Status of women in Islam today's great moral challenge?

[Roxanne Appleby]

This just appeared on a blog I sometimes look at:

"If one wanted to challenge an injustice in the world today comparable in scale to pre-Civil War chattel slavery in the U.S. perhaps he or she would take on the status of women in Islamic societies. There are many other horrific injustices elsewhere in the world, but to a large extent they are products of poverty, and the solution there is to lift barriers to wealth creation in those places, such as opening trade and promoting the rule of law. Only in the Islamic world is there a social system that independent of economics places one half the population in a state of semi- or virtual slavery.

"I don't know the story of Ataturk in Turkey, who effectively challenged this with vigor (and perhaps brutality) in Turkey, but believe he was motivated by more pragmatic concerns. Sadly, his reforms are now apparently under great pressure there.

"I understand the issue is very complex and easily exploitable by demagogues and shallow jingoists, but I fear that the defenders of chattel slavery in the US would have said the same thing. They probably also could have produced slaves who professed to love their chains, and a few of those poor souls might even have meant it. The fact is, the status of women in Islam is an injustice.

"Unstated so far is what men and women of goodwill and principle should have done regarding slavery in the antebellum South, or should do about the oppression of women in Islamic societies today.

"To the question 'How to stop it?' there is no easy answer. In 1860 the North elected a president who simply said that slavery would not be allowed to expand, and it triggered a monumental bloodbath. The 20th century has produced some happier examples like Gandhi in India and Martin Luther King in the U.S., where an injustice was corrected with comparatively little bloodshed. One must be cautious with these examples, however, because they depended on the presence of a certain level of conscience and moral consensus in the underlying societies. Imagine how far Gandhi or MLK would have gotten had they led street protests on behalf of Jews in Berlin in 1939.

"To the question 'What should I do as a private citizen?' there is a simpler answer: Bear witness against the injustice. Do not forbear to condemn it in unequivocal terms:

" 'It is wrong to enslave black people. It is immoral to defend and sustain this injustice in your society. You should stop it."

" 'It is wrong to oppress women, to make them second-class citizens. It is immoral to defend and sustain this injustice in your society. You should stop it.' "

Discussion?

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Most successful changes occur from within especially in the Middle East which has a rabid distaste for foreigners (a likely result of many many broken promises with the Europeans and histories of being invaded and ruled by them).

The author is accurate that it is a horrible occurance and we should applaud what feminist movements that do arise and publically condemn sexist regimes. But we must also be wary of dipping our hand in too much as specifically right now we are envisaged as demons and invaders by a growing segment of the Islamist population as a result of our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Any organization we give actual support will be tainted by it and lose members and power for fear that it'll be "owned".

As they state, the best stance is to bear witness and condemn and concentrate our actual efforts in reducing the second class citizenry of our own women in our own country so that we can also provide a moral example. We still have a lot of "women are inferior" baggage that we haven't cleared out yet and we've only made a few steps towards rectifying it.

And as far as chattel, a scary moment would be in the religious marriage of a friend of mine wherein the priest when discussing the roles of a woman in marriage and in the sermon itself used the phrases "subjection" and "you shall become his as he needs you to be" with the tone and meaning on becoming his property to use as he sees fits. So apparently we still haven't escaped the viewpoints in some areas of America of women as slaves after marriage. Combine that with pressure to get married to have sex and you get a system here that needs solving before we focus all our attention abroad.

 

[R. Richard]

It is fairly easy to find instances where women are treated like second [third, fourth] class citizens at various places around the world. However, Muslims have raised the bar here.

In fundamentalist Muslim societies, women are not taught to read, so they can't become doctors. In fundamentalist Muslim societies, women are not allowed to be really viewed by males other than their husband or their family. If you are a woman in a fundamentalist Muslim society and you get really sick, what do you do? The answer is, Probably die! You can't go to a male doctor. There are no female doctors. Prognosis: death!

 

[neonlyte]

It is fairly easy to find instances where women are treated like second [third, fourth] class citizens at various places around the world. However, Muslims have raised the bar here.

