Feminist And Female Issues

(Hroswitha/39830) Gerladine Ferraro died this week. She was a pioneer, and a grea...

Hroswitha@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:20:00 -0500


Gerladine Ferraro died this week.  She was a pioneer, and a great hero of mine
when I was young.  She had so much courage, to stand up as a national candidate
when no other women out there were visible enough to do so with her.  Pity her
candidacy was shot down by allegations - were they ever proven? - against her
husband.  She was held to a different standard.  Apparently, if a woman's
husband is crooked, she can't be honest.  Of course, if a man cheats repeatedly
on his wives, dumps one as she's recovering from cancer and fucks his aide soon
after the second is diagnosed with MS, he's a perfectly viable candidate.

*gags*

Hilary Clinton could never have aspired to high office had it not been for
Ferraro.  RIP Geraldine.

(Bodhi Dharma/39829) Something I learned today which is kinda neat.

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 07:42:00 -0500

Something I learned today which is kinda neat.
There is an organization called PJAK (Party for Free Life in Kurdistan) which
is using military force against Iran to push for civil rights.
20% of them (and the percentage is growing) are women soldiers.

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39828) Saudi Arabia is so goddamn ass-backwards that it's a wonder they...

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 21:23:00 -0500

Saudi Arabia is so goddamn ass-backwards that it's a wonder they even use the
wheel. Surely somewhere that's an abomination to Allah.

I'd like to see a topless parade walk down the streets of the capital.

(Cervantes/39827) ...

Cervantes@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 01:04:00 -0500

...

Where does one begin?

Sickening.

Still.

(Etheridge/39826) (crossposted to Gender>)

Etheridge@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:29:00 -0500

(crossposted to Gender>)

Saudi judge refuses to annul 8-year-old's marriage

By Mohammed Jamjoom
CNN

(CNN) -- A Saudi judge has refused for a second time to annul a marriage
between an 8-year-old girl and a 47-year-old man, a relative of the girl told
CNN.

The most recent ruling, in which the judge upheld his original verdict, was
handed down Saturday in the Saudi city of Onaiza, where late last year the same
judge rejected a petition from the girl's mother, who was seeking a divorce for
her daughter.

The relative said the judge, Sheikh Habib Al-Habib, "stuck by his earlier
verdict and insisted that the girl could petition the court for a divorce once
she reached puberty." The family member, who requested anonymity, added that
the mother will continue to pursue a divorce for her daughter.

The case, which has drawn criticism from local and international rights groups,
came to light in December when al-Habib declined to annul the marriage on a
legal technicality. The judge ruled the girl's mother -- who is separated from
the girl's father -- was not the girl's legal guardian and therefore could not
represent her in court, according to Abdullah al-Jutaili, the mother's lawyer.

The girl's father, according to the attorney, arranged the marriage in order to
settle his debts with the man, who is "a close friend" of his. At the time of
the initial verdict, the judge required the girl's husband to sign a pledge
that he would not have sex with her until she reaches puberty, al-Jutaili told
CNN. The judge ruled that when the girl reaches puberty, she will have the
right to request a divorce by filing a petition with the court, the lawyer
said.

Last month, an appeals court in the Saudi capital of Riyadh declined to certify
the original ruling, in essence rejecting al-Habib's verdict, and sent the case
back to al-Habib for reconsideration.

Under the complicated Saudi legal process, the appeals court ruling meant that
the marriage was still in effect, but that a challenge to the marriage was
still ongoing. The appeals court in Riyadh will now take up the case again and
a hearing is scheduled for next month, according to the relative.

The issue of child marriage has been a hot-button topic in the deeply
conservative kingdom recently. While rights groups have been petitioning the
government to enact laws that would protect children from this type of
marriage, the kingdom's top cleric has said that it's OK for girls as young as
10 to wed.

"It is incorrect to say that it's not permitted to marry off girls who are 15
and younger," Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh, the kingdom's grand mufti, said in
remarks last January quoted in the regional Al-Hayat newspaper. "A girl aged 10
or 12 can be married. Those who think she's too young are wrong and they are
being unfair to her."

Al-Sheikh reportedly made the remarks when he was asked during a lecture about
parents forcing their underage daughters to marry.

"We hear a lot in the media about the marriage of underage girls," he said,
according to the newspaper. "We should know that Sharia law has not brought
injustice to women."

Sharia law is Islamic law. Saudi Arabia follows a strict interpretation of
Islam called Wahhabism.

CNN was unable to reach government officials for comment.

Christoph Wilcke, a Saudi Arabia researcher for Human Rights Watch, told CNN in
December that his organization has heard of many other cases of child
marriages.

"We've been hearing about these types of cases once every four or five months
because the Saudi public is now able to express this kind of anger --
especially so when girls are traded off to older men," Wilcke said.

Wilcke explained that while Saudi ministries may make decisions designed to
protect children, "It is still the religious establishment that holds sway in
the courts, and in many realms beyond the court."

Last December, Zuhair al-Harithi, a spokesman for the Saudi government-run
Human Rights Commission, said his organization is fighting against child
marriages.

"The Human Rights Commission opposes child marriages in Saudi Arabia,"
al-Harithi said. "Child marriages violate international agreements that have
been signed by Saudi Arabia and should not be allowed." He added that his
organization has been able to intervene and stop at least one child marriage
from taking place.

Wajeha al-Huwaider, co-founder of the Society of Defending Women's Rights in
Saudi Arabia, told CNN that achieving human rights in the kingdom means
standing against those who want to "keep us backward and in the dark ages."

She said the marriages cause girls to "lose their sense of security and safety.
Also, it destroys their feeling of being loved and nurtured. It causes them a
lifetime of psychological problems and severe depression."

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/04/12/saudi.child.marriage/index.html?e
ref=rss_topstories

(Lemony Snicket/39825) Cadenza> Excellent post, very informative and well stated.

Lemony Snicket@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:05:00 -0600

Cadenza> Excellent post, very informative and well stated.
FGM is a travesty and all women so afflicted suffer a lifetime of agony.
Those who force this on young women should be prosecuted.

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39824) You know, you're doing it again.

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 07:41:00 -0600

You know, you're doing it again.

Arguing in bad faith.

(Bodhi Dharma/39823) Cadenza> Okay, so you've got some standard by which you determin...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 12:44:00 -0600

Cadenza> Okay, so you've got some standard by which you determine what is harm.
Other people have other standards for determining harm - even contradictory
ones.
Are you right just because you say you are?
Are they right just because they say they are?

