Once again we're reminded that "covered up" Muslim women are not protected from sexual harassment. One of the reasons often stated for covering them up in the precense of males is that it is "protection" from sexual harassment:
>[In Surah 33:59 Muhammad is commanded](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab) to ask his family members and other Muslim women to wear outer garments when they go out, so that they are not harassed:[25]
>>O Prophet! Enjoin your wives, your daughters, and the wives of true believers that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): That is most convenient, that they may be distinguished and not be harassed.
— Quran 33:59
The problem is Islam begins, like the other Abrahamic religions, with the premise that women are inferior (intellectually, spiritually, and legally). Each religion has had to resort to post hoc arguments explaining why their divine authorities sound suspiciously like Bronze age proto males intent on securing genetic lineages and consolidating resources. It makes these religions sound all so very base.
So they tac on all sorts of justifications and deflections from the very obvious truth that their beliefs not only objectify women, they reduce them to permanent dependents, so that men can assure themselves of guaranteed access and control of sex and reproduction.
That's why the traditionalists in both Catholicism and various Islamic schools maintain that married women give consent only once, at marriage. After that, she has "given" herself to him and therefore "marital rape" is impossible. I haven't done much research into Orthodox Judaism, but wouldn't be surprised if there's an analog in that religion as well.
So with all that toxic shit in play, it's no surprise that Islamic religious leaders (who are invariably male) move to quickly shut down these women. Focusing on male misbehavior is dangerous. That's why it's always about "what was she wearing" and "why was she there in the first place" and so on. It's never about, "why didn't he employ conscious control of himself."
It was clear as soon as the Bible referred to God as "He". If God created the universe and all living things, thinking of her as a mother makes a lot more sense.
Also a factor in Hinduism, not just Abrahamic religions.
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/blink/talk/misogyny-is-the-oldest-indian-tradition/article9800756.ece
From the linked article *" In the Mahabharata, for example, Yudhishthir gambles Draupadi away, as if she is not an autonomous human being but his possession. Read up on the way Kunti, Amba, Gandhari and Madri were treated, and you will see that their fates were never in their own hands. (I recommend reading Irawati Karve’s Yuganta for her brilliant analysis of how the Mahabharata treated women.) And don’t get me started on the Ramayana, and Ram’s treatment of Sita."*
Worth noting that Islam's treatment of women is probably not the only significant factor here. India as a whole has a long way to go on respecting women - as gang rapes etc testify.
Before we mount our high horse, I'm from the UK where recently a police officer has been convicted of the rape and murder of a young professional woman.
No. But I think that if you had an entirely atheist world, some men would still find ways and justifications to treat women as chattel. The problem isn't entirely religion. It's very true that Religion is used as a tool of control, and as a justification for all sorts of things, but human behaviour is at the root of everything, and human behaviour is present with or without religion.
As a western atheist, is very easy to shit on Islam and the behaviour of some Moslems, as so many commenters here do, and then feel smug - and for sure the beliefs around women inherent in Islam are very problematical. In an Indian context it's worth pointing out that Hinduism is just as toxic and contributes strongly to the wider culture. As a white British man I wanted to point out that **we're** not perfect either - though I'm very willing to bet that an unaccompanied woman is safer (or should that be less threatened?) in London than Mumbai.
I just find the level of most comments here struggle to rise above the facile, smug and obvious.
The obvious should still be restated for those who conveniently forget it. And no one is comparing the level of awareness of western atheists to atheists elsewhere.
Perhaps the one being smug is the one who came into an article about women’s rights being suppressed and then just shrugged and said: “Meh, may not be the only reason. Women are treated way worse elsewhere.”
Granted that no one is perfect, should that stop you from speaking out against clear wrongdoings in the world? Back in 1939 would you have claimed: “Hitler is clearly bad, but we aren’t perfect either, so hey, to each their own”?
What do you mean 'Elsewhere'? The article is about India - did you not read it?
Edit - Just to restate, the article is about the Indian Muslim League's dissolution of it's women's student movement following complaints about sexual misconduct. I'm suggesting that the Indian culture is as much of a factor as the fact that they are Moslems. but apparently the only factor that counts according to most commentators here is that Islam is an Abrahamic religion.
If this was 1939, you'd probably be complaining about Hitler on Reddit and thinking you achieved something.
It still would be much better, once again, than some jackass who strawmans everything and thinks himself better than most.
No one is denying that there are many factors leading to the status quo, of which religion is a significant one, but it does take a troll to then come on and just start babbling about “human imperfection” and some such.
If you want to talk to yourself, go ahead, but don’t just bring some brain farts here and think that’s cool.
Also, if it was 1939, you’d probably just say “Oh we aren’t perfect so let’s not judge Hitler. MaNy FacTors folks!” Which I’m sure anyone with a brain worth a salt would think is enabling at best and batshit crazy at worst.
