or perhaps it's that the United States was quite willing to support a radical Islamic government in Pakistan when it suited our political goals, and therefore some citizens are a little leery of the claim that we're all for women's rights now?

We may need one of those "all of the above" thingies to tick.

~~~

You seem to be in a confrontational mode, my friend.

Since the Muslim world in general has such restrictions on women, and a powerful faction in Iraq, wishes a 'theological' government to be imposed with those same restrictions; since recent news events about Sharia laws in Muslim communities in Canada and throughout Europe have been bantered about, I thought it fitting to ask 'women' how they would respond were such laws imposed upon them.

Some of the answers were interesting, in that some would acquiesce for reasons of security and safety.

This also ties in with my question about human freedom, who desires it and who does not. It would seem, on the surface, that women all over the Muslim world would be yearning for US intervention to free them, but perhaps they don't really want to be set free and are secure and comfortable being slaves?

Amicus...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Ami: "Thirdly, Saudi's or not, it is the basic theology that must be confronted, not the borders than contain the slight differences."

Must it? What's wrong with live and let live?

Um, wasn't the same said about slavery in the ante-bellum South?

Not saying war is the answer, but there are many ways for a people to demonstrate their disapproval. How about no student visas for Saudi men, for example? There's a difference between tolerance and indifference.

 

[BlackShanglan]

~~~

You seem to be in a confrontational mode, my friend.

Since the Muslim world in general has such restrictions on women, and a powerful faction in Iraq, wishes a 'theological' government to be imposed with those same restrictions; since recent news events about Sharia laws in Muslim communities in Canada and throughout Europe have been bantered about, I thought it fitting to ask 'women' how they would respond were such laws imposed upon them.

I recognize the current events that make Islamic law an interesting topic. What intrigues me is that you seem to think that only one gender would have a strong opinion on the imposition of fundamentalist Islamic law / restrictive laws controlling women. If you are concerned with the question of whether humans uphold and desire freedom, surely all of us have a stake in the freedom of all humans - unless you mean "all humans desire freedom" to read "all humans desire their own advancement and care nothing for the freedoms of others"?

Some of the answers were interesting, in that some would acquiesce for reasons of security and safety.

This also ties in with my question about human freedom, who desires it and who does not. It would seem, on the surface, that women all over the Muslim world would be yearning for US intervention to free them, but perhaps they don't really want to be set free and are secure and comfortable being slaves?

Amicus...

You say that I seem confrontational. Perhaps I am. Sometimes it's necessary to confront certain things. Here, for instance, I find it necessary to confront you with the fact that not a single woman posted to this thread suggesting that she would acquiesce for her own security and safety. Precisely two women responded with anything other than "fight" or "leave the country," and both cited, not their own safety or disinterest in liberty, but the safety of their dependent children as the reason for surrendering some of their own liberties. One specifically stated that if she didn't have her children, she too would resist violently.

It's necessary to confront inaccurate claims. Otherwise, people get tempted to pose a question, ignore what people have said in answer to it, and project their own pre-formed assumptions onto the issue even if they contradict the answers that were actually given. That sort of thing derails the process of learning, and so it does make me rather testy.

 

[Brute_Force]

Frankly, I'm amazed that any woman would respond to this thread given the fact that the thread starter reminds me a great deal of a man standing with a blunt instrument hidden behind his back with an ice cream offered in the front. He says to those who will come to him, "Here you are, my dear, have an ice cream." Then, he pops them on the head with the blunt instrument and cries, "Success!"

 

[Recidiva]

Frankly, I'm amazed that any woman would respond to this thread given the fact that the thread starter reminds me a great deal of a man standing with a blunt instrument hidden behind his back with an ice cream offered in the front. He says to those who will come to him, "Here you are, my dear, have an ice cream." Then, he pops them on the head with the blunt instrument and cries, "Success!"

Hey. Free ice cream.

Really, since he misses every time, not a problem.