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39822) Huh? FGM creates harm because it causes lifetime medical issues....

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 11:07:00 -0600

Huh? FGM creates harm because it causes lifetime medical issues. It's also done
under extremely unsanitary conditions, as well as making sex permanently
painful. It is just bad for female reproductivew health altogether.

Are you always such a relativist? Would you actually support FGM just because
it's a cultural practice? And I would think a physician who works with women
who've had FGM done to them would have a lot to say about it.

There a lot of cultural practices that have thankfully died out, say,
sacrificing children or stoning adulterers. Would you campaign for their
revival?

And to say that my post said "nothing" is just offensive dismissal and over the
line. You should talk, the way you refuse to define your terms.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

(Bodhi Dharma/39821) I love how you used the fall back "harm" without ever stating wh...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 09:04:00 -0600

I love how you used the fall back "harm" without ever stating what "harm" is or
noting that different people have wildly different, even contradictory, notions
of what harm is.
So, you basically said nothing in your post.

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39820) It's already a principle of law in this country that parents can...

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:53:00 -0600

It's already a principle of law in this country that parents can't make the
final decisions for their daughters' reproductive health, parental notification
laws notwithstanding.

We shouldn't allow parents to harm their children in any way for the sake of
cultural practice.

Incidentally, here's a really good article in the November-December 2008
issue of ColorLines:

NAWAL NOUR
The MacArthur Genius is training healthcare providers to work with African
women who've undergone female genital circumcision

By Elizabeth Barajas-Roman

Why did you decide to open the African Women's Health Center in Boston? When I
was doing my ob/gyn residency at Brigham and Women's Hospital, I gradually
developed a practice for African women who have circumcision... I grew up in
Sudan where circumcision was very comon. The African women felt comfortable
with me because I saw female circumcision as a matter of fact. Then, I
approached the leaders of the Brigham and Women's Hospital [to see] if they
were interested in formalizing an African center where we would be focusing on
women who had genital cutting and also reproductive health in general of
refugee women of African descent.

Was there any resistance to opening the center? When we opened it up, no one
showed up for several months... it was a bit of a puzzling moment. Then around
that time, I realized the community thought that I was financially benefiting
from the clinic. I had to go back into the community to say I'm a salaried
position. If you'd like to come see me, great, but I'm going to see anyone who
comes to see me. I intended to provide a service that was specifically for
them, but there was suspicion in the community.

Was this suspicion something that came from their experience in the United
States or from their homelands? I think it's both. The Somali community has
come from war zones. It is very rare that people do something for them. I had
to work very hard to establish trust to get them to understand that it's pure
recognition that there is a need in the community and my job is to fulfill that
need. And that I'm being selfish in that it gives me pleasure to fulfill the
need; not [that] there is any other ulterior motive.

The other portion is that in the United States, it gets very difficult for
immigrants and refugees to settle here and feel welcome.

Where are your patients from? The majority live in Boston, but I do have women
who travel from very far away... some come from Texas and California. I try to
prevent that, so I do a lot of counseling on the phone. The goal is to train
other physicians and not to have patients travel from afar. Most are immigrants
[and] refugees who don't have much funding, can't afford the finances or the
time to come see me.

And that goes back to training the residents. Most graduate and leave Boston.
For about 10 years, I've created a network of physicians who know are are
comfortable taking care of women who have been circumcised.

What are the most common misconceptions healthcare providers have about women
who've been circumcised? Health providers have a very difficult time
understanding that a cultural practice exists. And so when they look at women
who have been circumcised, as I try to tell them, even the slightest wince or
flinch or disapproval will turn off the patient and will prevent her from ever
coming back to that provider because that patient will feel she's been judged.

For women who've been circumcised, it's a done deal. It's over. But what ends
up happening, it's as if they are carrying a flag of, 'I am circumcised,' or,
'I've undergone female genital cutting,' along with them, and health providers
can't see beyond the scar and see the woman herself.

In fact, the circumcision is not so much of the big issue. Her biggest issue is
resettling in the United States, or how to get her children in the right
schools, or how to walk down the street and not feel ostracized because she is
wearing a hijab, the veil. So her main concerns have nothing to do with the
fact that she's been circumcised.

What about second-generation children, are there specific concerns you see? It
is incredibly interesting in that adolescents in general are going through a
sexual discovery. Even American teenagers are struggling with how they should
look... what should they be wearing, what kind of music they should be
listening to... all those social pressures come down on teenage girls.

And all that is the same for second-generation African girls. But they have one
more thing. They do physically look different than American women. Their
external genitalia is different. Something happened to them in their home
country and now they do look different... but then how does that play into
interactions with boys? So these are themes we are trying to explore,
understand and counsel with the teenage population.

Where do you see your practice five to ten years from now? My main goal is to
become obsolete. The purpose of my work is to train enough new health providers
to provide culturally competent care of women who've been circumcised so there
no longer has to be a specialty clinic. When it comes to issues on female
circumcision itself... the long-term goal is prevention.

Elizabeth Barajas-Roman is the associate director of the Population and
Development program at Hampshire College.

(Cervantes/39818) So, has anyone here read Infidel? It's a powerful feminist view.

Cervantes@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 22:20:00 -0600

So, has anyone here read Infidel? It's a powerful feminist view.

(Bodhi Dharma/39817) I agree, but which culture should be allowed to make the determi...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 15:45:00 -0600

I agree, but which culture should be allowed to make the determination as to
whether a choice is something a parent should be allowed to make?  Should the
foreign culture be used or should the native culture?
And why?

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39816) Yes, a parent's kids shouldn't be able to make some choices rega...

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 02:28:00 -0600


Yes, a parent's kids shouldn't be able to make some choices regarding their
kids.  In a case like this, it doesn't really merit debate, does it?

(Bodhi Dharma/39815) We aren't debating whether or not FGM is heinous. I believe eve...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 12:32:00 -0600

We aren't debating whether or not FGM is heinous.  I believe everyone here
agrees that it is.  What I'm pointing out is that it is a choice.
So, what, it isn't a choice because it's done on kids?  A parent's kids
shouldn't be able to make choices regarding that kid?
It sounds to me like you are trying to arbitrarily split hairs on this issue.
If the dominant culture should interceed when a foreign culture is imported and
part of that foreign culture involves doing something the dominant culture
disagrees with, then that's that.

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39814) We were talking about Sharia courts in western countries which i...

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 12:09:00 -0600

We were talking about Sharia courts in western countries which is a thing
totally different from FGM.

