Murder of Benazir Bhutto/ Treatment of women in Muslim culture

tech77

First off i'm no expert on Middle-Eastern politics and didn't know that much about this woman before her assassination.
But from what i've read she seems to have been a very courageous woman.

I also presume the fact that she was a (relatively) liberal, secular-minded and strong WOMAN (something anathema to your average islamic fundamentalist scumbag/headbanger) had no small part to play in her death.

So whether this was the case or not, could someone explain to me the basis for attitudes towards women in Muslim culture (more specifically the attitudes held by more fundamental Muslims).
Because no matter how hard i try to understand it i just can't.
And no matter how enlightened liberal westerners apologise for it and ascribe it to culture i just can't get my head around it.
I know this debate has probably been done to death before but still..

Anyway stuff like dressing a certain way, not being able to travel with males who aren't relatives (AFAIK), not being able to drive (AFAIK) etc etc.
Just sounds crazy frankly.

What's the psychological basis for all this- it can't be a sound one surely- culture notwithstanding.
Surely sound psychology/behaviour should trump everything when it comes to basic human relations.

Bard

This is already being discussed here on the Politics forum.

Tha Gopher

tech77 wrote: »

So whether this was the case or not, could someone explain to me the basis for attitudes towards women in Muslim culture (more specifically the attitudes held by more fundamental Muslims).

Anyway stuff like dressing a certain way, not being able to travel with males who aren't relatives (AFAIK), not being able to drive (AFAIK) etc etc.
Just sounds crazy frankly.

.

Its justified as a protection thing. Keeping women covered and therefore unattractive (alot of Mid Eastern women are actually quite fine), therefore less scumbaggy advances from men. Same reason they ban alcohol- when people drink they do things they regret.

But tbh you cant argue with the no women drivers rule Can you imagine a KFC Drive Thru in Pakistan? Nobody has to watch a woman infront pull up to the radio, then reverse, then forward up, then make her order, then pull up to the window and proceed to drop the money on the ground that she is handing to the cashier.

tech77

Tha Gopher wrote: »

Its justified as a protection thing. Keeping women covered and therefore unattractive (alot of Mid Eastern women are actually quite fine), therefore less scumbaggy advances from men. Same reason they ban alcohol- when people drink they do things they regret. But tbh you cant argue with the no women drivers rule Can you imagine a KFC Drive Thru in Pakistan? Nobody has to watch a woman infront pull up to the radio, then reverse, then forward up, then make her order, then pull up to the window and proceed to drop the money on the ground that she is handing to the cashier.

Ya know you're right, that woman driver thing might not be such a bad idea after all

No but seriously if the protection thing is indeed given as justification, psychologically speaking, that just makes it even scarier/more insane surely. Does that mean if a bit of flesh is shown, Muslim guys have greater difficulty controlling themselves/dealing with it (and an attitude prevails that such a woman would be partly to blame for what happens to her). If so that's crazy.

But apart from the strict dress-code thing it's still about denying the woman the choice to do it, whatever the consequences may be. So it's fairly patronising/patriarchal/ controlling either way. Again is that psychologically sound?

wes

tech77 wrote: »

First off i'm no expert on Middle-Eastern politics and didn't know that much about this woman before her assassination.
But from what i've read she seems to have been a very courageous woman.

Pakistan is in Asia, its part of the India sub continent, here is a couple of links:

Wikipedia Pakistan Page
CIA Fact book entry on Pakistan

tech77 wrote: »

Anyway stuff like dressing a certain way, not being able to travel with males who aren't relatives (AFAIK), not being able to drive (AFAIK) etc etc.
Just sounds crazy frankly.

Women can't drive in Saudi Arabia. In Pakistan they can. Womens rights aren't as good as they should be there, but there miles ahead of Saudi Arabia (which to be fair is not hard at all).