In fundamentalist Muslim societies, women are not taught to read, so they can't become doctors. In fundamentalist Muslim societies, women are not allowed to be really viewed by males other than their husband or their family. If you are a woman in a fundamentalist Muslim society and you get really sick, what do you do? The answer is, Probably die! You can't go to a male doctor. There are no female doctors. Prognosis: death!

You ignore that the women in these societies are also Muslim.

Trying to understand another society or Religion by peering through the curtain or listening to second-hand media sources is a fools exercise. There is immense danger in applying blanket standards to castes, for example, you hear few 'westerners' complaining about the treatment of 'the untouchables' in India, it suits the 'west' to stigmatise Muslems and point the finger at Fundamentalists. That said, I am not defending their treatment of womenfolk and I am not defending the actions of certain members of Fundamenatlist faiths.

Change, in any society, is a slow process to the point of change, then change happens quickly eg. Berlin Wall and Communism. Change arrives because the will of the people demand change or because external pressure (usually in the form of military invasion) creates change. It is preferable that change comes from within.

To encourage change (I use this word generically since it is not only women who are supressed in some countries, and women are not only supressed in Muslim countries) from within, attitudes must shift perception to embrace concepts deemed to be beneficial to the wider society. We (the West) can lead by example, maybe... possibly we are not doing a very good job of setting an example to Muslims whose faith encompasses more than the subjegation of women, there are other aspects of 'western culture' that conflict with Muslim faith - usury is but one small example.

On enslavement -- begun in 1440's by the Portuguese. They traded wheat for souls, the souls were 'captured' by Africans not Portuguese. The numbers traded rapidly became to large for Portugal to absorb so they sold them on, to Europe, and America in time. The trading of 'black slaves' gave rise to a new phenonema, slaves marked by skin colour. No different in truth from indentured labour working the estates of the European gentry, other than in colour. No different from captured natives working the lands of African Tribal leaders, and no different from the 'untouchables' working for their Indian masters -- other than in one thing, their skin colour. How many generations to wipe the stigma of 'colour' to white 'Western' eyes?

Yes, women need a better deal in most countries, not just Muslim countries, and so do black skinned people, and so do the untouchables, and so do the children who continue to die at the rate of 1000 per day in Africa. Don't single out Fundamentalist Muslims as the source of all evil, all you do is continue to pursuade them that 'you' are the source of all evil.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

You ignore that the women in these societies are also Muslim.

Trying to understand another society or Religion by peering through the curtain or listening to second-hand media sources is a fools exercise. There is immense danger in applying blanket standards to castes, for example, you hear few 'westerners' complaining about the treatment of 'the untouchables' in India, it suits the 'west' to stigmatise Muslems and point the finger at Fundamentalists. That said, I am not defending their treatment of womenfolk and I am not defending the actions of certain members of Fundamenatlist faiths.

Change, in any society, is a slow process to the point of change, then change happens quickly eg. Berlin Wall and Communism. Change arrives because the will of the people demand change or because external pressure (usually in the form of military invasion) creates change. It is preferable that change comes from within.

To encourage change (I use this word generically since it is not only women who are supressed in some countries, and women are not only supressed in Muslim countries) from within, attitudes must shift perception to embrace concepts deemed to be beneficial to the wider society. We (the West) can lead by example, maybe... possibly we are not doing a very good job of setting an example to Muslims whose faith encompasses more than the subjegation of women, there are other aspects of 'western culture' that conflict with Muslim faith - usury is but one small example.

On enslavement -- begun in 1440's by the Portuguese. They traded wheat for souls, the souls were 'captured' by Africans not Portuguese. The numbers traded rapidly became to large for Portugal to absorb so they sold them on, to Europe, and America in time. The trading of 'black slaves' gave rise to a new phenonema, slaves marked by skin colour. No different in truth from indentured labour working the estates of the European gentry, other than in colour. No different from captured natives working the lands of African Tribal leaders, and no different from the 'untouchables' working for their Indian masters -- other than in one thing, their skin colour. How many generations to wipe the stigma of 'colour' to white 'Western' eyes?