Apples and oranges. A Sharia court in a western country will not bring physical
harm to a woman. FGM always brings harm and should be stamped out, wherever it
is. Most women who undergo FGM do it when they are too young to consent. The
fact that many FGM practitioners are women does not make the process any less
heinous. It is almost always done under unsanitary conditions and many women
have medical complications the rest of their lives from it. It also has nothing
to do with Islam. There is nothing in the Koran which sanctions this practice.

A woman has to voluntarily submit herself to a sharia court in a western
country for it to have any effect. Girls who are subjected to FGM are too young
to "volunteer" for this brutal practice. It is NOT a choice.

The whole point of feminism is autonomy, no? Tell me how a young girl below the
legal age of consent can consent to this. Most of them don't want this to
happen, but are forced into it by their community. FGM usually happens before
puberty. A prepubescent girl cannot consent to her own mutilation by
definition.

(Bodhi Dharma/39813) Interesting and well thought out responses, thank you.

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 20:36:00 -0600

Interesting and well thought out responses, thank you.
But I can't help but think of FGM.  It is practiced by women in the cultures
that practice it, usually performed by women (in fact, I can think of no
culture where it is a man who does the actual act of FGM (that is, female
genital mutilation)).  By every standard you've brought to bear in this
discussion regarding Sharia to explain it as a choice, you can also explain FGM
as a choice.
I wonder, though, what percentage of feminists would argue that FGM should be
regarded as 'okay'.

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39812) Of course you didn't find it, because I didn't say it, because i...

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 01:53:00 -0600

Of course you didn't find it, because I didn't say it, because it's not what I
think.

(Lammam P Yrruf/39811) It wasn't in the last 150 posts. Nearest I can find is 100 post...

Lammam P Yrruf@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 19:13:00 -0600

It wasn't in the last 150 posts.  Nearest I can find is 100 posts ago you
expressed surprise that a woman in a western nation would wilfully opt-in to a
sharia court.

How long ago was this, Cadenza?  I'd like to understand the conversation from
your perspective, but I haven't saved any posts older than September 18th.

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39810) I see.

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:39:00 -0600

I see.

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39809) Well, I don't remember when! I just know this stuff was discusse...

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:37:00 -0600

Well, I don't remember when! I just know this stuff was discussed earlier and
it hasn't scrolled yet.

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39808) You'll have to be more specific.

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:37:00 -0600

You'll have to be more specific.

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39807) Read back.

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:36:00 -0600

Read back.

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39806) When was that?

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:32:00 -0600

When was that?

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39805) Yep. You did.

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 13:53:00 -0600

Yep. You did.

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39804) Did someone here claim otherwise? I must have missed it.

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 04:41:00 -0600


Did someone here claim otherwise? I must have missed it.

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39803) Look, being a woman in Iran sucks. I don't have a romantic view ...

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 17:44:00 -0600

Look, being a woman in Iran sucks. I don't have a romantic view of it. I just
think the way women are resisting such oppression to be cool.

But a woman in a western country wearing a hijab repressed? Nope.

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39802) You have a pretty romanticized view of opression.

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 17:29:00 -0600

You have a pretty romanticized view of opression.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6596933.stm

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39801) Having known female Muslims in college, it is most definitely a ...

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 16:49:00 -0600

Having known female Muslims in college, it is most definitely a choice. And I
find it offensive that people would term these savvy, educated women as somehow
brainwashed. Many of them didn't grow up with the hijab, and chose to wear it
as adults. And many of them have very thought-out reasons to do so, but the
problem is, people are so busy labeling them as brainwashed victims that no one
bothers to ASK what those reasons are.

To many women, the hijab is freedom because it stops men from viewing them as
sexual objects. In many ways, sexual objectification can be more oppressive
than not wearing whatever you please. I wouldn't want to wear the hijab, but I
totally understand this reasoning. The hijab only seems oppressive if women
have no other choice but to wear one. Hijabs are repressive in situations where
women are required to wear one by law. However, in Iran, where hijabs are still
mandatory, young women are finding very creative ways of flouting the law while
obeying the letter of it. They will often wear very revealing clothing while
keeping their hair covered. And if men give them any grief over it, they shout,
"You're a bad Muslim! You're not even supposed to be looking at me that way!"

Heh. Iranian women rock.

(Smoke Eater/39800) Making sure others have freedom of choice involves them possibly...

Smoke Eater@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:34:00 -0600

Making sure others have freedom of choice involves them possibly making choices
we don't agree with.

(Gwynn/39799) Had a discussion with a reader once, she was going on about how ...

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 10:50:00 -0600

Had a discussion with a reader once, she was going on about how this woman gave
great lectures about Muslim women wearing the hijab and how it was oppression
and all that.  So I'm like, OK, look, I get that it can be oppression, but
don't you have to admit that it's also a choice?  At the time there had been a
case about a Muslim woman working somewhere and having some sort of fight about
wearing the hijab, so it was clear to me that she wanted to wear it, it was her
choice.

So this woman is like, oh no, she talks about that and says how they might
think it's a hcoice but ....  I kind of forget the rest of it because I think
it was the usual blather about having internalized their oppression or
something.  I think it's really great that feminism has said, look, you know,
some of this stuff isn't a choice, women really aren't OK with it, but yeah,
sometimes it gets way too stuck in its own narrative of how the world works.

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39798) "BD> If you want an example of foreign cultures coming into West...

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 08:37:00 -0600


"BD> If you want an example of foreign cultures coming into Western culture,
how
about Orthodox Jews in the United States. An Orthodox Jewish woman cannot get a
divorce without getting a get (divorce) from her husband. She can obtain a
civil divorce from a U.S. court, but in her community, she's still considered
married and cannot remarry. The only way for her divorce to have any weight
would be if she left her community all together."

  Catholics work the same way.  A civil divorce is meaningless without the
church's anullment, and Catholics who remarry civily can find themselves
excommunicated.  One of my high school teachers was fired from his job at the
Catholic high school for remarrying without an anulment.

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39797) Cadenza, those are great points you make. I think you outsmarted...

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 07:57:00 -0600


Cadenza, those are great points you make. I think you outsmarted the majority
of western feminists by your statement:

"In fact, while the oppression of women in Muslim countries is a serious issue,
the Western feminist tendency to paint them as victims does them a huge
disservice because it ignores their reality and their attachment to their own
religion and culture. Middle Eastern women do want more rights, but they want
those rights AS Muslims. They don't see being more Westernized as really the
solution (though I'm sure they would like the freedom to Westernize if they
wish; just as they wish for the freedom to express their culture.)"