Pakistan is a very different place to Saudi Arabia, you seem to confusing there laws with Pakistan. I am not saying Pakistan is a great place, I am no fan myself, but you may want to read up on it a bit as its a unique place and very different from the Middle East.

tech77 wrote: »

What's the psychological basis for all this- it can't be a sound one surely- culture notwithstanding.
Surely sound psychology/behaviour should trump everything when it comes to basic human relations.

As for the reasons for the attack. Well that depends on who killed here. There are any number of groups who may have wanted her dead. In all likelihood it was Al Quada, but it easily be a number of other groups.

However, I am sure all the different group wanted the same thing power over Pakistan.

As for the psychology, well everyone wants power. Some people are more than willing to kill for it. Also, I am sure they see what they are doing as saving Pakistan in there own messed up pov.

Intothesea

Great question. I've often wondered why middle
eastern cultures are so far behind on these fronts (:))

On one hand, I think a vastly differing cultural coherence
is a difficult whole to subdivide. On the other,
an apt slogan for Irish proto-attitude might be 'bestowing
help in hope of help', for America, 'bestowing freedom in
hope of freedom'. For the blurred middle eastern region,
I look to their genesis: small nomadic tribes in inhospitable
desert. Strong inter-group competition for scarce resources
probably leading to fear/suspicion of the 'stranger',
the requirement for rigid self-control and domination over
the extraneous.

Transposing this outlook onto large-group living has the
potential to produce heavy-handed control on the
most vulnerable members of the society, I think. Their
slogan might be, 'controlling you in hope of staying in
control'. A strong inverse of our current outlook.

Sin mo 0.02

Ghost Train

their attitudes towards women... i think they believe (religiously )a womans place is in the home etc... to be honest you'll still get this attitude (water down a bit) closer to home... and then theres ireland a few decades a go, girls were sent to work in laundries

lostexpectation

she got her position from her father she was figurehead and seemingly involved in plenty of corrupting, as was going to become a puppet of the USA

wes

Intothesea wrote: »

Great question. I've often wondered why middle
eastern cultures are so far behind on these fronts (:))

Pakistan is not a Middle Eastern culture. There culture would be more accurately called Indo-Islamic, if it were to be called anything.

Now in recent decades (specifically under dictator Zia Ul Huq), Wahhabism and Deobandism elements have been introduced to Pakistan and have been causing trouble.

I think everyone needs to remember for all Pakistan's faults when it comes to Womens right, the people there did elect Bhutto twice as Prime Minister. So there is hope for Womens rights there.

Dub-Dub

eolhc wrote: »

and then theres ireland a few decades a go, girls were sent to work in laundries

A few decades ago ? Was there a horse in front of the laundries to get the girls to work ?

WindSock

lostexpectation wrote: »

she got her position from her father she was figurehead and seemingly involved in plenty of corrupting, as was going to become a puppet of the USA

She may hav been assassinated by the Afghani Taliban also, but apparently she supported them when she first got into power, but slated them after 9/11.
She also made a lot of promises to carry out equal status for Women, but none of this ever happened, either because she was full of crap, or not in power long enought to do so.

tech77

Pakistan is in Asia, its part of the India sub continent, here is a couple of links:

Wikipedia Pakistan Page
CIA Fact book entry on Pakistan

Fair enough, my bad.
I suppose my question relates more to Muslim culture and attitude (common to Pakistan and much of the Middle East-to varying degrees as you say, admittedly) rather than specific geography.

Women can't drive in Saudi Arabia. In Pakistan they can. Womens rights aren't as good as they should be there, but there miles ahead of Saudi Arabia (which to be fair is not hard at all).

Pakistan is a very different place to Saudi Arabia, you seem to confusing there laws with Pakistan. I am not saying Pakistan is a great place, I am no fan myself, but you may want to read up on it a bit as its a unique place and very different from the Middle East.

