Middle eastern and Islamic attitudes to women

Donald Trump

Limerick prostitution sting operation

suicide_circus

A Little Pony wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs_H4jzbWFU

You have to laugh at the crowd reaction.

Also agree on Emma Barnett, I'd love a night with her. :angel:

I wonder why we don't see loads of western feminists moving to the middle east and north africa to partake in the feminist utopia?

skylight1987

As a woman who has grown up in the west ,my friends and I often joke that we would be killed stone dead if we were in any muslim country because we were raised to speak or minds and have confidence as women, while also never being cheap or slutty and always maintaining our dignity but the sad reality is there seems to be no protection for any woman in a muslim country if your out spoken your killed and dignity and covering up don't prevent rape

511

Samaris wrote: »

How..why..what?

How do you even beat someone with a toothbrush? "That's a toothbrush. Am I to take it from your poking me that you want a divorce?"

??


Just to comment on that, by the same regard Joseph was a paedophile, since Mary is traditionally held to be a young teenager. And I dread you finding out that thirteen or fourteen was a common age for girls to be married off throughout our history. Upper class girls could be married off even sooner for alliances or property. I'm afraid a good portion of your male ancestors were paedophiles or at the least hebephiles if that makes you feel better.

Why did you describe Joesph as a paedophile when you know the meaning of hebephilia? Hebephilia is the attraction of kids going through puberty, whereas paedophila is prepubescent.

Muhammad married a 6 year old and tried to consummate the marriage but couldn't until she had her first period, which was when she turned 9 years old. That's a very different situation from Joseph and Joseph isn't billed as the Christian who leads by example; unlike Muhammad, who is bulled as the perfect Muslim that every Muslim should aspire to, hence the reason why child marriage is a problem with Muslims.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

In some countries women are treated like shít. It's not right at all, however, they need to figure that out themselves.

Keep in mind, some women in these countries don't want the changes we wish for them.

Mutant z

Why arnt radical feminists like Una Mullahy outraged about the brutal treatment of women in the islamic world, apparently only white men can be sexists.

na1

Did you read my quotation?

 six months in prison and 90 lashes each for "being alone with a man who is not a relative" in a parked car.

Ipso

Mutant z wrote: »

Why arnt radical feminists like Una Mullahy outraged about the brutal treatment of women in the islamic world, apparently only white men can be sexists.

They have to stay and fight the good fight.

na1

My point is making man a criminal for paying woman money - is same type of nonsence as making a woman criminal for being along with man. And yes both laws have the same religious background

Ipso

na1 wrote: »

My point is making man a criminal for paying woman money - is same type of nonsence as making a woman criminal for being along with man. And yes both laws have the same religious background

And the resulting punishment?

na1

Ipso wrote: »

na1 wrote: »

What is the difference, between:

And:
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/men-caught-in-prostitution-sting-by-undercover-gardai-enter-guilty-pleas-26799519.html

Maybe you could conduct an experiment, go to Saudi Arabia and get into a situation like that woman.
Now, did you ask that question because you really are trying to defend this or because you can't side with people in an argument that you normally disagree with?

What kind of situation? Stay together in a car with some unknown man???
If the Irishman stays together with some girl in a car -  he will be handcuffed as soon as he hands out the money!
The main difference is the money!
In Sharia law it doesn't matter if the money was offered, you are a criminal, spending time with a prostitute - is a criminal offence for both.
In Irish law it is only after you verbally offer the money to the woman -  you are a criminal.

Samaris

511 wrote: »

Why did you describe Joesph as a paedophile when you know the meaning of hebephilia? Hebephilia is the attraction of kids going through puberty, whereas paedophila is prepubescent.

Muhammad married a 6 year old and tried to consummate the marriage but couldn't until she had her first period, which was when she turned 9 years old. That's a very different situation from Joseph and Joseph isn't billed as the Christian who leads by example; unlike Muhammad, who is bulled as the perfect Muslim that every Muslim should aspire to, hence the reason why child marriage is a problem with Muslims.

Oh, I have no problem with condemning it in the modern world and I accept that he's held up as an ideal. It just find the argument "a man who lived 1400 years ago took a child bride" as a condemnation a bit ridiculous. Yeah, that happened back then. There is no point in condemning a historical figure for something that was not exceptional at the time. Condemn it now and there's plenty of it to condemn, but phrasing it as the whole "the prophet was a paedophile" thing is pretty petty.

Also, that bit was remembering hebephile, continuing to the end and then forgetting to edit. Although hebephilia is not exactly ranked much better than paedophilia and tends to be treated the same way in terms of criminality.

..autocorrect wants to change hebephile to bibliophile, which really changes the meaning of that sentence.

na1

Your comparison is beneath contempt.