Yes, women need a better deal in most countries, not just Muslim countries, and so do black skinned people, and so do the untouchables, and so do the children who continue to die at the rate of 1000 per day in Africa. Don't single out Fundamentalist Muslims as the source of all evil, all you do is continue to pursuade them that 'you' are the source of all evil.

Your cautions and caveats are well advised and appropriate, but one does not want to take such caution too far, to the point where one does "forbear to (assert) in unequivocal terms (that) it is wrong to oppress women . . . and to defend and sustain this injustice in your society."

I note that you do not "forbear" to do so, but you might want to appear a bit less "equivocal" in your assertion of a moral stance the issue. "I am not defending their treatment of womenfolk" is not exactly a "Here I stand" assertion of principle. But perhaps I quibble.

 

[Recidiva]

Your cautions and caveats are well advised and appropriate, but one does not want to take such caution too far, to the point where one does "forbear to (assert) in unequivocal terms (that) it is wrong to oppress women . . . and to defend and sustain this injustice in your society."

I note that you do not "forbear" to do so, but you might want to appear a bit less "equivocal" in your assertion of a moral stance the issue. "I am not defending their treatment of womenfolk" is not exactly a "Here I stand" assertion of principle. But perhaps I quibble.

This is a part of faith in theocratic societies.

These women would have to fight for their own freedom, against their own faith, and against their own history and homeland.

That is a lot to ask. Were she sitting next to me, I could ask her, but in another country, believing what she does, I'm not sure I'm doing her a favor by appearing to betray everything she was raised with.

This is not just an ethical issue, it's an issue of culture and faith. One I was raised to respect and try to understand. Many women in Islamic societies accept this role as their cultural duty and privilege.

I can't enforce my choices of freedom on someone else, she has to ask me to free her.

 

[R. Richard]

To encourage change (I use this word generically since it is not only women who are supressed in some countries, and women are not only supressed in Muslim countries) from within, attitudes must shift perception to embrace concepts deemed to be beneficial to the wider society. We (the West) can lead by example, maybe... possibly we are not doing a very good job of setting an example to Muslims whose faith encompasses more than the subjegation of women, there are other aspects of 'western culture' that conflict with Muslim faith - usury is but one small example.

For the benfit of those who are not aware, Muslims are prohibited by their faith from charging interest. Instead, Muslim banks chage "fees." How do the Muslim banks determine the fees? Why they check with Western banks that charge interest and set their fees the same way Western banks set their interest.

On enslavement -- begun in 1440's by the Portuguese. They traded wheat for souls, the souls were 'captured' by Africans not Portuguese. The numbers traded rapidly became to large for Portugal to absorb so they sold them on, to Europe, and America in time. The trading of 'black slaves' gave rise to a new phenonema, slaves marked by skin colour. No different in truth from indentured labour working the estates of the European gentry, other than in colour. No different from captured natives working the lands of African Tribal leaders, and no different from the 'untouchables' working for their Indian masters -- other than in one thing, their skin colour. How many generations to wipe the stigma of 'colour' to white 'Western' eyes?

Black slaves were quite different from indentured servants. An indentured servant could, at least in theory, ear freedom. If a white indentured servant could escape, they were just another white face in a sea of same. A black slave in Europe of the Americas was a black slave until proven otherwise. Clearly, you have not been to India. The "untouchables" and the "pariahs" were always darker than their masters, usually much darker. The lower castes worked and lived outside. The "brahmins" lived and worked inside and were lighter.

Yes, women need a better deal in most countries, not just Muslim countries, and so do black skinned people, and so do the untouchables, and so do the children who continue to die at the rate of 1000 per day in Africa. Don't single out Fundamentalist Muslims as the source of all evil, all you do is continue to pursuade them that 'you' are the source of all evil.

