Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    !Aha!
    
    The *Iraqis* are the GOOD guys.
    
    

No, herb, you mis-read the note.

Carol says that (in Iraq)
"Abortion is legal and is considered a private affair between the woman
and her physician."

 What more reason do you need to start a war?  Obviously, such evil must be
stamped out! 

$ set sarcasm off

But more seriously, I think the note shows that (were it not for the leadership
of Saddam Hussein) the Iraqi civilisation is closer to the western "ideal" than
that of the countries which we view as allies. 

$resume

 But don't worry; in a few years, we'll go to war in the Gulf to bring democracy
(a basic, God-given human right) to these evil monarchies and despotic domains!
Because, in a couple of years, Iraq will be our "friend in the Gulf" (assuming
the war isn't still running).

				Nigel

It strikes me that the Iraqis are a basically good people with bad leadership.

 Saddam Hussein has given his troops free rein and (it seems) they are behaving
like an old-fashioned, uncivilised army of occupation (loot, rape, pillage then
burn) in Kuwait. So, once we depose Hussein and set up some more suitable (to 
our western eyes) ruler, it is quite likely that the people will live their 
lives as reasonable, civilised human beings. Does that seem unlikely to you?

 I'd hate to see the Iraqis achieve the same status as the Japanese during 
and immediately after World War II.

				N

    re .2, .3
    
    !Ahah!
    
    so it *IS* a battle between the good guys and the bad guys!
    
    Now all we have to figure out is which ones are the good guys 
    (then we can go home)
    
    Are we up to it?
    Don't think so
    
    I wonder which side John Wayne would be on?
    How about Errol Flynn (I mean he was a *Bi* wasn't he? (oh, that's not
    relevant is it)
    
    Hmm how about Cardinal O'Connor? After all he believes in Peace on
    Earth Good will to Men doesn't he.
    
    Hmm how about Omar Shariff?
    
    How about all the Jewish representatives in Congress (all sons -any
    daughters?- of the Holocaust. They above all others would be united
    wouldn't they?
    Well, NO not even them. 
    Stolarz from New York: one of the most articulate men and brightest in
    either body. A Jew. voted for the war.
    Barney Frank from Massachusetts
    if Stolarz isn't the brightest and most articulate man in congress the
    Frank is. A jew, a gay, liberal: voted in opposition to the war.
    Wellstone (sp?) newly elected Senator from Minnesota. A liberal. A jew.
    Voted against the war.
    
    Anybody recall how the Jewish (?) senator from Ohio voted.
    I'm sure i left out several other Jews.
    
    If they can't agree, should *we* be screaming at each other?
    

    	RE:  Women's rights in Iraq

    	Let's keep in mind that they've been at war for around 8 years
    	(without much of a break) and they draft almost all the able-
    	bodied men - down to (what is it now?  17 years old?  15 years 
    	old?)

    	Even in our own country, women did men's jobs during WWII (when
    	nearly all our able-bodied men went to war.)  When the men came
    	back, the women were kicked out of their jobs (and the country
    	forgot almost instantaneously that these women were *capable*
    	of doing men's work, including building planes.)

    	As for Saddam's attitude about women - in the days immediately
    	prior to the Jan 15th deadline, he ridiculed Saudi Arabia in 
    	Iraq's legislature for allowing their country to be DEFILED by
    	women soldiers in shorts.  Saddam laughed openly at Saudi Arabia
    	for this (for the whole world to see on camera.)

    	Women's rights have been convenient for Iraq for awhile - that's
    	my impression.

 I dont like this "Good Guys" and "Bad Guys" biz life is not
"Cowboys and indians"

Even Hitler wasnt completely bad. He did build an amazingly good road system
in Germany and completed a number of good projects how else did you think he
got his support!

    re;7
    
    Hitler may have done a few good things for Germany, but he still was a very
    evil person.

re: .7:

   "He was a better painter than Churchill, too.  Why, he could do
   an entire apartment in one day; two coats."
			-- From Mel Brooks' film, "The Producers"

    My daughter Kat, who has been watching too much network news,
    reports that the way the Saudis finally solved the problems
    related to the US soldiers who were women doing things that the
    Saudis consider indecent for women to do was by having the king
    issue an edict saying that all US soldiers are to be considered
    legally men...
    
    --bonnie

    re .8 
    
    I agree he was evil, But it is a mistake to assume or to profess 
    that anyone and all their acts are TOTALLY evil. 
    	For one thing it means your arguments are easily discredited and
    thus detract from your opposition to those mostly evil people.

    
    re .0: considering Iraq has a population of 17 million and 1 million of
    them are in the armed forces, none of these conditions for women seem
    in the least surprising (except perhaps the contraception one - perhaps
    they think a woman is more useful at her job than producing a child to
    be a drain on essential services).
    
    Imagine what America would be like with 25 million people in the armed
    forces...
    
    /. Ian .\

I saw "Not without my daughter" this weekend.  It was a very powerful movie.
The movie showed how the women had no rights at all and had to be covered
at all times.  The men would beat the women to keep them in line.  It was
very scary and upsetting.  Has anyone else seen this movie?  If, so what
did you think of it??

Robin

    re .13

    Minor nit from one who hasn't seen the film ... it takes place in
    post-Shah Iran, rather than one of the countries in the topic
    title. As such, it can probably be taken as applicable to the
    extent that it reflects generic Islamic attitudes towards women,
    but I doubt it can be assumed that all countries in the region
    have uniform treatment of women. (Iran is not Arabic, and is
    almost wholly Shiite; Iraq is Arabic and a mix of Shiite and
    Sunni; I believe Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are mostly Sunni; and I
    have no idea whether the Shiites and Sunnis have different
    treatment of women. 30 years ago in Iran women were just getting
    the vote and upper class women generally eschewed chadurs while
    poorer women generally wore them; since the Shah was deposed, all
    that was undone and I gather chadurs are de rigeur.)

    I've not seen the movie but I've read the book at least three times.
    It was/is very engrossing.
    