Again fair enough.
I accept that Pakistan is more "progressive" (God, why should i have to even put the word progressive in quotes here...) than Saudi Arabia.
But what i'm really talking about is Muslim culture generally (specifically the more fundamental and stricter strains but any strain really..) and its treatment of women.

As for the reasons for the attack. Well that depends on who killed here. There are any number of groups who may have wanted her dead. In all likelihood it was Al Quada, but it easily be a number of other groups.

However, I am sure all the different group wanted the same thing power over Pakistan.

As for the psychology, well everyone wants power. Some people are more than willing to kill for it. Also, I am sure they see what they are doing as saving Pakistan in there own messed up pov.

OK.
TBH her assassination may well have had no misogynistic overtones at all for all i know but i'm just saying my gut reaction after hearing it was how women in such cultures ARE treated questionably and i suppose that's what this thread was meant to be about more than anything else.

Tha Gopher

tech77 wrote: »

No but seriously if the protection thing is indeed given as justification, psychologically speaking, that just makes it even scarier/more insane surely. Does that mean if a bit of flesh is shown, Muslim guys have greater difficulty controlling themselves/dealing with it

Ive known a few women who have been in Turkey, North Africa and India/Pakistan, and because they didnt bother covering like natives got whistled and accosted everywhere they went. Not necessarily a thing of wanting what they seldom see (i.e. European women), know one girl of N African descent who got the same when she visited the parents homeland (neither she nor the parents are more Muslim by name/culture rather than going the mosque every Friday, and so she didnt bother covering up). If you were used to seeing nothing but women completely covered, a good looking girl with her hair looking good and a nice figure would probably be the equivalent to us of some cracker walking down your road completely naked.

Terry

tech77 wrote: »

What's the psychological basis for all this- it can't be a sound one surely- culture notwithstanding.
Surely sound psychology/behaviour should trump everything when it comes to basic human relations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive-compulsive_disorder

Obsessions are defined by:

1. Recurrent and persistent thoughts, impulses, or images that are experienced at some time during the disturbance, as intrusive and inappropriate and that cause marked anxiety or distress.
2. The thoughts, impulses, or images are not simply excessive worries about real-life problems.
3. The person attempts to ignore or suppress such thoughts, impulses, or images, or to neutralize them with some other thought or action.
4. The person recognizes that the obsessional thoughts, impulses, or images are a product of his or her own mind, and are not based in reality.

Compulsions are defined by:

1. Repetitive behaviors or mental acts that the person feels driven to perform in response to an obsession, or according to rules that must be applied rigidly.
2. The behaviors or mental acts are aimed at preventing or reducing distress or preventing some dreaded event or situation; however, these behaviors or mental acts either are not connected in a realistic way with what they are designed to neutralize or prevent or are clearly excessive.

Tha Gopher

But affecting the male mindset over an entire religion of over a billion people that doesnt actually have any one leader? (like a pope for example)

And yeah, Im with taking the burqa off As said a massive amount of mid eastern or mixed race arab-white girls are unreal looking.

Terry

Tha Gopher wrote: »

But affecting the male mindset over an entire religion of over a billion people that doesnt actually have any one leader? (like a pope for example)

And yeah, Im with taking the burqa off As said a massive amount of mid eastern or mixed race arab-white girls are unreal looking.

You don't see praying, attending mass, christenings etc as a form of OCD?

Think about religious rituals and then read up on OCD.
The similarities are remarable.

Tha Gopher

Terry wrote: »

You don't see praying, attending mass, christenings etc as a form of OCD?

Think about religious rituals and then read up on OCD.
The similarities are remarable.

hmm, maybe. While I certainly see your point, Im not at all religious. However I do find anti catholic church threads/posts on AH to be absoloutely retarded. The catholic church exists. Live with it. It has wielded no influence since around, at very best, and in the very darkest remotest depths of our countryside, the late 80s (and iin general society, not since the late 70s, if even that). People who go on a mad one about it should have been drowned at birth.