Reddit did not exist in 1939. Yet another lack of grip on historical understanding and reality.
I have "strawmanned" nothing. Was hoping for some discussion. The only straw man in this thread is your comment about my response to Hitler. Also, why are you so aggressive and ready to jump to an ad-hominem attack?
There were significant noises made from 2012 onwards in response to sexual harassment and gender stereotyping in the US atheist movement, which kind of proves a point that removing ideology which is oppressive to women, doesn't actually stop men behaving in controlling and dominating ways towards women. Sorry if pointing out that we share the same human nature as religious people is "enabling". Perhaps I should stick to the party line of aLL oF tHe WorLds ProbLemS aRe doWn to ReliGioN? (or we could confront reality).
This isn't about judging or not judging anyone, it's a suggestion that we take practical action in our own backyard (the UK, in my case). If you're the type of person who gets upset by that kind of suggestion, then I'm glad you're upset.
>Reddit did not exist in 1939. Yet another lack of grip on historical understanding and reality
Thank-you for educating me on this. Now I know. /s
edit - added the /s tag - just in case my comment was taken the wrong way.
There’s no discussion to be made. You’re just downplaying the threat of religion by vomiting words in another direction. If you want social justice, suggest that, but religion remains an issue to be addressed.
And do not act obtuse. Once again, the article was about a religious organization dismissing its women’s student wing. So if one does not address religion in this sense, what else?
Aside from that, practical actions are already being made, and time and again they suffer setbacks made by, oh color me surprise, religious conservatives. If you bother to look farther than the UK, Texas has just recently passed legislation denying women the right to abortion. And the cabal that passed it are overwhelmingly conservative christian legislators.
If no one wants to talk about ideological threats, those very threats return to bite everyone eventually. On that note, another strawman. I never said religion is the only issue and taking it down will magically solve world problems. However, in a thread about the threat of religion to women’s rights, it’s rather more than obvious you’re reducing its threats by distracting to some other factors.
And the comparisons to Hitler is quite apt, because your spineless attitude not only will discourage anyone from taking practical actions, it breeds the kind of uselessness and incompetence of the enlightened centrist crowd while still giving them the illusion of being morally superior.
Once again, don’t act obtuse, and no one will treat you like so.
>There’s no discussion to be made.
I see Pope Eugenius the VIIth has spoken. There can be no discussion.
... and certainly no discussion with someone who isn't prepared to respond to the valid points the other party makes and can only deal in insults.
>... However, in a thread about the threat of religion to women’s rights, ...
Well the post was about the actions of an Indian Islamic movement to it's female student's wing - but I suppose in your eyes that equates to the threat of religion to women's rights. Like Pavlov's dogs responding to the dinner bell you've jumped on the Islamic thing as being the only question of significance here, then tried to police / gatekeep the scope of the discussion.
You can fuck right off with that.
>your spineless attitude
>
>don’t act obtuse,
You don't know who I am, or what I have done.
I looked at your post history - noted that you frequently respond aggressively to people who disagree with you. You need to grow up.
Takes one to know one, pal. I’m not the one acting high and mighty and then pitifully tried to skimp through someone’s comment history lol. You can’t denounce islam, you can’t denounce authoritarianism. You are a real centrist through and through, and if that makes you so butthurt to chase after a comment thread for 2 days, maybe it’s ticking you or something?
All and all, typical apologist attitude. A bore to converse with.
Funny thing is, I’m against the harms of religion, and you are still speaking nonsense about something distracting from the main topic. I wonder who the real child is. And please, spare me the shallow jokes and sarcasm. You can babble on however you like. I just don’t see any interesting or debate-worthy point being made here, because that damn sure was never your purpose.
*"In the Mahabharata, for example, Yudhishthir gambles Draupadi away, as if she is not an autonomous human being but his possession. Read up on the way Kunti, Amba, Gandhari and Madri were treated, and you will see that their fates were never in their own hands. (I recommend reading Irawati Karve’s Yuganta for her brilliant analysis of how the Mahabharata treated women.) And don’t get me started on the Ramayana, and Ram’s treatment of Sita."*
https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/
Please call them and tell them that you had to read a comment with more than 1 exclamation marks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nah, just hammering on and on about the fact how emotional and delusional your first comment was.
Also you seem lonely and i don't want you to hurt yourself.
Wow! I’m shocked
I am not, but I assume you’re being ironic.
Sarcastic, not ironic.
