[~~~]

I was reading this article today -
http://www.dailylife.com.au/life-and-love/...1129-2ai19.html

and it was really interesting to read this perspective. I have never understood, well, most religions, and particularly the differences in dressing for men and women (other than practical reasons).

Would love to hear people's thoughts about this Muslim woman's words...... And if you are Muslim yourself, have you ever felt like she does?

Thanks

[katpaws]

It's easier to make women responsible for the crimes of men than for men to seek their own solutions to the male propensity towards violence, abuse and gratification of sexual needs. I think one "smart" idea by men was to create religions that were (are) patriarchal organisations where women could be subjugated in a legal and socially accepted way.

DH showed me a picture (ding the rounds of FaceBook atm) of a female university student holding up a sign saying something similar to: I go to a university that teaches me how to avoid getting raped but doesn't teach people not to rape. That pretty much sums it up for me.

ETA i know a lot of Muslim women are ok with the veils etc but i am commenting in general on all religions, not specifically theirs.

This post has been edited by katpaws: 03/12/2012, 02:06 PM

[~~~]

katpaws, you raise interesting points about patriarchal society.

Years and years ago I saw this amazing documentary about the history of civilisation /society and how things changed from matriarchal to patriarchal at some point. Wish I could remember more about it.

[Femogan Boop!]

I was reading this article today -
http://www.dailylife.com.au/life-and-love/...1129-2ai19.html

and it was really interesting to read this perspective. I have never understood, well, most religions, and particularly the differences in dressing for men and women (other than practical reasons).

Would love to hear people's thoughts about this Muslim woman's words...... And if you are Muslim yourself, have you ever felt like she does?

Thanks

What the writer is saying is the men have power and so their perspective is the only one that's important. Men define who is a temptation and to men, a woman is a temptation.

As katpaws said, the way to remove the tempation is not to exhibit self control. He doesn't have to do a thing to control himself. She is the problem.

So while a gorgeous man is a tempation for women, he doesn't need to be covered up because women have no power. A woman is powerless so she must control her own temptation. She can't expect a man to do anything to change to accommodate her.

Suggesting women are jewels who need to be protected is just a pretty way of saying she is a pretty object and nothing more. It's prettily worded oppression.

[Saecularis Angel...]

Years ago I was at an interfaith forum where I heard of an Islamic group - somewhere in Africa, I think - where the traditional take on modesty had been turned around and it was the men who covered and stayed indoors and the women who were out and about unveiled. What was interesting to me wasn't so much that story, as the responses of the people in the room with me to it; the Muslims seemed to feel that this was some sort of betrayal of Islam, an aberration or departure from what should be and they took it quite personally.

That says something to me about how our experiences of the divine get caught up in and conditioned by our culture, our history, our psychology.

I also find it interesting that in the article she doesn't make connections between her experiences and feelings and her faith. Does she feel guilty for feeling rebellious about part of her religion? Does she identify the freedom to express her feelings with the mercy and love of Allah? I feel that the piece is incomplete without looking at that side of the question, but perhaps that's a stretch too far for an article like this?

[kpingitquiet]

I read a huge story, once (I wish I could remember where...Slate maybe?) where an elderly Muslim woman (not middle-eastern, further into Africa) described life in her city when she was young. They did not do full body covering, at that point, in her neighborhood/community, but they started having horrible incidents of teen boys being kidnapped for wars and hard labor and so they adopted the full body covering to conceal which children were boys and which were girls. Of course, then the paramilitaries began taking anyone they saw because boys would be soldiers/workers and girls would be raped. The story went on from there into a huge twisting domino fall of how they went from a modest-but-not-veiled community all the way to a veiled-female free-male community, when and where a religious precept became involved. It was really quite frightening to see the development in her particular community.

[~~~]

I think I'm just depressed now I wonder if the gender scales will ever get near to balanced or even swing back towards matriarchy.......

[Pooks*potters]

While I recognize that this is the author's truth, the covered women I know have chosen to be covered as an expression of modesty and of their faith, and/or due to cultural norms. So I think there is a huge spectrum of experiences when it comes to covering, including to what extent you are covered and what pressure exists to be covered, and I just caution the extension of this woman's experience to that of most covered women in Australia.

[redkris]

I wonder if the gender scales will ever get near to balanced or even swing back towards matriarchy.......

I don't think there has ever been a true matriarchal society. Equality would be nice though. I actually have no issue with dressing a particular way for religious reasons when both sexes have to do it. There was recently a show on SBS about the Amish, and the men have just as many rules about what they can and can't wear as the women do (ie must have facial hair, shirts only have 2 buttons and are closed the rest of the way to prevent "temptation", no belts as they are adornment, no jewellery, plain fabrics)

[FluffyOscar]

Yeah, when you strip it all back OP, that's the question, isn't it?