I like a good oul christening. You meet relatives you havent seen in a bit, chat about the old days and get absoloutely legless drunk. Unfortunately I havent been to one in my family in 2 odd years. Time to work that mickey, christenings are gas craic.....

Intothesea

Agreed, Pakistan is not part of the middle east,
but culturally is a hybrid of local and middle eastern
cultures via long-imported Islam (Mughal-era invasion
from Iran). Pakistan in 90-odd percent Muslim and
given the force exerted by this religion I think there
are bound to be some strong parallels in cultural
attitudes and thinking.

The question of 'what's wrong with their psychology'
can only be explored through the lens of their
culture IMO, as psychological processes and
culture have a reciprocal relationship.

tech77

Terry wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive-compulsive_disorder

Obsessions are defined by:

1. Recurrent and persistent thoughts, impulses, or images that are experienced at some time during the disturbance, as intrusive and inappropriate and that cause marked anxiety or distress.
2. The thoughts, impulses, or images are not simply excessive worries about real-life problems.
3. The person attempts to ignore or suppress such thoughts, impulses, or images, or to neutralize them with some other thought or action.
4. The person recognizes that the obsessional thoughts, impulses, or images are a product of his or her own mind, and are not based in reality.

Compulsions are defined by:

1. Repetitive behaviors or mental acts that the person feels driven to perform in response to an obsession, or according to rules that must be applied rigidly.
2. The behaviors or mental acts are aimed at preventing or reducing distress or preventing some dreaded event or situation; however, these behaviors or mental acts either are not connected in a realistic way with what they are designed to neutralize or prevent or are clearly excessive.

Hmmmm...
TBH obsessions are characterised by retention of insight and resistance to the irrational obsessional cognition. In other words the sufferer knows his obsession is totally irrational and tries their best not to give in to them which leads to anxiety.

Likewise compulsions (rituals if you will) are similarly characterised by this retention of insight and resistance by the sufferer not to perform the act.

(ie all the above is neurosis not psychosis).

A delusion, on the other hand, which is a fixed unfounded (false for all intents and purposes) belief not readily amenable to argument otherwise, is characterised by loss of insight and no real resistance/conflict in the mind of the sufferer.
(ie it is psychosis not neurosis).

This can lead to systematized delusions, folie a deux etc.
Unfortunately in psychiatry if a belief is culturally accepted enough though it exempts it from the criteria for delusional thinking.
Kinda crazy really.

Therefore if this is anything i would've thought the psychological basis for this stuff would be more delusional rather than obsessional.

Intothesea

Interesting article addressing many relevant points:
http://www.iranian.com/Opinion/2002/February/Mind/index.html

Quick quote:

We must understand the instigating forces that drive individuals to
become perpetrators of suicide bombing. These influences are divided into
four categorical segments: The psychological impact of family environment;
the moral efficacy of religion; hegemonic ideology; and a society of organized
violence. All of these forces are inculcated through women's oppression, the
agent whose nurturing power becomes dysfunctional.

gurramok

With attitudes like this young man in the last paragraph, the future ain't bright. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7163127.stm

"Islam does not allow women a political role. So I believe she was an apostate, not a Muslim, and I will not be remembering her in my prayers."

So its in their religion then that women are to be treated like dirt?

Dave!

You might get more accurate answers in the Islam forum, OP, instead of speculation about widespread OCD and guesses.

Terry

Tha Gopher wrote: »

hmm, maybe. While I certainly see your point, Im not at all religious. However I do find anti catholic church threads/posts on AH to be absoloutely retarded. The catholic church exists. Live with it. It has wielded no influence since around, at very best, and in the very darkest remotest depths of our countryside, the late 80s (and iin general society, not since the late 70s, if even that). People who go on a mad one about it should have been drowned at birth.

I like a good oul christening. You meet relatives you havent seen in a bit, chat about the old days and get absoloutely legless drunk. Unfortunately I havent been to one in my family in 2 odd years. Time to work that mickey, christenings are gas craic.....