    Bonnie

I haven't seen the movie but Roger Ebert's review said it was pretty slanted
towards making the Muslim's generic bad guys. ie, no real character development
and explaination of their actions, just made them look like monsters. Though I
must admit that a religion that considers me slave material is very scary to me.
liesl 

    Here's another scary part of Islamic law.  Apologies if I don't get
    it completely correct.  I'm using my memory.
    
    If a woman is raped, in order to have the man convicted, the rape must
    have been witnessed by 5 men.  If he is not convicted, then the woman
    is tried for adultery and the punishment for that is death.
    
    Linda
    

    
    re last few:
    
    ANd this is what we are fighting for???????????????
    And our govt has the nerve to say.."restore the democratic govt of
    Kuwait" not to mention leaving the present Democracy(?) of
    Saudi Arabia.
    
    Just how low can politicians get??
    Why not let them kill each other?
    My only consolation is that I DID NOT vote for George.
    
    Desryn
    

    just a nit or two... I have not heard anyone in the govt say "the
    democratic govt of Kuwait".  I have heard "the legitimate govt".  There
    is a dif, and someone/someplace else may quite legitimately decide
    against the form of govt I would choose.
    
    and I don't believe this war is about women's rights, so while there is
    no way on this earth that I would dwell or spend tourist dollars in,
    say, Pakistan (that's where the tv show I saw placed the story about
    the raped girl being prosecuted for adultery), women's rights or lack
    thereof in Iraq or Kuwait or Saudi Arabia does not decide my views on
    the war.                                

    How could this war possibly be about women's rights?  The Allied side
    is dominated by the US's #1 non-equal-opportunity employer, and the
    government's response to women being represented at all is to tell 
    them to keep a low profile.

    Mind you, I'm still not 100% sure what this war *is* about, but I 
    think we can safely cross women's rights off the list.

        Sharon

    
    	Hello fellow netters though this entry might not be appropriate
    under this heading and can be discussed in another note, I wanted to 
    clarify that Islam does not in any way look down on women. For your 
    information the prophet Mohammed used to respect his daughter so much 
    that he used to stand up when ever his daughter Fatima appeared in
    front of him. The followers of today's Islam might have taken the wrong
    meaning of the teachings of islam and surely are misguided about
    various issues pertaining to women and war and latest issues. I would
    very much like to invite you to go deeper into the religion and study
    the reasons why certain things are done the way they are done regarding
    women and society in a true Islamic society, instead of just believing
    in some films and one or two persons opinions about Islam.
    
    Hope you understand and feel free to adress me personally by mail if
    you have any questions.          THANK YOU.
    
    
    	Ali.

Re: .23

Ali - what are your feelings about purdah? Is that another misinterpretation?

	-- Charles

I thought purdah was a Hindu custom???  

It's easy to make any culture or religion look bad by selecting only those
aspects of it that offend one's own view of the world.  

It would be pretty easy to make the U.S. look bad by pointing at the
homeless people freezing on the winter streets, the old people locked
away in nursing homes, the children gunned down by stray bullets from
drugland gang battles.  Are these things any less cruel than harsh
physical punishment for what we regard as minor crimes?  We hear about
what are to us the awful parts of Islam, but we don't hear the good things.

I don't claim to know much about Islam or about Arabic cultures, but this
much I do know: they have their side of the story, too, and until we in
the United States and the other non-Arab parts of the world have
heard it fairly, we don't have any business trying to take the moral
high ground in any argument that centers on national interests, greed,
and who has the biggest missile.

--bonnie

Re: .25

I find that I cannot write a reply which is up to my standards of good taste
and politeness. All I can do is agree with you when you say:

	I don't claim to know much about Islam or about Arabic cultures

please go do learn more about them. There is much that is good about them, but
there is also much that is absolutely appalling. I've mentioned the custom of
genital mutilation in this file before. Go talk to Islamic Arab women about
how widespread the practice is. Learn a little more about Purdah, and what the
Sharia says about the role of women.

I am well aware of the faults of the American culture and society and the
dangers of imposing my world view on other cultures. But I also believe in
certain fundamental human rights including the equality of men and women. I
do not suffer so much from guilt over the faults of my culture that it blinds
me to the faults of others.

From what I know about the lot of women in general around the world, if I had
to choose one place to identify as "worst" with respect to women, well - you
guessed it. Bonnie, as much as I like you, I believe you to be woefully
naive about this particular subject.

	-- Charles

According to Time magazine (and my poor memory),  Mohammad brought about
many changes that helped women.  He abolished female infanticide.  He 
made it so women could inherit and own property.  He had 11 wives (and
concubines?), many of which were powerful and respected.  One of them
was a doctor.

In my mind, I make an analogy between the Islamic faith of Mohammad vs. today,
and the Christian faith of Jesus vs. today.  There are churches, temples,
places of worship where the beliefs and practices are closer to their origins,
and places in which they are significantly different. 

      Carol

I started a very long well-reasoned reply to .26, and then I didn't
post it.  Instead, I will say only this:

In the United States today a man can hold his stepdaughter's writhing 
body under scalding water to punish her for wetting her pants,
and it doesn't get beyond the local papers because so many more
shocking cases of child abuse have taken place.  

I am not saying this is more cruel than cruelties practiced in other 
countries and cultures.  I am not saying everybody in our society agrees
with this behavior.  I am not saying that Islamic society -- if there is 
such a thing -- doesn't have cruel practices.  

I am saying that we in the US are not entitled to take the moral high 
ground just because women in our society have more equality and legal 
rights.  

--bonnie 

> I am saying that we in the US are not entitled to take the moral high 
> ground just because women in our society have more equality and legal 
> rights.  

Bonnie - child abuse happens here, it is horrific, but we - as a society - do
not attempt to justify it. Infibulation is NOT in the same ballpark.

Even if I stand on the moral low ground does not relieve me of the requirement
to point out injustice when it occurs. I may indeed have a beam in my eye, but
that does NOT relieve me of my responsibility. (And I honestly DON'T think I
have a beam in my eye - of course.)