It was so right on point, I couldn't help reposting it verbatim.

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39796) Re: msg #29749

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 23:02:00 -0600

Re: msg #29749

BD> Again, you irritate by your refusal to define terms.

But I will assert that you use "cult" wrongly in referring to Islam in Britain.
The definition of cult in modern terms is a close-knit group where all contact
with outsiders is strongly discouraged and often made impossible. Muslims are
assimilating fairly well in Britain and the US aside from a few pockets. I
work with Muslims. I almost married one. I don't think Sharia courts in the US
would have changed anything. I just don't know of any Muslim of my acquaintance
who would submit to them. And that's just it. Unless people volutarily submit
to their judgment, Sharia courts have NO power. So Britain gave up NADA in
terms of power or culture. Sometimes accomodation can be a powerful ruling
tactic, no? So if you think the Sharia court is some huge threat, it's not. It
will matter to only a few very religious Muslims, and everyone else, including
many Muslims, will ignore it.

I'm Jewish, but does that mean that the rulings of the Beth Din apply to me?
No. Because I'm not a member of that particular Orthodox community and I do not
recognize its authority. Religious courts are only relevant to those who
actually practice the religion. The general trend in Western countries is for
people to get LESS religious over generations. The younger generation of
Muslims will be less religious than their parents. It's natural and inevitable.
The only thing that will bollix that up is if the state appears to be
repressive towards a certain religion. That more than anything will get people
fired up and radicalized. Radicalized Muslims are a huge problem in the UK. You
don't reach radicalized youth by repressing them further. Allowing sharia
courts that only have a voluntary civil function is a very smart and classy
move to prevent further radicalization. And as future generations of British
Muslims become less religious, the sharia court will become less and less
relevant.

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39795) Sharia in British culture debate> I think the problem is that BD...

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 22:40:00 -0600

Sharia in British culture debate> I think the problem is that BD is operating
under the assumption that Sharia is inherently oppressive. And the fact is,
much of it is not. A lot of sharia deals with civil matters, such as
enforcement of contracts, same as the Beth Din for Orthodox Jews. And BECAUSE
it is in Britain, both disputing parties have to VOLUNTARILY submit to the
Sharia court. If one party doesn't agree, it goes smack into the civil court.
So I really don't see that Britain is really giving up jurisdiction in anything
here. It's just like any civil dispute where the parties decide to resolve it
by other means besides going to court. Perfectly legal and frankly, keeps court
dockets clear for more important things.

Obviously, Sharia courts in Britain aren't allowed to impose the harsh
penalties towards crimes as those are criminal matters, and if the sharia court
tried, they'd be commiting a crime against Britain. Matters such as theft,
murder, (and yes, domestic violence!) are criminal matters and are dealt with
by British criminal courts, and they take their jurisdiction VERY seriously. So
as things stand, I really don't see the harm. Substitute sharia court for
neighborhood association. The sharia court in any western country only has
power if both parties submit themselves to it.

And frankly, it's a little insulting to assume that if a woman submits to
sharia law in a western country (as opposed to a Middle Eastern theocracy where
she doesn't have any choice) she doesn't know what she's doing. Women submit to
sharia law or wear the hijab for reasons of their own, not necessarily because
they are oppressed by men. I personally think Muslim women as victim is an
unflattering portrait because it's largely untrue. And the beauty of living in
a western country is that she can take her beef to the secular authorities any
time she wants.

In fact, while the oppression of women in Muslim countries is a serious issue,
the Western feminist tendency to paint them as victims does them a huge
disservice because it ignores their reality and their attachment to their own
religion and culture. Middle Eastern women do want more rights, but they want
those rights AS Muslims. They don't see being more Westernized as really the
solution (though I'm sure they would like the freedom to Westernize if they
wish; just as they wish for the freedom to express their culture.) Whether or
not to wear the hijab is really a minor issue. What they want is the freedom to
drive (in Saudi Arabia), the freedom to education, the freedom to enter
whatever vocation they choose, and equal pay. None of those freedoms are
explicity denied in the Koran or Sharia. These freedoms are being denied not so
much by the religion of Islam, but by longstanding tradition and patriarchy.

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39794) Re: msg #39675

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 22:30:00 -0600

Re: msg #39675

BD> If you want an example of foreign cultures coming into Western culture, how
about Orthodox Jews in the United States. An Orthodox Jewish woman cannot get a
divorce without getting a get (divorce) from her husband. She can obtain a
civil divorce from a U.S. court, but in her community, she's still considered
married and cannot remarry. The only way for her divorce to have any weight
would be if she left her community all together.

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39793) Thanks for the recommendation, Bo Peep.

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 08:44:00 -0600


Thanks for the recommendation, Bo Peep.

(Bo Peep/39792) nothing to do with any current thread or recent discussion - BUT...

Bo Peep@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 00:00:00 -0600

nothing to do with any current thread or recent discussion - BUT, I just
finished a marvelous book "Swastika Night."  If you have not read it I would
heartily recomment it.  Written in 1937, it is set 600 years into a future
where hitler won and as a result was elevated to the status of a God. His
followers took his words to a level that I think even he would have disapproved
of.  Women are only used for breeding. Not desirable, not coveted or used, just
breeders.

(Bodhi Dharma/39791) If that is any indication of a feminist stance, than feminism ne...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:16:00 -0600

If that is any indication of a feminist stance, than feminism needs to get in
touch with women.
"as though he were in a locker room"?  I mean, I've been around women talking
about a guy's physical appearance.  What's the big deal?  Its not clear.
"bald man who had been dominating the conversation snapped at her"  Yes,
interupting people is rude.  She did it.  I've done it.  Being upset about it
isn't the sign of some conspiracy - patriarchal or otherwise.
"if it were not for the fact the Hillary Clinton had recently been demoted from
presidential contender to possible secretary of state"  If you want to talk
about possible issues, it isn't that Clinton didn't become president - it's
that we don't have better examples of strong women in politics running for the
white house then Clinton and Palin.
"OK, too, for men openly to dismiss women as social and intellectual equals,
the better to focus on how they rate in the all-important looks department". 
Why does it have to be either/or?
The rest of that post gets even more ridiculous.  "vaginal-American"?? 
"reductionist male gaze"??  Presidential candidates get judged on their
appearance.  That has always been the case.  But if its Hillary, then its a
conspiracy?
I mean, where's the intelligent feminism?

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39790) http://www.alternet.org/story/107855/the_bitch_and_the_airhead%3...