I do not single out fundmentalist Muslims as the source of all evil. The lot of lower caste women in India is very bad, particularly in the rural villages. The lot of women in rural Africa is very bad. However, only the Muslims insist that a woman die for the sins of being a woman and being a Muslim. In most of the rest of the thrid world, men and women alike often die because they can't afford to see a doctor. However, if they can get the money together, they can see a doctor.

 

[neonlyte]

Your cautions and caveats are well advised and appropriate, but one does not want to take such caution too far, to the point where one does "forbear to (assert) in unequivocal terms (that) it is wrong to oppress women . . . and to defend and sustain this injustice in your society."

I note that you do not "forbear" to do so, but you might want to appear a bit less "equivocal" in your assertion of a moral stance the issue. "I am not defending their treatment of womenfolk" is not exactly a "Here I stand" assertion of principle. But perhaps I quibble.

Anyone who knows me, knows exactly where I stand on womens rights. But I take your point.

To qualify: I do not know enough about the role and relationship of women within Muslim society, bearing in mind they make up a significant part of that society, to outright condem all Muslims for their treatment of women. From my 'western' perspective, it looks, sounds and feels completely wrong, but we need more understanding of the mechanics of such societies before we leap to make banket judgment calls. Changing such societies can only be achieved by arguement and by leading through example. To argue, you need a fundamental understanding of the structure and organisation of a society and of the ramifications change may bring, few commentators possess that knowledge. As for leading through example...

 

[neonlyte]

However, only the Muslims insist that a woman die for the sins of being a woman and being a Muslim.

RR - I don't wish to appear rude, but don't make such statements. Even you know it is wrong. It helps no body to make such claims.

 

[Pure]

comments

the problem is real. there is real oppression.

but i think neon has made a number of good points, esp. about the internal sources of change--that it's up to the Muslim women in the various countries.

i would make the following points as to the author, call him A, of the following:

[Roxanne quoting A, perhaps with approval]
"To the question 'What should I do as a private citizen?' there is a simpler answer: Bear witness against the injustice. Do not forbear to condemn it in unequivocal terms:

" 'It is wrong to enslave black people. It is immoral to defend and sustain this injustice in your society. You should stop it."

" 'It is wrong to oppress women, to make them second-class citizens. It is immoral to defend and sustain this injustice in your society. You should stop it.' "
====

Using the authors own example, certainly some northerners DID say slavery was wrong and the Southerners ought to stop it. I'd venture to say that was without effect as far as freeing slaves goes. Certainly very few masters were convinced, and hearing such things causes 'circling of the wagons,' i.e. vehement defenses as well as ''butt out" (states rights).

So I ask, what exactly is A trying to accomplish, by saying publically in a western blog, "this is injustice in your society.'

Is A hoping to reach the educated elite? Hoping to inspire the down trodden? The latter especially seems unlikely to say the least.

It's sometimes said the US Pres should use the 'bully pulpit'. Well, he's so selective, it's arguably without effect-- he's got lots of words about Saddam or Kim in N. Korea, but none about the Saudi rulers or those in Kazachstan.

What a person or country DOES is far more important than press releases--the US does not give a flying fuck about Saudi women, and fears upsetting 'our Arab friends.'

I wonder what A would do, talking to a Saudi ruler? Would he say, "That's wrong, Mr. Saud". If so, would he back it up?

I may be wrong, but my sense is that Mr. A is acting as if he's trying to clearly identify himself to God or the Cosmos.
"I'M on the side of right." That's what's important, that people see Mr. A as having the moral position.

There are certainly times to 'witness,' and sometimes it's very effective. Other times it's unbearably 'cheap.' It's a no-cost way of feeling good about one's moral superiority.

Personally, to me, to only witnesses with true credibility and heft are the ones actively doing something, ie. bringing medical supplies to Afghan women.

Actions to address oppression and suffering count; words are mostly just that, and frequently reek of self satisfaction. (I have no idea, of course, about Mr. A's acts or lack thereof; or Roxanne's; I am making general points.)