	-- Charles

    c.f. 682.5

Re: .30

Herb - are you saying that I'm one of those terrorist radical loud wommanoter
voices who's world view is so simplistic as to be false, who is only interested
in exploiting differences to advance my own political agenda? Or perhaps you
were referring to Bonnie Randall - a person who I personally like and respect,
but happen to disagree with on this issue?

	-- Charles

    I am saying that in 665.<several> *you* are behaving like some of the
    things I described in 682.

> I am saying that in 665.<several> *you* are behaving like some of the
> things I described in 682.

At first that made me angry, but I've gotten over it. Perhaps it is because
people can't believe that you really can "hate the sin and love the sinner" I
absolutely hate the treatment of women in many Islamic and Arab societies, I
think that they must change. This does NOT mean that I hate Moslems or Arabs or
think that my society is better than theirs. I believe that MY society is sexist
and racist as well, and that THAT must change. I believe that the Japanese
society is one of the most racist I have ever seen, and that must change. I
don't learn about these things from reading just obviously biased U.S. sources,
I don't make these judgements lightly and I draw a careful distinction between
the society and it's norms and the members of that society. I do not condemn
all arabs, or all of arabic society for the faults of that society, but neither
do I close my eyes to those faults.

Perhaps you don't remember my defense of values other than our own in other
societies. In some societies the family comes before the individual, this leads
to things like child prostitution and selling off children. These societies
prize the survival of the family over the survival of any individual - and I do
NOT condemn that! It is not the way I would live, but neither can I condemn it
as immoral. No part of my particular moral code prizes the individual or even
individual rights. However I DO believe in equality of men and women, and the
innate worth of all people regardless of their race. I try to not be irrational
about it, I will listen to people who believe that particular instances of
discrimination are not wrong - and I am willing to admit my ignorance and go
back and do more homework in cases that I'm not familiar with.

By the way, Herb, I really have felt attacked by your recent series of notes.
Was that intentional? What's bugging you? Is it just me?

	-- Charles

    Although Islam has something to do with the status of women in the
    country of Moslem fundamentalism, it is simplistic to say that the
    religion is the cause.  So they are practicing purdah, but we were burning
    witches just a while ago.  And if one compares the original doctrines
    of Christian and Islam, it is hard to tell which one treats women
    better.  However, they are quite different today.  The point is that
    religions change.  We stopped burning witches because of 
    scientific progress and the progress of literacy level of the general
    public.  Given enough time, Islam too will become a kinder and gentler
    religion (and I am sure that in certain area, it has already been).

    By the way, this is also why I am weary about fundamentalism in religion.

    Eugene 

    I, like Bonnie, wrote out a long reasoned reply and then elected not to
    post it.  
    
    To the whole discussion in this particular string I can only say that
    those who live in glass houses... you know the rest.
    
    When we, as a nation, treat out citizens with respect and dignity,
    *then* it will appropriate to hold spotlight onto the rest of the
    world.  The Arab/Islamic tradition is not fair or just.  But neither
    are we, the righteous U.S. of A.  Nor are some of our South American
    Neighbors, nor is South Africa, nor are the Chinese, nor were the
    Turks.  
    
    The shock value of genital mutilation not withstanding, the same can be
    said for JudeaChristian culture.  Only we (wisely, IMO :-)) inflict
    this on our sons.  
    
    I am appalled at the actions of NOW during this time of crisis; if they
    had a problem with our foreign policy in respect to Islamic Nations,
    then by God they could have spoken up before.  One of my oldest freinds
    has been called to serve and wrote me.  I got the letter yesterday.  As
    one who supported the Womens Agenda for a long time, she is crushed and 
    angered by what she feels as a betrayal.  I share her anger and pain.  
    At the present time, I hold the NOW organization much in the same
    regard as I hold Ramsey Clark and Jane Fonda (as the daughter of a VN
    vet).
    
    Sue

    Hi Charles,
    I wanted to reply to you earlier also and i wrote a long reply but it
    didn't go thru as the path was lost to notes from my cluster.
    
    I wanted to talk about two things:
    1). Women's rights in Islam and regarding PURDAH in Islam.
    2). Arabic culture and Islam as a religion.
    
    Believe me inspite of all the propaganda i beleive that women have
    equal rights in Islam as men. they can own property, drive , work as
    whatever they want to and be whoever they like, BUT in an Islamic way.
    Let me explain what the Islamic way is:
    
    Women shouldcover their hair and body so that no man will be
    intimidated by her beauty. Also women doctors are allowed to practice
    but then too they should in no way reveal themselves or touch a man
    in a way that he might be tempted. In case you are wondering how this
    is possible , My sister is the living proof of this. She practices 
    medicine and she also practices PURDAH and all other Islamic duties and
    still is quite succesfull in life.
    
    Now some insight as to what PURDAH means. It's just not obligatory on 
    a woman to cover her body and hair but its also the responsibility of
    a man to practice PURDAH "MENTALLY", by not looking at women lustfully
    or with bad intentions. so its just not women. Men are also not
    supposed to wear clothes that show their manhood or might be
    intimidating to women. SO the question of inequality or discrimination
    does not arise at all in atrue Islamic society.
    
    The next thing is, it's not wise to say that everything Arabs do is
    according to Islam , NO NO . Arabs are a community and Islam is a 
    religion and they are not the same. The piont that you raised about
    female genital mutilation is absolutely wrong and its a practice of
    arabs to do it and it is not Islamic practice.
    
    So please when you talk about a culture don't mix religion with it.
    
    regards
    ALI.
    

>   So please when you talk about a culture don't mix religion with it.

Absolutely. I was trying very hard to separate and distinguish Islam from
Arabic society. If I created any confusion that way I apologize. Many (most)
Arabic societies are Islamic, but by no means does Islam imply Arabic. Genital
mutilation is relatively common is some Arabic societies, as well as in
certain Sub-saharan african societies - the Sudan for example as D! mentioned.