Of course!
In Irish laws even the INTENTION is punished. In Sharia law, you need at leas some witnesses who can confirm the fact of man and woman staying together in a closed space.

na1

Ipso wrote: »

na1 wrote: »

Shambolic Affair;104488162

My point is making man a criminal for paying woman money - is same type of nonsence as making a woman criminal for being along with man. And yes both laws have the same religious background

And the resulting punishment?

What about punishment? Each country have right to set up they own punishments proportional to the crime.
Do you think that 3 month in prison for each murder is enough punishment for Breivik?

Ipso

You're turd polishing.

na1

Ipso wrote: »

You're turd polishing.

Lets talk about this next time when some scumbag rape/rob/kick the sh*t out of you,  get 2 years suspended sentence  (in addition to his 50 convictions)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2718712/Beggar-jailed-just-two-years-stabbing-Good-Samaritan-eye-blinding-offered-buy-food-refused-cash.html

9or10

Saw this, this morning - bit surprised its still going

Widdershins

Lizbeth Deep Stepchildren wrote: »

That show while well produced, did receive very mixed reviews and they also refused to roll broadcast date back after the recent Spanish tragedy.

C4 also ran a news special on 'hate speech' on the day the news about the Newcastle gang was featuring as the lead story almost everywhere else.

OP's Morocco story, and Morocco itself seems to be fairly messed up country these days, it was only last week a group of circa 15 boys were treated for suspected rabies after 'intimate relations' with a donkey took place.

I'm not sure what you mean by well produced. The plot would be farcical if it wasn't so shockingly misleading and untruthful.
C4 nothing more than a pro-Islamic propaganda machine now from the sound of things.

na1

na1 wrote: »

What kind of situation? Stay together in a car with some unknown man???
If the Irishman stays together with some girl in a car - he will be handcuffed as soon as he hands out the money!
The main difference is the money!
In Sharia law it doesn't matter if the money was offered, you are a criminal, spending time with a prostitute - is a criminal offence for both.
In Irish law it is only after you verbally offer the money to the woman - you are a criminal.

Are you actually daring to compare a rape victim to a prostitute?

That's a whole new level of low!

Zebra3

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

+1

Every religion should be just abolished from the state in the public eye at least. If people want go Mass or a Mosque that's ok but nothing that taxpayer/state pay for.

Women not being included in Catholic Church is medevial stuff is this day and age. Sadly women are still 2nd class citizens in many areas though, including here in certain things and that needs to change.

Need an end to state subsidies too.

300€ is the recommended donation to the Roman church when a couple gets married. "Donation" not "fee". Tax-free money for the paedos. Think it's 50€ for a baby naming thing.

One of the wealthiest, criminal organisations getting a tax dodge from the Irish state.

Disgusting.

Grayson

Matteo Old Topcoat wrote: »

In some countries women are treated like shít. It's not right at all, however, they need to figure that out themselves.

Keep in mind, some women in these countries don't want the changes we wish for them.

That's he crazy thing. Quite often it's women who want things like FGM for their kids.

jackofalltrades

Samaris wrote: »

Oh, I have no problem with condemning it in the modern world and I accept that he's held up as an ideal. It just find the argument "a man who lived 1400 years ago took a child bride" as a condemnation a bit ridiculous. Yeah, that happened back then. There is no point in condemning a historical figure for something that was not exceptional at the time. Condemn it now and there's plenty of it to condemn, but phrasing it as the whole "the prophet was a paedophile" thing is pretty petty.

Was marrying and having sex with children considered acceptable at the time of Mohammed though?

If Islam doesn't believe in moral relativism then I don't think that it should be used as a defence of it's prophets actions at the time.
He is considered the perfect Muslim. He's a huge timeless role model.
As such criticism of his behaviour, even if considered normal at the time, is still valid.

fash

Samaris wrote: »

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

I can't find that thread but here's an older one with similar comments including one that explains a man can only beat his wife as a last resort with a small object like a toothbrush to tell her he wants a divorce.

How..why..what?

How do you even beat someone with a toothbrush? "That's a toothbrush. Am I to take it from your poking me that you want a divorce?"

The issue is the koran says a man can beat his wife. Full stop. No caveats, no limits nothing.
Certain modern Muslims try to soften that (while still sticking to the koran- it is the word of God you know so perfect and if it says you can beat your wife, you can beat your wife) by adding some extra caveats - including that "it's only as a last resort", "not in the face" "no broken bones" and even "only using a miswak (a twig used as a toothbrush) or a feather".
The "only just to avoid a divorce" and "toothbrush" would be extreme attempts to mitigate the effects of the text.