 

[ishtat]

The "untouchables" and the "pariahs" were always darker than their masters, usually much darker. The lower castes worked and lived outside. The "brahmins" lived and worked inside and were lighter.

This is factually wrong. The only difference in skin tone is attributable to the amount of uv exposure not their social caste. Pariahs may well be darker than other Indian people but not because of their caste. Pariah is a Tamil word originating from Southern India where all the people (especially those of Dravidian racial type are significantly darker than the generality of their northern countrymen.

 

[neonlyte]

The "untouchables" and the "pariahs" were always darker than their masters, usually much darker. The lower castes worked and lived outside. The "brahmins" lived and worked inside and were lighter.

This is factually wrong. The only difference in skin tone is attributable to the amount of uv exposure not their social caste. Pariahs may well be darker than other Indian people but not because of their caste. Pariah is a Tamil word originating from Southern India where all the people (especially those of Dravidian racial type are significantly darker than the generality of their northern countrymen.

Just wanted to point out the statement, top, was by RR and not by me, as you post accidentally implies.

What you say is also my understanding. My point was less to do with their colour than their existence, in virtually slave conditions, a situation the 'west' pretty much ignores.

 

[Munachi]

Black slaves were quite different from indentured servants. An indentured servant could, at least in theory, ear freedom. If a white indentured servant could escape, they were just another white face in a sea of same. A black slave in Europe of the Americas was a black slave until proven otherwise. Clearly, you have not been to India. The "untouchables" and the "pariahs" were always darker than their masters, usually much darker. The lower castes worked and lived outside. The "brahmins" lived and worked inside and were lighter.

well i think actually the worst treatments of slaves and the connection of slavery and being black dates to the rise of plantation societies. afaik there were some black slaves in Europe before, and just as the white slaves they could earn freedom (there were laws about this, for example in spain, that any slave had to have the right to get free again, and that slaves couldn't be inherited), though i guess they still must have had a difficult life afterwards. the thing is that once the big plantations in the carribbean and other regions started, slaves were imported in huge numbers, and treated in a way, that the average slave didn't survive more than about 5 years, at the same time often only a few white people lived on a plantation with hundreds of slave, so surpression and punishments were very high in fear of uprisings... in that time, in trying to legitimize slavery, the whole story of slavery being a punishment for the descendents of ham (son of noah) came up, and similar things, and people would be born as slaves with no chance of ever getting free... from what i learned (no idea if it is true, just what some of my professors said) racism for the sake of racism in a lot of cases is quite new, before that discrimination often took place about other things, which often though correlated with ethnicity or race (like religion or other things)...

anyway this is all about the carribbean though, i don't know how similar the development of slavery in the US was, as i haven't studied much about that...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Neonlyte:
I do not know enough about the role and relationship of women within Muslim society, bearing in mind they make up a significant part of that society, to outright condemn all Muslims for their treatment of women. From my 'western' perspective, it looks, sounds and feels completely wrong, but we need more understanding of the mechanics of such societies before we leap to make blanket judgment calls. Changing such societies can only be achieved by argument and by leading through example. To argue, you need a fundamental understanding of the structure and organization of a society and of the ramifications change may bring, few commentators possess that knowledge. As for leading through example...

Recidiva:
This is a part of faith in theocratic societies.

These women would have to fight for their own freedom, against their own faith, and against their own history and homeland.

That is a lot to ask. Were she sitting next to me, I could ask her, but in another country, believing what she does, I'm not sure I'm doing her a favor by appearing to betray everything she was raised with.

This is not just an ethical issue, it's an issue of culture and faith. One I was raised to respect and try to understand. Many women in Islamic societies accept this role as their cultural duty and privilege.

I can't enforce my choices of freedom on someone else, she has to ask me to free her.

All very true. The issues are thorny, the solutions unclear. In the 1850s, plantation owners were probably able to produce slaves who professed to love their chains. A few of those poor souls may even have meant it. In 2006 many Moslem women profess to love their head scarves, veils and burkas.