Ali, I'm afraid I still find the mind set the world view, if you will, that
justifies Purdah to be sexist and discriminatory. It is similar (and related
to) some of the attitudes I find repugnant in strict Orthodox Judaism. Likewise
it is related to (though more distantly) some of the attitudes expressed by
fundamentalist Christians. In all of these three religious examples, there are
practitioners of the religions, who are quite devout, but reject those particular
sexist and discriminatory practices and beliefs. I would not dream of claiming
that all Muslims followed strict Purdah or believed in it's correctness. But
I do believe Purdah to be fundamentally sexist and discriminatory. I will
leave things at that unless you'd like to continue discussing Purdah. I do
promise to keep the discussion factual and polite if you would like to continue.

	-- Charles

Charles, I'm not in any way trying to say that any institutional 
mistreatment of women is right.  

I am trying to point out that by dwelling on the very negative things that
exist in *any* culture, whether ours or the most alien culture imaginable, 
creates a very false picture of that society, even if the things themselves
are true. 

I am trying to point out that even if everything you say is true in the 
worst possible light, IT IS NOT THE ENTIRE STORY, as Ani's note (thank
you very much, Ani) begins to point out.  And I think the facts would look
a lot different from inside than they do to us in the U.S.

You can't judge any culture, I don't care what it is, by one aspect.  You
can't judge our culture only by the way we tolerate abuse and you can't
judge an entire religion by only one aspect of its practices.

And clitorectomy was routinely performed in the U.S. and Britain as late
as 1910.

--bonnie 

    I spent some time last year studying a LITTLE bit about Islam. And I
    must admit that the things I was taught about purdah didn't leave me
    feeling as discriminated against as it might have. I think they were
    probably VERY appropriate for a time in which men considered women as
    property and their's for the taking. It was to protect women from male
    lust. Frankly, I think women NEED protection from male lust.
    
    If you think about it, it makes sense why so many Iranians would not be
    surprised by the blatant opposite here, where women's bodies are far
    from sacred, but a touted on billboards and tv as means of selling
    product. What is the purpose of looking at an attractive woman in a car
    ad? This shouldn't be possible in an Islamic society - there is
    something in the religion which emphasizes that women's bodies should
    not be thrown in men's faces because men DO react to women's bodies.
    
    I think its wrong to pretend that men are not visually oriented, or
    that they can't be appealed to with sexual innuendo. To me, Islamic
    cultures understand these weaknesses in men, and are trying to protect
    the women from them.
    
    Now maybe what is being set up here is a "blame the victim" approach
    that says that if a woman is not covered, she deserves to get raped...
    Heck, we have that HERE. At least there is no pretense that there is no
    possibility. Here we like to pretend that women are free to wear
    whatever they want. But what we don't talk about is that women WILL get
    looks that they often don't want to deal with. It IS uncomfortable to
    be looked at lustfully by an intimidating male stranger.
    
    I guess to me, as far as the Purdah goes, we are no better than they,
    and perhaps worse in playing to male visual tendencies. As long as a
    garment was loose about my body and I could see and move freely in it,
    I would willingly trade that to being bombarded with billboards of
    bombshells and knowing that my physical attributes were being weighed
    by most people who looked at me.
    
    As far as I can see, neither society, theirs or ours, is doing that
    much better a job of protecting women from men intent on violating
    them. We try, but we're not doing a great job. 

    re: -1
    
    Not to flame, but the way to protect women from lust is to have men
    control THEMSELVES, not for women to be controlled.
    
    sue

    re:.39
    
    Here's another way to look at it.  I am a lesbian.  I like to look at
    women too.  But I don't leer, I don't intimidate.  I don't make it
    obvious that I might be attracted to another woman.  And it's not
    because society doesn't "approve" of lesbianism, it's because I have
    respect for another person, that I can enjoy another's looks without
    making that person even aware that I have noticed her.
    
    Is this making sense?  I think it has to do with teaching everyone to
    respect everyone else.  I think that the teaching of respect has been
    lost somewhere in recent years.
    
    interesting discussion about the culture, tho.  Thanks for another
    perspective based on your studies.
    
    sue

    Here's still one more look at this.  In my building, there is a new
    male worker.  He very pointedly looks at me everytime I see him. 
    I do not encourage his looks, I do not dress sexily (believe me!) and I
    have never directly looked in his eyes or smiled at him or remotely
    recognized that he exists.  His gaze is intimidating to me, I watch
    myself whenever I leave the building and he is around.  He is someone
    to be wary of.
    
    How much better for everyone is he respected my existence and didn't
    stare every time he saw me?  BTW, he stares at all women this way.  It
    crosses my mind that he is looking for victims.  Am I paranoid or
    cautious?  I sometimes don't know myself.  But I am erring on the side
    of my safety.
    
    How nice if women didn't always have to think about self-protection?
    
    sue  

    I don't really think that women need to be protected from men's lust. 
    (I don't consider rape to be lust.)  I guess I just don't see the
    problem as that bad.  The statement that women need to be protected
    from men's lust sounds, to me, as though 90% of the men in the world
    are constantly approaching and harrassing women, and I don't think
    that's the case.
    
    Lorna
    

>    I guess to me, as far as the Purdah goes, we are no better than they,
>    and perhaps worse in playing to male visual tendencies. As long as a
>    garment was loose about my body and I could see and move freely in it,
>    I would willingly trade that to being bombarded with billboards of
>    bombshells and knowing that my physical attributes were being weighed
>    by most people who looked at me.

    I suspect that in the the "move freely in it" part of your comment
    here you would be disappointed. The chadur worn by women in Iran
    is simply a large cloth (usually dark patterned) which is worn
    over the head and around the body and held closed at the chin by a
    hand (inside) or sometimes by the mouth (when both hands are
    needed). It always looked to me to be far less convenient than
    something akin to a Little Red Riding Hood hood.

    Whether the lack of mechanical fasteners is a requirement or
    simple tradition, I have no idea. It's also possible that this has
    changed, although the chadurs I've seen in news reports looked
    like the ones I remember.

    I've seen similar garb in Iraq, although as a more secular
    country, it's more acceptable for women in Iraq to appear in
    Western dress (as I noted in recent street scenes).