It is interesting to see certain Muslim women who have internalised this and fully agree that a man should be allowed best his wife and that a good beating every now and then is what every woman needs - Google it...

JupiterKid

It's quite easy to hide bruises under a niquab or burqa.

Samaris

fash wrote: »

The issue is the koran says a man can beat his wife. Full stop. No caveats, no limits nothing.
Certain modern Muslims try to soften that (while still sticking to the koran- it is the word of God you know so perfect and if it says you can beat your wife, you can beat your wife) by adding some extra caveats - including that "it's only as a last resort", "not in the face" "no broken bones" and even "only using a miswak (a twig used as a toothbrush) or a feather".
The "only just to avoid a divorce" and "toothbrush" would be extreme attempts to mitigate the effects of the text.

It is interesting to see certain Muslim women who have internalised this and fully agree that a man should be allowed best his wife and that a good beating every now and then is what every woman needs - Google it...

Nah, I don't need to! I well believe it. This is not equivocating, but I don't know if you've read/watched Call the Midwife? It's not uncommon at all for the refrain "If he don't beat yer, he don't love yer" to pop up. When something like that is accepted as how it is and how it has always been, it is just..accepted until it's no longer accepted. (Edit to note - 1950s London)

It is interesting that there's attempts to mitigate it, it does already show signs that people are getting less inclined to put up with it, so that's promising. I was being a bit (wrongly) facetious about the toothbrush (because really, it does summon up a ridiculous image to mind), given what it actually means.

It's the same thing with FGM. Mothers tend to have more control over their daughters in the same way that the father gets full control regarding the sons. The tradition is FGM and the mother is aware that in her day, if she had not had the cutting, she would not have been able to get married and fears the same for her daughter (which can be devastating to a woman in many countries). It's easy to say that well, if all the women would refuse to have their daughters cut, this would die out, but it's an extremely dangerous step to take for any woman who chooses it for her daughter. There is the risk of destroying their daughters' lives, so they'd need to be very strong-willed and very convinced of its wrongness to fight it. Not to mention, for something that "big" and against tradition (and wrongly assumed to be inherently against the religion), it is quite possible that local leaders (not to mention the father) could get involved and punish those involved, including the innocent daughters.

Grayson

fash wrote: »

The issue is the koran says a man can beat his wife. Full stop. No caveats, no limits nothing.
Certain modern Muslims try to soften that (while still sticking to the koran- it is the word of God you know so perfect and if it says you can beat your wife, you can beat your wife) by adding some extra caveats - including that "it's only as a last resort", "not in the face" "no broken bones" and even "only using a miswak (a twig used as a toothbrush) or a feather".
The "only just to avoid a divorce" and "toothbrush" would be extreme attempts to mitigate the effects of the text.

It is interesting to see certain Muslim women who have internalised this and fully agree that a man should be allowed best his wife and that a good beating every now and then is what every woman needs - Google it...

The thing is that a lot of Muslim scholars interpret it to mean that if you beat your wife then you've failed at all the previous steps. The vast majority of Muslims in the west don't beat their wives.

That brings me back to my point that people tend to take what they want from religion. If you beat your wife and want to find an excuse to, it's in that book. If you want to not beat your wife then it provides condemnation on beating your wife.

How a religion is practiced depends as much on the culture it's in as much as the religion itself.

Samaris

Grayson wrote: »

The thing is that a lot of Muslim scholars interpret it to mean that if you beat your wife then you've failed at all the previous steps. The vast majority of Muslims in the west don't beat their wives.

That brings me back to my point that people tend to take what they want from religion. If you beat your wife and want to find an excuse to, it's in that book. If you want to not beat your wife then it provides condemnation on beating your wife.

How a religion is practiced depends as much on the culture it's in as much as the religion itself.

Pretty much, which is where having a good reformation every so often is probably healthy for a religion. The most dangerous concepts written into any holy books is that the words are immutable. Eventually, the most awkward parts get ignored when they consistently go against the general feeling of the populace and/or the law. There will be hold-outs, of course. You still see the odd Christian (usually of the Evangelical variety) saying that a man must rule his own house and arguing that physical violence is completely acceptable if their woman isn't amenable to it, but for the most part, it is derided by society and goes against the law.

So as you said, yeah, the people who are more naturally prone to it will find all the justification they like and the ones that don't will find justification against it. Gradually one side or the other will win, probably the non-beating side, although at the moment, we could see a general backslide cementing for the next few decades.

midlandsmissus

jmayo wrote: »

take everything wrote: »

Just watching BBC news night with the lovely* Emma Barnett and yet another story of a gang-rape of a woman in Morocco in broad daylight that was filmed and posted on social media.

Apparently in this country before 2014 a rapist could avoid prosecution if they then married the victim (I may have that wrong and am open to correction).