I was just using catholic ceremonies as an analogy which would be understood by most people here.
However, the same can be applied to all major religions and scientology.

I completely agree with your point on Catholic church bashing though.

tech77 wrote: »

Hmmmm...
TBH obsessions are characterised by retention of insight and resistance to the irrational obsessional cognition. In other words the sufferer knows his obsession is totally irrational and tries their best not to give in to them which leads to anxiety.

Likewise compulsions (rituals if you will) are similarly characterised by this retention of insight and resistance by the sufferer not to perform the act.

(ie all the above is neurosis not psychosis).

A delusion, on the other hand, which is a fixed unfounded (false for all intents and purposes) belief not readily amenable to argument otherwise, is characterised by loss of insight and no real resistance/conflict in the mind of the sufferer.
(ie it is psychosis not neurosis).

This can lead to systematized delusions, folie a deux etc.
Unfortunately in psychiatry if a belief is culturally accepted enough though it exempts it from the criteria for delusional thinking.
Kinda crazy really.

Therefore if this is anything i would've thought the psychological basis for this stuff would be more delusional rather than obsessional.

Can we agree to disagree on this, insofar as it may be a bit of both?
I've suffered with OCD from an early age (although I can control it now) and I see the signs in so many religious people.

Not many would openly admit it, (partially due to the fact that, in some aspects, mental illness is still looked upon as something to be ashamed of) but I believe that quite a lot of people who attend mass on a weekly basis do so because they fear something bad will happen if they do not go.
Similarly, look at people blessing themselves when they pass by a church or graveyard.

gurramok wrote: »

With attitudes like this young man in the last paragraph, the future ain't bright. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7163127.stm

"Islam does not allow women a political role. So I believe she was an apostate, not a Muslim, and I will not be remembering her in my prayers."

So its in their religion then that women are to be treated like dirt?

Pretty much the same as all of the Abrahamic religions to one extent or another.
Women and men are given seperate roles in each of them.

tech77

DaveMcG wrote: »

You might get more accurate answers in the Islam forum, OP, instead of speculation about widespread OCD and guesses.

Eh Terry mentioned OCD.. I just said it didn't strike me that much as being like OCD.
If the mods want to move that's fine.

SubjectSean

Terry wrote: »

Women and men are given seperate roles in each of them.

That's right where as nowadays us enligtened Western individuals consider man and women to be ostensibly the same. Next time you hear somebody breaking into your house at night put this sentiment to work and send the women down to investigate

lostexpectation

yeah just like condi rice a heroo to women and black people everywhere NOT!!!!!

Terry

DaveMcG wrote: »

You might get more accurate answers in the Islam forum, OP, instead of speculation about widespread OCD and guesses.

It was me who mentioned OCD, but I was applying it ot all major religions.
Throw in a bit of dementia and that wraps it up as far as I'm concerned.

Karlusss

Indian cultures are very sort of matriarchal traditionally. This is why Benazir Bhutto was so high up in Pakistan, why there have been so many female heads of state in India relative to other countries around.

So keeping moderate Islamic principles isn't necessarily sexist there, it's just religious deference.

Can't spell fundamentalist without mentalist though.

Victor

WindSock wrote: »

She may hav been assassinated by the Afghani Taliban also, but apparently she supported them when she first got into power, but slated them after 9/11.

Pakistan's policy has been for a long time to deal with whoever is in power in Afghanistan, although they weren't exactly enthusiasic about it when the Soviets were there.

Miss Fluff

Karlusss wrote: »

Indian cultures are very sort of matriarchal traditionally. This is why Benazir Bhutto was so high up in Pakistan, why there have been so many female heads of state in India relative to other countries around.

You do know India and Pakistan are separate countries right??

Jigsaw

They're all bloody headers and there is nothing we can do to change it. We should concentrate upon that which we can change.