    My *impression only* is that the coverings worn by women in Saudi
    Arabia were different from the chadur, and looked like they could
    clasp somehow without occupying a hand.

    It's also worth noting (for those not familiar with the culture)
    that this form of covering is intended to be worn outside the
    home, not 24 hours a day.

Classically, purdah forbids any contact with any male not in your immediate
family. That includes, for example, talking on the telephone. Now I know a few
people in the U.S. who practice purdah to that degree, but I believe that most
people practicing purdah aren't *quite* that extreme - but almost.

This is not a "relic" from the days when "women were considered property" it is
a direct indication of the fact that women ARE considered property. How do you
feel about suffrage?

Do people here know what the punishment - according to the sharia - for
homosexuality is? Do people know what the actual punishment in Islamic countries
for homosexuality is? In, say, Morocco, Malasia, Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait?

Would you try to justify slavery in the U.S. "because it was appropriate for the
times?" Would you not condemn the holocaust because of american anti-semitism?
Should we not send aid to feed children starving in Saharan Africa because we
have children starving in the U.S.? Because we have a drought in California?

I have NOT been advocating we close our eyes to iniquities in our own society,
I have NOT been advocating rewriting Islam in our image. But some things cry
out for remedy. I cannot fathom how a person can call themselves a feminist,
and NOT condemn the practice of Purdah. What causes this timidity about
condemning abhorrent practices simply because it is part of a religion not
your own? Is it some fear of being called religiously intolerant? Racist?

I don't understand. Do people just not understand what is going on, or do they
really have some way of rationalizing that "it's ok?" Am I actually deluded as
to the condition of women in these societies? I would love it to be true - but
I've heard nothing to convince me of that.

	-- Charles

    
    Charles, what is the difference between the Sharia and the Koran? I
    don't recognize most of the restrictions that you're talking about as
    coming from the Koran.
    
    Do both main branches of Muslims follow the Sharia? When was it
    written? How far after the Koran?
    
    I have met and spoken with a couple of Muslims. From at least 3
    different countries, one being "Persia". One of them was a woman, but
    she is part of the American Muslim community and they have relaxed a
    lot of the Purdah restrictions. When I met her, she was wearing a
    deep V-neck...
    
    Maybe I'm different, but given a choice, I'd take "respect" over
    "equality" because I don't think equality is real. Men are never going
    to be equally victimized by rapists. Men are never going to be equally
    affected by unexpected pregnancies. Every Muslim male I've met had
    great respect for me as a woman, despite my outspoken, opinionated
    ways. Maybe that shapes my opinions. But I have a lot of respect for
    the religion, as it is espoused in the Koran, and I need more
    background about the Sharia to understand how it is applied.
    
    BTW, my dictionary says that Purdah is a traditionally Hindu custom...
    Sounds like its more a product of time than the true religious spirit. 
    Kinda like some of the little "extras" Catholicism picked up...
    

    American Heritage Dictionary :
    purdah 	The practice observed by Hindus and some Moslems of secluding
    		women.
    
    Me thinks the AHD got it's Hindus and Muslims mixed. As far as I know
    purdah is predominantly a Muslim custom.

The sharia is the codification of Muslim law derived from the Koran, the Sunna,
and from human interpretation and tradition. Shia and Sunni Moslems agree on
the parts of the sharia from the Koran and the Sunna, but disagree on the
usefulness of interpretation based on analogy and dialog. Fundamentalist Moslems
believe that the sharia is *the* correct and complete basis for all human
interactions and the only possible basis for a just government. In this reliance
on a religious scriptural authority they are quite similar to "Bible believing
Christians" or Orthodox Jews. The fundamentalist, literalist, Christians
are more similar to those Muslims who reject analogy, while Orthodox Jews are
more similar to those who accept analogy. There are significant parts of
Orthodox Jewry who reject the ongoing interpretation of Halacha, claiming that
it is "done." (Halacha is the Jewish law, based on the Torah, Talmud, and
commentaries - the parallels should be obvious.)

I don't have my references and bibliography here at work or I would put in some
references. There are a number of good books on the subject including some
written from sympathetic viewpoints.

	-- Charles

All right, so I'm not a feminist. I've been accused of that before.

One can condemn particular practices of a religion without condemning the 
entire religion and all the people who practice it.  

One can't always judge what the practitioners of a religion believe by
looking at the religion's "received" writings -- even the core documents.
Reading every single Papal communication ever written wouldn't give you 
a good picture of Catholicism as practiced in the mountains of Mexico, 
for instance, and many members of Calvinist churches turn white and 
scream NONONO when you tell them some of the things John Calvin actually 
said.  

Any religion that has grown strongly over about a thousand years and that
appeals to cultures from Africa all the way to the far east has to have 
more to it than an institutionalized desire to be mean to women.  And 
until and unless I know much more about what those positive values are, 
I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon of bringing "enlightenment" along
with the tanks.  

--bonnie

    re .49 (etc)
    
    I think you made a mistake Bonnie. I know I did. What I should have
    said instead of what I actually said was something like...
    
    "Charles, you are being rude to a guest. Lighten up"
    
    But then again, maybe that wouldn't have worked either.

    And if I had been Charles what I might have said is something like...
    
    Dear .23

    I read your comments with interest.  I do not recognize your name, so I am
    assuming you are not very familiar with this conference.

    Before I respond to you what you have said in .23 I feel i should try to
    communicate some sense to you about what this conference is like.

    The people in this conference have very strong feelings about womens
    issues. I believe it fair to say that most of the people who are active in
    this conference do not feel comfortable with the statements you have made.

    I further believe that if you engage in such a discussion that it will not
    be very long before you feel very isolated, because so many people are
    disagreeing with you in very fundamental ways.

    If -under the circumstances- you feel comfortable in engaging in such a
    discussion, you might indicate that in a response.