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:40:00 -0600

http://www.alternet.org/story/107855/the_bitch_and_the_airhead%3A_blatan
t_women-bashing_makes_a_gut-wrenching_comeback/

The Bitch and the Airhead: Blatant Women-Bashing Makes a Gut-Wrenching
Comeback

By Daphne Merkin <http://www.alternet.org/authors/10089/> , The Daily
Beast <http://thedailybeast.com> . Posted November 20, 2008
<http://www.alternet.org/ts/archives/?date%5bF%5d=11&date%5bY%5d=2008&da
te%5bd%5d=20&act=Go/> .
hange may well be coming to Washington. But the public discourse about
women has taken several steps backward.

Now that the election is over and racism is ostensibly down for the
count, has sexism gotten a new dispensation? Has the "unlikability" (not
to mention "unfuckability") of Hillary not only cost her the
presidential nomination but brought out the streak of misogyny that runs
deep in American culture, affecting the way men think about women and
the way women think about themselves?

And what about Sarah Palin, the breeding babe who has emerged as a
comely figure of fun with seemingly not a mote of self-doubt in her
constitution? Has she furthered men's natural instinct to write off
women as light entertainment, chattering nitwits with a shaky hold on
the hard facts, and also triggered the self-hatred mechanism in the
women who refused to go along with her as a "you can have it all"
representation of how far feminism had come? (Legs! Clothes! Family!
Career!)

These are some of the questions that swirled through my head as I stood
in the bar of a private club renowned for the eminence of its membership
two nights after Obama had swept the elections. The occasion was the
club's monthly dinner, and the bar was fitted out mostly with men in
tuxes, except for several women in suitably festive garb. (The
institution, like many such, had originally been a men's-only affair and
still retains much of its Old World, Masters of the Universe tone
despite the fact that it started admitting women in 1989.)

As I chatted with a small all-male group, one of them inquired after an
absent woman's physical appearance as though he were in a locker room
and another sheepishly asserted that he found Palin deeply attractive,
as though this were a disclosure unworthy of him -- or, perhaps, of the
club's standards of political correctitude. (Feeling it incumbent upon
myself to reassure him, in classic feminine fashion, I chimed in: "I
find her attractive myself.")

Minutes later a woman mouthed hello to me over the heads of this boyish
bunch and the short, bald man who had been dominating the conversation
snapped at her: "Let me finish my story!" By the time I bid goodnight,
the evening's patronizing atmosphere left me feeling as though I had
stepped out of line without saying much of anything and should take my
rightful place in hobble skirts in the back parlor with the rest of the
weaker sex.

These snatches of conversation might not ordinarily have struck me as
evidence of a sea change, a shift in the way that women are perceived,
if it were not for the fact that Hillary Clinton had recently been
demoted from presidential contender to possible secretary of state -- a
move that once again positions her as ready and willing to serve rather
than to command -- while Sarah Palin continues to brand herself on the
talk show circuit with the same astonishing bravura she exhibited as a
wild-card vice presidential nominee. Under these circumstances, it was
hard to bat away the feeling that keeps tugging at the back of my mind,
which is that although change may well be coming to Washington, the
public discourse about women has taken several steps backward. (A poll
conducted this week by The Daily Beast
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-11-18/the-barrier-t
hat-didnrsquot-fall/> confirms these suspicions.)

The evidence may be difficult to pin down, but it hovers in the
atmosphere, making this reversion felt in myriad ways. Once again, for
instance, it seems to be OK to talk about women as risible in their
aspirations to leadership; OK, too, for men openly to dismiss women as
social and intellectual equals, the better to focus on how they rate in
the all-important looks department. For a time, the feminist movement
forced this chauvinist mind-set to go underground, but now women-bashing
seems to be back in style. (And is it only me, or is there something
about women's attitude to other women, especially those in the
limelight, that seems to suggest that centuries of disenfranchisement
has produced the Stockholm Syndrome rather than Steadfast Sisterhood?)

Of course, any vaginal-American running for high office is instantly
consigned to the scrutiny of the reductionist male gaze and the
hypercritical female one. Hillary's cankles were as closely analyzed as
her competence, just as Nancy Pelosi, perhaps the most powerful woman in
government, is more famous for her pearls than her policies. What
Clinton failed to realize is that when it comes to female candidates,
accomplishment is a sideline; Americans, both men and women, want
gossip. Can she really believe we're more intrigued by what bills she's
helped pass than her relationship with Bill? Small wonder the woman
lost.

Strong women have always threatened men and will continue to do so as
long as women remain the primary caretakers of young children, the
front-line enforcers of society's inhibiting agenda. What seems newly in
evidence is how resistant women are, consciously or not, to putting one
of their own in power. It was, after all, a woman who asked John McCain
at a November campaign meeting the question that launched almost a
million You Tube hits: "How do we beat the bitch?" Young women today
appear less concerned about the limitations imposed on them with good
reason; they can indeed become lawyers and doctors with greater ease
than would have been imaginable in the 1950s. The attitude seems to be
that as feminist goals have gotten closer -- no matter that women are
still routinely paid less for their labor -- there's no need for the
strident rhetoric or far-reaching vision of the women's movement.

But here's something to give pause: The special election issue of The
New Yorker has five male writers commenting on its implications; there
is only one woman featured in the issue (although she has two pieces, as
if in compensation). Similarly, the November issues of Harper's and The
Atlantic are top-heavy with male writers, notwithstanding the fact that
The Atlantic cover touts a story headlined "Should Women Rule the
World?" which turns out to be a rather cutesy review of a book by DeeDee
Myers with that title, not a serious consideration of the question at
all.

Meanwhile, a recent issue of OK! magazine promised to tell readers about
Michelle Obama's style ("Michelle looks amazing in yellow") and "her
date nights with Barack." You know, girly stuff, as befits our interest
in a Grownup Girl. Can it be that Samuel Johnson, the 18th-century
writer and wit, was not all that far from contemporary truth when he
observed that when it came to women it was best to keep one's
expectations low: "Sir, a woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on
his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it
done at all."

If we keep our expectations low enough, the surprise is not that Hillary
Clinton didn't become our first woman president but that she made such a
strong showing in the primaries. A round of applause for the lady
walking on her hind legs.

(Bodhi Dharma/39789) It's not a fatwa against women's liberty. The ruling isnt' sayi...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:18:00 -0600

It's not a fatwa against women's liberty.  The ruling isnt' saying that women
can't have sex outside of marriage.  It is saying that a man has the right to
be told the truth and to decide for himself what to do about the truth.
As for how I feel about it, I don't know French law and so don't know the
context, but if it were in the US, I'd be quite upset about the state's
interference.