We don't know how to end it. We don't want to trigger bloodshed. We must be humble about our ability to change other societies. We must be careful not to be hypocrites. But perhaps we can agree on where the starting point is:

"Bear witness against the injustice. Do not forbear to condemn it in unequivocal terms:

" 'It is wrong to enslave black people. It is immoral to defend and sustain this injustice in your society. You should stop it.'

" 'It is wrong to oppress women, to make them second-class citizens. It is immoral to defend and sustain this injustice in your society. You should stop it.' "

 

[Recidiva]

All very true. The issues are thorny, the solutions unclear. In the 1850s, plantation owners were probably able to produce slaves who professed to love their chains. A few of those poor souls may even have meant it. In 2006 many Moslem women profess to love their head scarves, veils and burkas.

We don't know how to end it. We don't want to trigger bloodshed. We must be humble about our ability to change other societies. We must be careful not to be hypocrites. But perhaps we can agree on where the starting point is:

"Bear witness against the injustice. Do not forbear to condemn it in unequivocal terms:

" 'It is wrong to enslave black people. It is immoral to defend and sustain this injustice in your society. You should stop it.'

" 'It is wrong to oppress women, to make them second-class citizens. It is immoral to defend and sustain this injustice in your society. You should stop it.' "

Yes, this is true. And the basis of slavery was founded in Africa, where tribes sold each other into slavery and it was a custom there. So even then, slavery was customary in the original culture where first-generation slaves were abducted.

The key words for me in the last two sentences are "your society"

My society is free to choose, to an extent that I have satisfaction that women have choices in the US. I can't have any influence on other societies if who I am and what I believe is anathema to them.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Yes, this is true. And the basis of slavery was founded in Africa, where tribes sold each other into slavery and it was a custom there. So even then, slavery was customary in the original culture where first-generation slaves were abducted.

The key words for me in the last two sentences are "your society"

My society is free to choose, to an extent that I have satisfaction that women have choices in the US. I can't have any influence on other societies if who I am and what I believe is anathema to them.

How do you know that who you are and what you believe is anathema to all the oppressed women in Islamic societies? It is certainly anathema to the oppressors, but is that a reason to stay silent?

 

[Recidiva]

How do you know that who you are and what you believe is anathema to all the oppressed women in Islamic societies? It is certainly anathema to the oppressors, but is that a reason to stay silent?

I'm not silent, and I'd certainly prefer freedom and choice. But that's because that's my chosen culture and my chosen life choice. I know what cost actual freedom takes on you, and you have to pay it yourself.

And I also realize that many muslim women do not feel oppressed. This is their tradition, their value, their life. This is their culture. I truly don't doubt the power of women to make changes where required internally. And they are making changes their way, where they can, and I'll listen and I'll help when I can.

But I can't brand an entire culture spanning thousands of years, as morally wrong. It's different. Right now it's a hot button for freedom versus tradition. But I've also been raised to value freedom and tradition, and they're not mutually exclusive.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

The idea that its alright to treat women as purely and essentially second class citizens on a massive and religiopolicital scale is one of the specific and presicely indicative reasons why I look at people who say "all beliefs are valid" or "you have to respect everyone's personal beliefs" or "nobody's right, everything is just subjective" as cold, foolish, immature ignorance.

Not all beliefs are created equal just because someone believes them. That kind of thinking robs us of any ground by which to effect social change for the better.

 

[Recidiva]

The idea that its alright to treat women as purely and essentially second class citizens on a massive and religiopolicital scale is one of the specific and presicely indicative reasons why I look at people who say "all beliefs are valid" or "you have to respect everyone's personal beliefs" or "nobody's right, everything is just subjective" as cold, foolish, immature ignorance.

Not all beliefs are created equal just because someone believes them. That kind of thinking robs us of any ground by which to effect social change for the better.

For a muslim woman, she chooses to follow the traditions of her culture. She is not purely and essentially a second class citizen, and as a matriarch, a muslim woman can carry a huge amount of power.