    In any case, I am sure you will feel more comfortable talking with other
    women so I will refrain from offering my opinion for a while at least


    				sincerely
    				Charles

If you want to drag the gulf war into this, I have to say that of all of the
Arabic countries I know of, Iraq is by far the most progressive in it's
treatment of women, and Saudi Arabia is one of the most repressive. Iran -
while not Arabic - is an Islamic republic, nominally governed by the sharia. It
is arguably the most repressive country in the area with respect to women's
rights. Before the overthrow of the Shah, it was one of the most progressive. My
admiration or distaste for a particular country's treatment of women is only a
part of my admiration or distate for that country in general.

> One can condemn particular practices of a religion without condemning the 
> entire religion and all the people who practice it.  

Precisely. That is EXACTLY what I have been attempting to do. Was it not clear?

> One can't always judge what the practitioners of a religion believe by
> looking at the religion's "received" writings -- even the core documents.
> Reading every single Papal communication ever written wouldn't give you 
> a good picture of Catholicism as practiced in the mountains of Mexico, 
> for instance, and many members of Calvinist churches turn white and 
> scream NONONO when you tell them some of the things John Calvin actually 
> said.  

That's right. I'm NOT doing that - or at least I don't believe I am, if you
disagree I'd like to know why. My picture of Islam is not simply based on
reading the Koran, or official religious pronouncements. My picture is based
in part on that - since the Koran is absolutely fundamental to understanding
Islam. Trying to understand Islam without trying to understand the Koran would
be like trying to understand Christianity while ignoring the Bible. But I also
read books by Moslems trying to explain their religion to westerners, and I read
commentaries by non-moslems. I also read analyses and comparative religion
texts, and histories of the peoples and the region. The issues are NOT simple,
and I have never claimed they were. Never.

> Any religion that has grown strongly over about a thousand years and that
> appeals to cultures from Africa all the way to the far east has to have 
> more to it than an institutionalized desire to be mean to women.  And 
> until and unless I know much more about what those positive values are, 
> I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon of bringing "enlightenment" along
> with the tanks.

I hope you didn't get the impression that I thought the only thing going for
Islam was an institutionalized desire to be mean to women. In fact I have been
scrupulously careful to avoid any such impression. I believe I have some
understanding of what Islam has going for it. I also understand what I consider
to be some of it's flaws. I see no bandwagon here.

The Catholic Church has grown strongly over more than a thousand years, and
appeals to members of all human cultures on the planet. That does not prevent
it from having features that I condemn. I do not deny the positive values of
Catholicism, there is much to admire in the religion, that does not blind me
to (what I percieve as) it's faults.

Bonnie - I get the strong feeling that you are arguing about things I have never
said. You admit you know little about the subject, so I am forced to believe
that your reaction is a knee-jerk reaction to something else. Criticism of
organized religion(s)? American (cultural) imperialism? Articulated feminism?
Supposed justification for violence in the gulf? I feel like you have a
hidden agenda - what's REALLY bugging you?

	-- Charles

Herb,

I've been trying to keep multiple "tones" and threads going on at once in this
topic. In particular I have been using a different tone with Bonnie, and with
Ali. For example - to Ali:

	"I would not dream of claiming that all Muslims followed strict Purdah
	or believed in it's correctness. But I do believe Purdah to be
	fundamentally sexist and discriminatory. I will leave things at that
	unless you'd like to continue discussing Purdah. I do promise to keep
	the discussion factual and polite if you would like to continue."

I would hope that he read that in the same tone you seemed to be trying to
achieve in .52 - which I strongly endorse, except for the last

	"In any case, I am sure you will feel more comfortable talking with
	other women so I will refrain from offering my opinion for a while at 
	least."

I'm pretty sure that Ali Abbas is a man working out here in California,
Cupertino to be precise.

	-- Charles

    re .-1
    a) I hope so too. If you feel comfortable that Ali understood you to be
    making some gentlemanly comments that in no way should have been
    interpreted as a condescending personal attack then I apologize for
    misunderstanding that.
    
    b) If you knew that Ali AABBAS was a man before you made your comments
    and I feel comfortable that you did, then I apologize for my comments
    that arose from that misunderstanding.

Yes, American cultural imperialism is what's bugging me and there 
isn't anything hidden about it.  I've said it repeatedly.  Our cultural 
imperialism, our cultural blindness.  Our refusal to acknowledge that
anybody else has legitimate beliefs and legitimate goals. Before glasnost 
it was the Soviet Union who represented ultimate evil.  This year it's
the Iraqis.   

Whenever anyone mentions anything about the countries in which this 
war is being fought, they talk about the bad parts of the role of 
women and the way women dress.  It's all over the news, it's all over
this file.  Note after note, broadcast after braodcast, refer to the customs 
of Islamic society as if every Moslem from Ethiopia and Tunisia to 
Indonesia and the United States followed the exact same set of rules.  
They never talk about how a woman relates to the older generation, her 
children, her friends, her work. They never talk about the role of the
press, what "the arts" mean, what spirituality is, whether one talks to 
God, what the role of the "priest" is, who owns the property, who manages
the business, who farms the land and how they farm it, what the schools 
are like and what games the children play, how they bury their dead and
how they serve their meals. You say you respect the whole religion and 
yet you've only talked about the bad things, too.

And yet we think we've got a right to go walking in there and yet again
tell the rest of the world how to live.  Tell them that their leader is
a madman for wanting the same nuclear weapons that we stockpile in 
quantities enough to kill everyone in the world three times over.  Tell 
them they're getting too uppity and have to be put down before they 
disturb the balance of power in the Middle East, before they get to be
a first-class power instead of a third-world nation.  [An aside: What an 
insulting term that is.  "Developing" might be even worse, though, because
it implies that they're getting to be more like us -- the most desirable
state of all.]

I generally respect you and your views, Charles, but when in .29 you said
you were convinced you didn't have a beam in your own eye, you were being
a bit blinded by the thing . . . perhaps if we had a perfect society,
we'd have some grounds for telling other people how to live their lives.
But even then we'd only have what was perfect for us.  It wouldn't say
anything about what's perfect for another culture, another society.  

--bonnie

    RE: .57  Bonnie R S
    
    Many Islamic nations are our allies in the Coalition forces that are
    currently at war with Iraq.
    