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39788) Several levels of irony

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:22:00 -0600

Several levels of irony
http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1903.htm

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39787) What are people's thoughts on this?

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:29:00 -0600


What are people's thoughts on this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7733601.stm

French 'virgin' ruling reversed

A French court of appeal has overruled the decision to annul the marriage of
two Muslims because the bride had lied about being a virgin.

The court acted despite both halves of the couple saying they accepted the
original judgement.

That verdict had caused emotional debate and outrage among some feminists, who
said it amounted to a fatwa against women's liberty.

But the husband's lawyers said the case had nothing to do with religion.

(Mean Mr Mustard/39786) I'm glad this BBS has one person who can put forth a reasoned pe...

Mean Mr Mustard@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:49:00 -0600

I'm glad this BBS has one person who can put forth a reasoned perspective on
things.  Too bad you're not a chick, Step.

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39785) Thanks, Steppenwolf. I like your analysis.

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:38:00 -0600

Thanks, Steppenwolf. I like your analysis.

(Steppenwolf/39784) Did sexism play a role in the elections? ABSOLUTELY. Not that I...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:26:00 -0600

Did sexism play a role in the elections?  ABSOLUTELY. Not that I think the SNL
skit was particularly sexist, but the choice of Palin is based at least in part
on her sex and her sex appeal, and lots of the vitriol spewed at her was sexist
in nature.  Clinton was just as badly treated, if not worse, because of the
general impression that a woman can't be both competent and warm.  (Palin
wasn't supposed to be warm--she was supposed to be a pitbull with lipstick or
something, it's not really clear.)

That said, I'd suggest it did not play a _determinative_ role.  In the
primaries, Obama ran a superior campaign, and one could argue that if it were
not for Clinton actually showing that warmth she's supposed to be without in
New Hampshire, the primary season might have been done by Super Tuesday or
before.  In the general election, not only did Obama run an excellent campaign,
and McCain a very poor one, but the odds were heavily tilted in favor of
Democrats anyway.

So yeah, sexism is everywhere--but it didn't change any outcomes, I suspect.

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39783) Heh. OK.

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:16:00 -0600

Heh. OK.

If sexism played no role in the elections, can the US say it's a post-sexist
society?

(Ralph/39782) Again, no.

Ralph@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:14:00 -0600

Again, no.

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39781) Care to elaborate, Ralph?

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:54:00 -0600

Care to elaborate, Ralph?

(Ralph/39780) Also, no.

Ralph@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:39:00 -0600

Also, no.

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39779) So the SNL skit was wrong? :)

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:37:00 -0600

So the SNL skit was wrong? :)

(Ralph/39778) None.

Ralph@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:24:00 -0600


None.

It didn't.

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39777) To what extent do people feel sexism played a role in the recent...

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:23:00 -0600


To what extent do people feel sexism played a role in the recent elections?
Specifically, how did gender cost Hillary the Democratic nomination?

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39776) See how it says "But at what cost to their culture?".

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:23:00 -0500

See how it says "But at what cost to their culture?".
Apparently that's an important consideration when dealing with conservative
cultures.

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39775) See how it only says that the women lost her job and reputation....

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:01:00 -0500


See how it only says that the women lost her job and reputation. The guy's
reputation is irrelevant.

(Mean Mr Mustard/39774) I question the judgement of anyone who has sex in public in a co...

Mean Mr Mustard@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:50:00 -0500

I question the judgement of anyone who has sex in public in a conservative
region.  I was lectured soundly about kissing my wife on a train in India.

I also applaud the young couple for seeing one another's inner beauty.

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39773) What do people think about this?

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:07:00 -0500


What do people think about this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7674085.stm
Beach sex sentence in Dubai involves three-month imprisonment then deportation.

(Bodhi Dharma/39771) Lammam> Or perhaps there is shared box in which a group of peopl...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:38:00 -0500

Lammam> Or perhaps there is shared box in which a group of people wish to
restrict their thinking.
So, when someone steps outside that box, they don't know how to process it.

(Gwynn/39770) Wait ... so what you're saying is that it's actually bad for sha...

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:10:00 -0500

Wait ... so what you're saying is that it's actually bad for sharia, that
English values will seep into it and ruin it?

(Lammam P Yrruf/39769) BD, if most respondents consistently reply with an understanding...

Lammam P Yrruf@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:07:00 -0500

BD, if most respondents consistently reply with an understanding you did not
intend to communicate - and that impression endures as you continue to repeat
your arguments - perhaps the problem is not in your audience.  Perhaps you're
not making yourself clear, or are choosing your words poorly.  Because we're
only telling you what we've read in your posts.

(Bodhi Dharma/39768) As for the danger, it comes from keeping the native culture seep...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 14:41:00 -0500

As for the danger, it comes from keeping the native culture seep into the
institution rather than preventing those on the inside from stepping out.
The danger comes from the barriers to intervention.

(Bodhi Dharma/39767) I sit stunned watching as you people make all kinds of assumptio...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 14:36:00 -0500

I sit stunned watching as you people make all kinds of assumptions which
directly contradict what I've actually said and then try to attribute your
bogus positions to me.
For example, I never once said that English culture is more fair and equitable
than Shari'a.  What I said is that the English value system by which it
determines 'fair and equitable' is immiscible with Shari'a.  In other words, a
person native to England will think certain things are 'fair and equitable'
that someone raised in a culture where Shari'a is the law of the land might not
- and vice versa.

(Steppenwolf/39766) Boy oh boy. I was going to lay out my whole argument here, but ...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 06:28:00 -0500

Boy oh boy.  I was going to lay out my whole argument here, but Gwynn really
did it for me in the last post.  I certainly have some concerns about it; I
mean, I don't approve of its attitude towards women in the slightest, and I get
where family pressures and isolation could cause someone to make a choice they
would not normally make... though there's some truth to Gwynn's point that it
might have happened anyway.

In full honesty, part of the reason I've taken the stance I have is simply
because BD's argument has been so inconsistent and so incongruously passionate
about diversity itself that it strongly suggests a point where rationality has
been left behind.  BD purportedly doesn't care about the women whose
inheritances might be lost--that's just a cultural change--but gets really
really mad when one culture makes room for another culture's values?  So angry
that he'll try to find at least three different avenues of attack to show why
they're bad, only to disavow at least two of them?  This is all indicative of a
personal argument, not a truly analytical argument.