I'm not expecting everyone to claim all their beliefs are equal, but at least a modicum of understanding of how it works when it works right, instead of only understanding what goes wrong, would be a minimum requirement to discuss it.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

For a muslim woman, she chooses to follow the traditions of her culture. She is not purely and essentially a second class citizen, and as a matriarch, a muslim woman can carry a huge amount of power.

I don't think we're talking, specifically or generally, about the willing. And if we are, then I'm certainly not.

I'm not expecting everyone to claim all their beliefs are equal, but at least a modicum of understanding of how it works when it works right, instead of only understanding what goes wrong, would be a minimum requirement to discuss it.

Which is fine... but once that understanding is had? What further objections are there to deal with, regarding say... intentional human suffering, as premised by a belief it it's right-ness, unwanted by the sufferer, causing no discernable social, personal, physical, or developmental good?

Ah, see, that's the rub.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

And I also realize that many muslim women do not feel oppressed. This is their tradition, their value, their life. This is their culture. I truly don't doubt the power of women to make changes where required internally. And they are making changes their way, where they can, and I'll listen and I'll help when I can.

For a muslim woman, she chooses to follow the traditions of her culture. She is not purely and essentially a second class citizen, and as a matriarch, a muslim woman can carry a huge amount of power.

A Muslim woman does not choose to be an oppressed second class citizen. She may make the best of it, but she has no choice. Some will truly come to love their chains, but they too have no choice.

But I can't brand an entire culture spanning thousands of years, as morally wrong. It's different.

Sure you can. I'll do so right now: It is morally wrong to oppress women and make them second class citizens; you should stop doing it. It's not different. The fact that some slaves love their chains, that some are singing and dancing behind the slave quarters, does not change the fact that they are oppressed. I may not be able to change it in my lifetime, but I certainly will not sanction it. Why are you unwilling to join me? Why are you so sure that saying "It is wrong" can have no effect? It may be the most we can can do, but it's certainly the least we can do.

 

[Recidiva]

I understand and agree to a large extent with you both.

However, it's not really my choice to make. Any more than I can tell a tribe to stop scarification or stop religious rites I don't understand and don't practice.

It's not my choice to make. That's where I draw my line.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I understand and agree to a large extent with you both.

However, it's not really my choice to make. Any more than I can tell a tribe to stop scarification or stop religious rites I don't understand and don't practice.

It's not my choice to make. That's where I draw my line.

You are correct neither the oppressor's act of oppression nor the oppressed person's response is your choice to make. Whether you will condemn the oppression or remain mute is your choice. It may be that your choice to condemn it makes absolutely no difference now or in the future - but you can't know that.

Does not your silence give sanction to the oppressor? Does it not say to oppressed person, "You should accept it; you are alone."

 

[Recidiva]

You are correct neither the oppressor's act of oppression nor the oppressed person's response is your choice to make. Whether you will condemn the oppression or remain mute is your choice. It may be that your choice to condemn it makes absolutely no difference now or in the future - but you don't know that.

Does not your silence give sanction to the oppressor? Does it not say to oppressed person, "You should accept it; you are alone."

I'm condemned by those in that society for being Godless and immoral and any number of things that I feel fine being in their eyes.

I'm not silent, nor would I be silent in the face of oppression. But I also don't buy that an entire culture is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I'm condemned by those in that society for being Godless and immoral and any number of things that I feel fine being in their eyes.

I'm not silent, nor would I be silent in the face of oppression. But I also don't buy that an entire culture is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

You are certainly condemned by the oppressors. We actually know little about the feelings of Muslim women, because they don't have much voice. A handful speak out against the oppression, but only those who are on the outside. Those who are on the inside are not allowed to speak out. Therefore, the only ones we hear from are those who profess to love their chains. Stockholm Syndrome actually may be a good analogy. Given the fact of the oppression, why shouldn't we suspect something of the sort?

You say you are not silent, and would not be in the face of oppression, but you have not stated here unequivocaly that it is wrong for a society to defend and sustain the oppression of women and making them second class citizens. To me you are silent. Are you not silent to others?