    The Coalition is not an assault against Islam, nor does the Coalition
    profess to believe that the Iraqi people are inherently evil.  Bush
    has stated the contrary many, many times!
    
    The conflict is about the intentions of one leader (who is currently
    violating international law by his actions.)
    
    The war has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with women's rights or
    with the way women are treated in Islamic countries.  Nothing!!!!!

Thanks for the reply Bonnie.

I don't watch TV so I haven't seen the attitudes you're talking about, but I
can well believe they exist. They don't make sense though. Talking about the
status of women in Iraq to try and help drum up support is really weird, Iraq
(as has been pointed out before) is one of the more PROGRESSIVE countries in
the area when it comes to women's rights. Using women's rights as an issue to
oppose the war is equally silly - none of the people in control believe that
this war has anything to do with women's rights, and they're right. Using
those issues around the war is indeed chauvinistic and does smack of "cultural
imperialism."

But that's not what I'm trying to talk about. I'm trying to talk about the
status of women in Islamic and Arabic cultures (really two topics as Ali
pointed out.) and I wasn't particularly trying to make my comments relevant
to this war or the participants in it. Which I admit is not how the topic
started off.

Looking back over the topic I can see how I got my signals crossed. This topic
seems to have started as a discussion of women's roles and rights in the gulf
region, and to condemn our gulf allies' treatment of women. *I* don't care about
that - I care about how women are treated everywhere, and I care that women
are officially "mistreated" (my term) in many Islamic countries, and in 
most Arabic countries. The war (which I personally deplore) is irrelevant to
my attitude - which I held before the war, and will almost certainly hold
afterwards. I hope it's clear that my attitude is based on personal study of
the situation(s) - though not first hand - and is NOT a new thing with me,
rather it's a source of continuing study.

I am aware of American cultural imperialism in this and other areas, and I
strongly oppose it. But I do hold certain core values, I believe in certain
inalienable rights, and I DO want to see them universally accepted. Belief in
non-violence is one of them, belief in the equal worth of all men and women,
regardless of race is another. I also happen to believe in the rule of law not
of men. Just because my country is fighting a war I feel is unjustified will
not stop my criticism of any of the participants. I can see how that has gotten
me lumped in with others who's motives are perhaps not so pure, but please don't
impute their motives to me.

What would it take to convince you that I was not in fact guilty of cultural
imperialism, while still allowing me to criticise a foreign culture? Can anyone
not a member of a culture EVER validly criticise it? Perhaps part of the
problem is that my criticisms are actually unrelated to this stupid war.
I am not trying to export my culture and I think I do a pretty damn good job of
valuing good things in others. That notwithstanding, I will continue to support
Amnesty International, for example, in their efforts to get capital punishment
wiped out around the world. The fact that some cultures believe that capital
punishment is actually appropriate will not stop that support. Likewise I will
continue to support equal rights for women and racial equality, regardless of
the culture, religion, or country involved.

	-- Charles

    I would again like to address charles' questions as to the unequality
    of women in Islam. I don't agree with Charles that women are mistreated
    in Islam, they might be in Arab culture but not in Islam. 
    
    		Also Charles the way a Muslim woman dresses and practrices
    is her own business and i beleive that she does it on her own will and 
    choice, and women actually feel respected in their chadurs. I personally
    respect a woman who does not wear revealing clothes and is shy; it says
    a lot about that woman the way she presents herselves in front of
    others.
    		Now let me tell you other things about Islam, If you are so 
    keen on the treatment of women in an Islamic society then read what
    Islam has to say as per the rights of wives and mothers and the crimes
    against them. I donot know of any other religion or society in this
    world that gives so much rights to women. I believe you are a learned 
    gentleman but i think you need some more work when it comes to Islam.
    Its really easy to read just what you want to read , but a wise man is
    one who reads more beyond what words have to say.
    
    	I believe that if there is a real islamic society there will be no 
    crimes against women at all. Look at what America has to offer even
    after going through this intensive feminist movement, Women are still 
    looked as sex objects and all the freedom has done is increased rapes 
    and harassment against women. 
    	
    	Purdah again i emphasize is not just for women. Men are also
    supposed to be covering themselves (not bodies but minds) because men
    are very much prone to lust and i need not prove it, as it is a well 
    established fact. Look at the number of strip bars and nude bars are
    there for men and not many for women. What i'm trying to say is its 
    useless to try and learn a religion in one day or two . And also 
    you would have to look at a lot of other aspects before you actually
    decide the merits and demerits of a particular religion.
    
    
    	My conclusion is , that , by asking women to cover themselves up
    we maintain a dignity in soceity and keep men from oggling at them.
    This in no way means that men should be allowed to do whatever they 
    want but the women should cover themselves up and be safe from crimes, 
    No , its for men also to be considerate to women and respect them, but
    times come when men are out of their minds and looking for preys and
    its only then that the purdah saves the woman. This can happen  at
    times when men are intoxicated and out of their minds. This is one of
    the reasons that alcohol is banned in Islam. 
    
    	Well this discussion seems to have no end so i'll stop and let you 
    guys have your own stand as to what's right or not. 
    
    	Its been a good discussion though.
    
    I will not continue this because i think its becoming religious and 
    i don't want that to happen.
    
    regards 
    ALI.
    
    

Thank you Ali - I think we will indeed have to agree to disagree. I will say
though that what you say is consistent from what I have heard from other
people about the reasons for purdah. I believe I do understand them, but I
still disagree with them.

Thanks for taking the time to participate. I will probably continue to enter
notes about the role of women in Islam and portions of the sharia describing
women's rights, because you're right there are a number of things in the
sharia that are quite progressive in the treatment of women - quite a bit more
progressive than equivalent moral strictures in other religious scriptures. In
this respect Islam is indeed more progressive. The key comes in the
interpretation and implementation and there are many many interpretations of the
same laws and the importance of those laws. It's the same way in Christianity
or Judaism. My complaint is with the particular interpretation and particular
implementation of specific parts of those laws in specific individual countries.