Such arguments are a dime a dozen on the BBS, really, and usually I don't play
devil's advocate like that, because it's obvious to everyone except the poster;
here, I'm so startled to have it come from BD that I wanted to explore it.

(Gwynn/39765) True. Very true. But Bodhi's basically suggesting that those c...

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 22:13:00 -0500

True.  Very true.  But Bodhi's basically suggesting that those conditions
constitute a cult.  And I think where his argument falls down is that even if
we assume this, sharia doesn't really add any new danger.  Because let's assume
England never adopted it.  Do you really think those women wouldn't experience
the same pressures and such not to go to the English courts in the first place?
 Thus sharia doesn't seem to me to be some radical new danger, unless Bodhi
would actually like to demonstrate the ways in which sharia is dangerous to
women.  For all I know it could be, but that hasn't at all been demonstrated.

If I can extrapolate a bit as well, the presumption is that since English
culture is "giving up its native values", that English culture, law in this
case, would be far more fair and equitable towards women.  Do I need to mention
that our legal system is hardly bias-free?  Plus keep in mind the sharia can
only be used for civil matters.  I think for Bodhi to show dangerto women, it's
probably important to find out just what kind of matters it can actually be
used for in England.

So what's the argument now?  Is England's "giving up its native values"
inherrently dangerous/a problem in and of itself?  Does it constitute a danger
to women in and of itself?  Or is it that sharia is dangerous to women,
something that Bodhi has yet to demonstrate in any way whatsoever?  I wish we
could pin down a single argument so we could get somewhere.  It seems to keep
changing into something else.

(Lammam P Yrruf/39764) Y'don't have to be in a "cult" to be in a cultural environment i...

Lammam P Yrruf@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 22:02:00 -0500

Y'don't have to be in a "cult" to be in a cultural environment in which women
are compeled through fear or shame to hide their abuse rather than report and
confront it.

(Gwynn/39763) Of course there are! The community's like a cult, haven't you b...

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 22:00:00 -0500

Of course there are!  The community's like a cult, haven't you been listening
to Bodhi?  Man, you people.  Sometimes I think you just don't want to hear the
truth or something!

(Mean Mr Mustard/39762) There might be familial or community forces at play, I'd imagine...

Mean Mr Mustard@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 22:00:00 -0500

There might be familial or community forces at play, I'd imagine.

(Lammam P Yrruf/39761) Nothing on the part of the legal system anyhow. Are there other...

Lammam P Yrruf@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 21:43:00 -0500

Nothing on the part of the legal system anyhow.  Are there other sources of
such compulsion?

(Mean Mr Mustard/39759) Ok. I see that Sharia rulings function as arbitration tribunals...

Mean Mr Mustard@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 21:37:00 -0500

Ok.  I see that Sharia rulings function as arbitration tribunals, and not as
legal courts, per se.  That means that all parties must voluntraily agree to
abide by the rulings, which may not be legally enforceable after they are
issued.  So there is nothing that would compel a woman to accept or even engage
in a sharia ruling.

(Bodhi Dharma/39758) Okay, I was baited into making this personal rather than focus o...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 20:55:00 -0500

Okay, I was baited into making this personal rather than focus on the issue.
I'm going to try to refocus on the discusson topic.

(Lammam P Yrruf/39757) Thanks daddy.

Lammam P Yrruf@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 20:53:00 -0500

Thanks daddy.

(Bodhi Dharma/39756) That's rich. You get offended because you believe I'm using wor...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 20:51:00 -0500

That's rich.  You get offended because you believe I'm using words in ways
which directly contradict how I've explained I'm using the words.  The ways I'm
using the words are in agreement with the common usage.
And the fact that you get offended indicates that some sort of character flaw
on my part.
Grow up.

(Lammam P Yrruf/39755) Oh wait. YOu're talking about someone ELSE'S reaction to your u...

Lammam P Yrruf@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 20:49:00 -0500

Oh wait.  YOu're talking about someone ELSE'S reaction to your use of the
phrase "cult dynamics", which I agreed was out of line.

Your use of the phrase was at best questionable.  Don't make OUR response to it
a debate over /my/ character flaws.  It's about yours.;

(Bodhi Dharma/39754) msg#39742

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 20:48:00 -0500

msg#39742

(Lammam P Yrruf/39753) Find where I attempted such a painting.

Lammam P Yrruf@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 20:47:00 -0500

Find where I attempted such a painting.

(Bodhi Dharma/39752) Let's see..my use of the word 'cult' includes the idea of a mino...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 20:42:00 -0500

Let's see..my use of the word 'cult' includes the idea of a minor religion in
conflict with the overall culture and which has a leadership with power
throughout the members' lives.
And I'm the one not using words as they are commonly used?
Lammam's just getting offended because he wants to paint me as saying that
Islam is a cult and he's getting frustrated that he can't do so.

(Mean Mr Mustard/39751) Ok, then I leave you to your idiosyncratic sophistry. Goody for...

Mean Mr Mustard@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 20:44:00 -0500

Ok, then I leave you to your idiosyncratic sophistry.  Goody for you!

(Lammam P Yrruf/39750) He's not defining /shit/. He's using words so long as they make...

Lammam P Yrruf@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 20:37:00 -0500

He's not defining /shit/.  He's using words so long as they make him feel like
he's made a point, and then pretending that others are fringe wingnuts for
understanding those words as they are commonly used.

(Bodhi Dharma/39749) No, because "Islam" is not monolithic. There are variants of Is...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 20:36:00 -0500

No, because "Islam" is not monolithic.  There are variants of Islam which do
not meet my definition while, simultaneously, other variants do.
So, using "Islam" as a blanket term, as you are, is wrong.

(Mean Mr Mustard/39748) So you're defining Islam as a cult within the context of the imm...

Mean Mr Mustard@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 20:35:00 -0500

So you're defining Islam as a cult within the context of the immigrant
population's experience in Britain?  I thought that was what I asked.

(Bodhi Dharma/39747) MMM> Read msg#39662. I didn't say that Islam==cult. I've been ...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 20:31:00 -0500

MMM> Read msg#39662.  I didn't say that Islam==cult.  I've been far more
precise about how I'm using the term and why I'm using it.

(Bodhi Dharma/39746) But if it helps, if you can offer an alternative word which mean...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 20:22:00 -0500

But if it helps, if you can offer an alternative word which means the same
thing but which you are able to seperate from negative connotations which
you're getting mired in, offer them for the discussion.  If I feel that they
do, in fact, mean the same thing, I'll use them instead.