But the attitudes to women in North African/middle eastern/Islamic culture never ceases to utterly baffle me.

The idea that a woman is to blame in rape (and can be punished or killed for being raped) is mind-bendingly sick. It's so insanely removed from any sort of logic or rationality, I don't know where to start to even try to understand the possible basis for these attitudes.

What is wrong with these people.
Are women truly seen as either subhuman or property in these cultures.

I can only begin to imagine how people with such attitudes see Western women. They must see them as the devil incarnate and presumably want them killed for being any way emancipated.

Anyone with any insights into the psychology behind such cultures and these attitudes to women. It seems to be a huge problem (and largely untouched by feminism- a shocking indictment in itself).

* I make no apologies for thinking Emma Barnett is lovely.

Thread started at 00.39

6 posts in at 00.47 first "YEAH BUT" deflection whataboutery response.

And of course first port of call is the catholic church when you look around for comparisons to islam.

emo72 wrote: »

its wrong. why should women be treated as less than men. its bull****. same in catholic church, women cant be priests, its bull****. its bull**** no matter what religion it is. does your religion treat women as second class citizens? then its bull****.

Christ on a bike.

FFS is this the best of what modern society has become, is this a product of our modern education ?
Someone calls out a backward misogynist archaic mindset, culture and belief system so someone else must find something bad about their own.
Except it turns out it is probably 1000 times less bad.

If this was the fooking mindset in the 1940s then hitler and his nazi regime would have been left power, well because, you know, the Soviets and stalin were slaughtering people as well, like. :rolleyes:

A religion that actually fosters systems and cultures where women that are subject to rape are to blame and are punished, often by being forced to marry their rapist, is akin to a religion that does not allow women to be celebrants and ministers. :rolleyes:

- this part. While I welcome a thread on here that finally says female abuse is not okay, the Catholic church is not any different

The catholic church threw girls that were raped into Magdalene laundries, locked them up for 10 - 15 years and referred to their children as 'whore's droppings'.

Let us look at ourselves before we cast a stone in shame. How did the world in general get this dark?

Only when both sexes truly respect each other can we flourish as a world

midlandsmissus

jmayo wrote: »

take everything wrote: »

Just watching BBC news night with the lovely* Emma Barnett and yet another story of a gang-rape of a woman in Morocco in broad daylight that was filmed and posted on social media.

Apparently in this country before 2014 a rapist could avoid prosecution if they then married the victim (I may have that wrong and am open to correction).

But the attitudes to women in North African/middle eastern/Islamic culture never ceases to utterly baffle me.

The idea that a woman is to blame in rape (and can be punished or killed for being raped) is mind-bendingly sick. It's so insanely removed from any sort of logic or rationality, I don't know where to start to even try to understand the possible basis for these attitudes.

What is wrong with these people.
Are women truly seen as either subhuman or property in these cultures.

I can only begin to imagine how people with such attitudes see Western women. They must see them as the devil incarnate and presumably want them killed for being any way emancipated.

Anyone with any insights into the psychology behind such cultures and these attitudes to women. It seems to be a huge problem (and largely untouched by feminism- a shocking indictment in itself).

* I make no apologies for thinking Emma Barnett is lovely.

Thread started at 00.39

6 posts in at 00.47 first "YEAH BUT" deflection whataboutery response.

And of course first port of call is the catholic church when you look around for comparisons to islam.

emo72 wrote: »

its wrong. why should women be treated as less than men. its bull****. same in catholic church, women cant be priests, its bull****. its bull**** no matter what religion it is. does your religion treat women as second class citizens? then its bull****.

Christ on a bike.

FFS is this the best of what modern society has become, is this a product of our modern education ?
Someone calls out a backward misogynist archaic mindset, culture and belief system so someone else must find something bad about their own.
Except it turns out it is probably 1000 times less bad.

If this was the fooking mindset in the 1940s then hitler and his nazi regime would have been left power, well because, you know, the Soviets and stalin were slaughtering people as well, like. :rolleyes:

"A religion that actually fosters systems and cultures where women that are subject to rape are to blame and are punished, often by being forced to marry their rapist, is akin to a religion that does not allow women to be celebrants and ministers. :rolleyes: "

- this part. While I welcome a thread on here that finally says female abuse is not okay, the Catholic church is not any different

The catholic church threw girls that were raped into Magdalene laundries, locked them up for 10 - 15 years and referred to their children as 'whore's droppings'.

Let us look at ourselves before we cast a stone in shame. How did the world in general get this dark?

Only when both sexes truly respect each other can we flourish as a world

suicide_circus

As it says in the koran, you can bate your wife but you can't bate the craic.