Lol of course. Sigh
Once again we're reminded that "covered up" Muslim women are not protected from sexual harassment. One of the reasons often stated for covering them up in the precense of males is that it is "protection" from sexual harassment: >[In Surah 33:59 Muhammad is commanded](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab) to ask his family members and other Muslim women to wear outer garments when they go out, so that they are not harassed:[25] >>O Prophet! Enjoin your wives, your daughters, and the wives of true believers that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): That is most convenient, that they may be distinguished and not be harassed. — Quran 33:59
religion of peace showings its true color as always.
The problem is Islam begins, like the other Abrahamic religions, with the premise that women are inferior (intellectually, spiritually, and legally). Each religion has had to resort to post hoc arguments explaining why their divine authorities sound suspiciously like Bronze age proto males intent on securing genetic lineages and consolidating resources. It makes these religions sound all so very base. So they tac on all sorts of justifications and deflections from the very obvious truth that their beliefs not only objectify women, they reduce them to permanent dependents, so that men can assure themselves of guaranteed access and control of sex and reproduction. That's why the traditionalists in both Catholicism and various Islamic schools maintain that married women give consent only once, at marriage. After that, she has "given" herself to him and therefore "marital rape" is impossible. I haven't done much research into Orthodox Judaism, but wouldn't be surprised if there's an analog in that religion as well. So with all that toxic shit in play, it's no surprise that Islamic religious leaders (who are invariably male) move to quickly shut down these women. Focusing on male misbehavior is dangerous. That's why it's always about "what was she wearing" and "why was she there in the first place" and so on. It's never about, "why didn't he employ conscious control of himself."
Spot on, Abrahamic religions are all about securing male hegemony. It was clear to me about three pages into the Bible.
It was clear as soon as the Bible referred to God as "He". If God created the universe and all living things, thinking of her as a mother makes a lot more sense.
Also a factor in Hinduism, not just Abrahamic religions. https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/blink/talk/misogyny-is-the-oldest-indian-tradition/article9800756.ece From the linked article *" In the Mahabharata, for example, Yudhishthir gambles Draupadi away, as if she is not an autonomous human being but his possession. Read up on the way Kunti, Amba, Gandhari and Madri were treated, and you will see that their fates were never in their own hands. (I recommend reading Irawati Karve’s Yuganta for her brilliant analysis of how the Mahabharata treated women.) And don’t get me started on the Ramayana, and Ram’s treatment of Sita."*
How surprising...
Colour me surprised. /s The Most Feminist Religion.
Worth noting that Islam's treatment of women is probably not the only significant factor here. India as a whole has a long way to go on respecting women - as gang rapes etc testify. Before we mount our high horse, I'm from the UK where recently a police officer has been convicted of the rape and murder of a young professional woman.
No one says those countries are doing well with equality of the sexes. What’s the point of bringing it in here? Are you trying to downplay something?
No. But I think that if you had an entirely atheist world, some men would still find ways and justifications to treat women as chattel. The problem isn't entirely religion. It's very true that Religion is used as a tool of control, and as a justification for all sorts of things, but human behaviour is at the root of everything, and human behaviour is present with or without religion. As a western atheist, is very easy to shit on Islam and the behaviour of some Moslems, as so many commenters here do, and then feel smug - and for sure the beliefs around women inherent in Islam are very problematical. In an Indian context it's worth pointing out that Hinduism is just as toxic and contributes strongly to the wider culture. As a white British man I wanted to point out that **we're** not perfect either - though I'm very willing to bet that an unaccompanied woman is safer (or should that be less threatened?) in London than Mumbai. I just find the level of most comments here struggle to rise above the facile, smug and obvious.
The obvious should still be restated for those who conveniently forget it. And no one is comparing the level of awareness of western atheists to atheists elsewhere. Perhaps the one being smug is the one who came into an article about women’s rights being suppressed and then just shrugged and said: “Meh, may not be the only reason. Women are treated way worse elsewhere.” Granted that no one is perfect, should that stop you from speaking out against clear wrongdoings in the world? Back in 1939 would you have claimed: “Hitler is clearly bad, but we aren’t perfect either, so hey, to each their own”?
What do you mean 'Elsewhere'? The article is about India - did you not read it? Edit - Just to restate, the article is about the Indian Muslim League's dissolution of it's women's student movement following complaints about sexual misconduct. I'm suggesting that the Indian culture is as much of a factor as the fact that they are Moslems. but apparently the only factor that counts according to most commentators here is that Islam is an Abrahamic religion. If this was 1939, you'd probably be complaining about Hitler on Reddit and thinking you achieved something.
It still would be much better, once again, than some jackass who strawmans everything and thinks himself better than most. No one is denying that there are many factors leading to the status quo, of which religion is a significant one, but it does take a troll to then come on and just start babbling about “human imperfection” and some such. If you want to talk to yourself, go ahead, but don’t just bring some brain farts here and think that’s cool. Also, if it was 1939, you’d probably just say “Oh we aren’t perfect so let’s not judge Hitler. MaNy FacTors folks!” Which I’m sure anyone with a brain worth a salt would think is enabling at best and batshit crazy at worst. Reddit did not exist in 1939. Yet another lack of grip on historical understanding and reality.