	-- Charles

I watched an interview with a Jordanian Muslim woman. She says that once more
women are able to read the Koran and realise that much of what they suffer is
*not* in the religion that there will be a change. Of course Jordan is much more
westernized than Saudi in that respect. Most of the women seem free to dress as
they please.

I really do object to the idea that I must be locked up and covered up because
men are uncontrollable animals. That seems to be what Purdah says. That seems to
diminish the male as much as the female. It assumes men are beasts that can not
be trusted.

The other half of this is that domestic violence seems to be the majority of the
violence women suffer from and that isn't stopped by cloistering the women. They
aren't protected from the men in their own families. In fact, the men are free
of even having to worry anyone else will ever know.

All that being said, I trust no religion once it's become institutionalized. The
ruling hierarchy always seems to change things to their benefit. liesl

>   It was to protect women from male lust. Frankly, I think women NEED 
>   protection from male lust.
    

	Speak for yourself, I do not need any protection from male lust.

	While they're lusting away, with their brains out-to-lunch, I can
	get on with important things, and close deals.

>    It IS uncomfortable to be looked at lustfully by an intimidating male 
>    stranger.
 
	You may find it uncomforable, and males intimidating.

	I find it makes them look quite silly and vunerable.
	   
	Heather.

    I take it that you, Boonie, as an American, hold no opinion on, say,
    Apartheid?
    
    D!

    D!  which Bonnie?

    Not you, Bonnie RS.
    
    D!

re: .59

I'm going to commit the sin of answering a note without reading the rest
of the notes in the string.  I'm pressed for time, not going to be able to
note for several days, and don't want to leave this hanging . . .

Charles, I'm sorry I lumped you with the people who are saying the things
I deplore simply because you used the same words they've been using.  Years
of womannotes should have taught me to be more careful than that :)  I
think I see the distinction you're getting at, and I'm not sure what my
response is.

On the whole I think I'm inclined to believe that no one outside
a particular culture can validly criticize it, with the caveat that 
being "inside" a culture can include newcomers, immigrants, friends, 
and perhaps observers and students of the culture.  I know where I draw
that line for myself -- and I see a lot of behavior that is clearly 
far on the outside of the line.  

My reservations regarding saying the custom of purdah is flatly mistreating
women stem mostly from not being sure of the cultural context in which to
interpret the customs.  If such laws were imposed on women in our society, 
it would be extremely anti-women.  But our society has chosen to value
the independence of the individual and to minimize the importance of
familial and other social connections.  Other societies have emphasized
the social at the expense of the individual, or have tried to balance
the often conflicting demands.  No one choice is right.  

The more important social and familial connections are, the more the
members of one's society have the right to restrict one's behavior 
and choices.  Is purdah an example of restriction of women's rights 
in particular, or is it part of a general view that one's relation
to one's fellow human beings is more important than one's individual 
rights?  Is it men against women, or is it an example of restrictions 
on the behavior of society generally?

This is what I mean by needing to be inside the society to see how it's 
viewed.  

--bonnie

p.s. you might find it amusing to watch some of the TV news -- the 
inconsistencies and blatant hypocrisies would be quite amusing if
they weren't costing real people their real lives. 

    This is a slight derailment of this topic, for which I apologize.
     However, this has been bugging me, and this seems the best topic
    to ask for information.
    
    When word came that one of our female soldiers was MIA, and Radio
    Bagdad stated that they had a female POW, the statement from Iraq
    indicated that she would be treated "in accordance with Islamic
    law and tradition".
    
    Somehow that doesn't give me a warm and comfy feeling, especially
    based on apparent treatment of other, male POW's to date.  What are
    the punishments which are applied to a woman who does any or all
    of the following?
    
    	Driving a vehicle
    	Appearing in men's dress (her uniform would be slacks, boots
    and shirt)
    	Being seen in public unaccompanied by a male member of her family?
    
    I believe that each of these is regarded as contrary to Islamic
    custom, at a minimum.  There may be additional actions which, by
    virtue of her mission and carrying out of her duties, would be regarded
    as contrary to Islamic custom.
    
    Anyone have any ideas?
    
    Alison
    

    well, my first take on treating the woman POW "in accordance with
    Islamic law and tradition" was that they were saying she would be
    protected, as the best interpretation and application of Purdah seems
    to specify (thanks, Ali, for your postings!)
    
    I didn't believe that though.
    
    A posting in SOAPBOX today has another statement from Iraq, saying that
    any POWs taken by Iraq will be treated as war criminals.
    
    I tend to believe the latter more, unfortunately...
    
    Sara

     If the report is true;
    
    	The woman (western, female, solder) is likely to suffer
    	terrible abuse I suspect.  It will be the answer to the past
    	questions around woman POWs and war.  My opinion is what
    	we hear will be the very definition of one persons 
    	nightmare.  I can only pray the report is not true.

     Peace,
    Allison

Purdah only applies to Islamic women. The sharia makes clear distinctions
between believers, non-believers, and former believers (apostates). Assuming the
woman in question is not Moslem (a pretty safe bet, though not sure) then there
isn't really a lot of law on the subject (as I recall.) I'll try to look, but
the problem is that "according to Islamic law and tradition" is as open to 
interpretation as "according to Christian priniciples." Especially coming from
Saddam Hussein, who seems to be religious only as convenient.

Islamic law rathole:

I find the legal distinction between non-believers and apostates fascinating.
The death pronouncement against Salman Rushdie was based on his being an
apostate and having slandered Mohammed. If his conviction under sharia is
valid, and he was Moslem and fell away, then the death sentence really is
permanent and irrevocable. There isn't anything he can do to mitigate it.
Under Islamic law all he can do is repent, re-accept Islam, and accept his
punishment - or just be killed. The interesting questions are - do the Iranian
courts have jurisdiction? They claim so, being the only constituted Islamic
republic. Did Rushdie slander Mohammed? I have no idea. Was he an apostate?
Well - his parents were Muslims, so it might be argued so.

Poor guy.

	-- Charles

    
    RE:  Female POW
    
    The female MIA has been found.