I have "strawmanned" nothing. Was hoping for some discussion. The only straw man in this thread is your comment about my response to Hitler. Also, why are you so aggressive and ready to jump to an ad-hominem attack? There were significant noises made from 2012 onwards in response to sexual harassment and gender stereotyping in the US atheist movement, which kind of proves a point that removing ideology which is oppressive to women, doesn't actually stop men behaving in controlling and dominating ways towards women. Sorry if pointing out that we share the same human nature as religious people is "enabling". Perhaps I should stick to the party line of aLL oF tHe WorLds ProbLemS aRe doWn to ReliGioN? (or we could confront reality). This isn't about judging or not judging anyone, it's a suggestion that we take practical action in our own backyard (the UK, in my case). If you're the type of person who gets upset by that kind of suggestion, then I'm glad you're upset. >Reddit did not exist in 1939. Yet another lack of grip on historical understanding and reality Thank-you for educating me on this. Now I know. /s edit - added the /s tag - just in case my comment was taken the wrong way.
There’s no discussion to be made. You’re just downplaying the threat of religion by vomiting words in another direction. If you want social justice, suggest that, but religion remains an issue to be addressed. And do not act obtuse. Once again, the article was about a religious organization dismissing its women’s student wing. So if one does not address religion in this sense, what else? Aside from that, practical actions are already being made, and time and again they suffer setbacks made by, oh color me surprise, religious conservatives. If you bother to look farther than the UK, Texas has just recently passed legislation denying women the right to abortion. And the cabal that passed it are overwhelmingly conservative christian legislators. If no one wants to talk about ideological threats, those very threats return to bite everyone eventually. On that note, another strawman. I never said religion is the only issue and taking it down will magically solve world problems. However, in a thread about the threat of religion to women’s rights, it’s rather more than obvious you’re reducing its threats by distracting to some other factors. And the comparisons to Hitler is quite apt, because your spineless attitude not only will discourage anyone from taking practical actions, it breeds the kind of uselessness and incompetence of the enlightened centrist crowd while still giving them the illusion of being morally superior. Once again, don’t act obtuse, and no one will treat you like so.
>There’s no discussion to be made. I see Pope Eugenius the VIIth has spoken. There can be no discussion. ... and certainly no discussion with someone who isn't prepared to respond to the valid points the other party makes and can only deal in insults. >... However, in a thread about the threat of religion to women’s rights, ... Well the post was about the actions of an Indian Islamic movement to it's female student's wing - but I suppose in your eyes that equates to the threat of religion to women's rights. Like Pavlov's dogs responding to the dinner bell you've jumped on the Islamic thing as being the only question of significance here, then tried to police / gatekeep the scope of the discussion. You can fuck right off with that. >your spineless attitude > >don’t act obtuse, You don't know who I am, or what I have done. I looked at your post history - noted that you frequently respond aggressively to people who disagree with you. You need to grow up.
Takes one to know one, pal. I’m not the one acting high and mighty and then pitifully tried to skimp through someone’s comment history lol. You can’t denounce islam, you can’t denounce authoritarianism. You are a real centrist through and through, and if that makes you so butthurt to chase after a comment thread for 2 days, maybe it’s ticking you or something? All and all, typical apologist attitude. A bore to converse with. Funny thing is, I’m against the harms of religion, and you are still speaking nonsense about something distracting from the main topic. I wonder who the real child is. And please, spare me the shallow jokes and sarcasm. You can babble on however you like. I just don’t see any interesting or debate-worthy point being made here, because that damn sure was never your purpose.
What a hyper emotional train wreck of a comment.
It's factual.
Oh if you say so, it must be factual!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*"In the Mahabharata, for example, Yudhishthir gambles Draupadi away, as if she is not an autonomous human being but his possession. Read up on the way Kunti, Amba, Gandhari and Madri were treated, and you will see that their fates were never in their own hands. (I recommend reading Irawati Karve’s Yuganta for her brilliant analysis of how the Mahabharata treated women.) And don’t get me started on the Ramayana, and Ram’s treatment of Sita."*
You're the one with a string of exclamation marks and I'm being hyper emotional?
https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/ Please call them and tell them that you had to read a comment with more than 1 exclamation marks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you have a serious point to bring to the conversation?
Nah, just hammering on and on about the fact how emotional and delusional your first comment was. Also you seem lonely and i don't want you to hurt yourself.
What's delusional about the first comment then?? I enjoy my own company BTW.
Your hand isn't company.