(Bodhi Dharma/39745) Lammam> I have no interest in your purported negative connotatio...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 20:21:00 -0500

Lammam> I have no interest in your purported negative connotations for a word.
The fact that you can't rise above such things is something I have no idea how
to help you with.

(Mean Mr Mustard/39744) Since you rarely are clear in your arguments, definitions, or po...

Mean Mr Mustard@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 20:20:00 -0500

Since you rarely are clear in your arguments, definitions, or points, let me be
sure I understand you: are you casting Islam as a cult in the context of
British culture?

(Bodhi Dharma/39743) Christianity would be a cult under certain circumstances - these...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 20:18:00 -0500

Christianity would be a cult under certain circumstances - these circumstances.

(Lammam P Yrruf/39742) Oh fun. Are we using a word as an attack based on one of its de...

Lammam P Yrruf@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 20:18:00 -0500

Oh fun.  Are we using a word as an attack based on one of its definitions and
then dodging responsibiliy for that attack by insisting on another definition?

(Mean Mr Mustard/39741) For christ sake, yes. Is Christianity a cult, too, then? Is Mo...

Mean Mr Mustard@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 20:15:00 -0500

For christ sake, yes.  Is Christianity a cult, too, then?  Is Mormonism? 
Judaism?  How about Mahayana versus Hinayana versus Ch'an Buddhism?

(Bodhi Dharma/39740) MMM> Do you know what the word 'cult' means?

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 20:11:00 -0500

MMM> Do you know what the word 'cult' means?

(Mean Mr Mustard/39739) I know you're given to hyperbolic expression to bolster your poi...

Mean Mr Mustard@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 19:56:00 -0500

I know you're given to hyperbolic expression to bolster your points, Bodhi, but
are you sure youcan characterize the Sharia value system using the word "cult"?

(Bodhi Dharma/39738) Jed> More to the point, as I said earlier, Western values and pa...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 18:58:00 -0500

Jed> More to the point, as I said earlier, Western values and particularly
feminism incorporate the idea that people aren't able to express what they
think is fair unless they are first empowered to do so.  Shari'a prevents such
empowerment.
So disputes wouldn't even get to the point in arbitration where conflicts
between the two value systems become noted - the cult dynamics would prevent
it.

(Mean Mr Mustard/39737) Not at all. As I say, the discussion taking place before hadn't...

Mean Mr Mustard@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 12:56:00 -0500

Not at all.  As I say, the discussion taking place before hadn't reached that
level of specificity, which should come as little surprise.

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39736) Lets assume Sharia courts won't have the right to dole out corpo...

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 11:59:00 -0500

Lets assume Sharia courts won't have the right to dole out corporal punishment.
My point still stands though.
Unless you think it's ok for a female to inherit half of what a male of the
same closeness to the deceased does, for example.

(Mean Mr Mustard/39735) I'm wondering if Sharia courts are allowed to rule for something...

Mean Mr Mustard@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 11:49:00 -0500

I'm wondering if Sharia courts are allowed to rule for something like stoning,
or if there are limitations there.

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39734) If they have a law that requires equality between men and women ...

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 11:46:00 -0500

If they have a law that requires equality between men and women before the law,
then obviously yes.

Are you arguing it wouldn't?

(Mean Mr Mustard/39733) Does the acceptance of sharia in England extend to rulings that ...

Mean Mr Mustard@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 11:41:00 -0500

Does the acceptance of sharia in England extend to rulings that would otherwise
violate existing British law?

(Bodhi Dharma/39732) Well, I asked about that when I started this thread.

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 10:39:00 -0500

Well, I asked about that when I started this thread.
None of the feminists in this thread have chosen to give an answer.

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39731) Well, I'd like to hear from someone who identifies as a feminist...

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 10:22:00 -0500

Well, I'd like to hear from someone who identifies as a feminist and supports
inclusion of Sharia law how they reconcile between the two.

Personally, I don't have anything against opt-in religious courts, as long as
they're really opt-in. In the case of the UK, I don't think it can really be
opt-in when the threat of excommunication is very real in certain closed
communities (this without going into the issue of "honor killings").

(Bodhi Dharma/39730) Jed> On the contrary, it is certainly a part of the discussion w...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 10:19:00 -0500

Jed> On the contrary, it is certainly a part of the discussion we've been
having.
We've been discussing native values being set aside for foreign values.
Questions about equality are questions about value systems.

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39729) It's not the argument Step and BD were having, but it is the arg...

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 05:38:00 -0500

It's not the argument Step and BD were having, but it is the argument that
should happen in this forum.

(Mean Mr Mustard/39728) Jed, that's not the argument that's been happening here.

Mean Mr Mustard@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 00:04:00 -0500

Jed, that's not the argument that's been happening here.

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39727) Under UK law, men and women are equal. Under Sharia, they are no...

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 18:15:00 -0500

Under UK law, men and women are equal. Under Sharia, they are not. Women have
less rights under Sharia than do men.
I'm surprised the feminists here support limiting rights women already aquried,
particularly for religious reasons.

(Bodhi Dharma/39726) Gwynn> If Britain was not giving up its native culture to make r...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:43:00 -0500

Gwynn> If Britain was not giving up its native culture to make room for a
foreign one, there would be no need for the court to rule as it did.

(Bodhi Dharma/39725) MMM> I'm a systems thinker by nature. Most people in the world ...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:31:00 -0500

MMM> I'm a systems thinker by nature.  Most people in the world are educated in
facts rather than processes.  So, what seems clear and not very abstract to me
often seems not so clear and very abstract to others.  On the other hand, most
people focus on the trees and ignore the forest (they focus on facts and ignore
the way those facts have developed/will develop) - at least from my
perspective.
I think it's because I had to educate myself while I was growing up that I
learned a different way of thinking about the world than most people.  Maybe
not, maybe it's just a part of my Myer's Briggs personality type.
But we're not just talking about Catholic vs. contemporary cultures (which both
draw upon Greek and JudeoCrhistian heritage).  We're talking about a much more
profound difference.

(Mean Mr Mustard/39724) I meant "Great Britian" there.

Mean Mr Mustard@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:38:00 -0500

I meant "Great Britian" there.

(Mean Mr Mustard/39723) Also, "culture" in most cases is not so homogeneous or compartme...

Mean Mr Mustard@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:34:00 -0500

Also, "culture" in most cases is not so homogeneous or compartmentalized that
we can necessarily place one cultural practice in direct opposition to another.
I personally am uncomfortable with religious law, regardless of where it comes
from, but I don't think that you can argue that sharia suddenly introduces a
threat to, say, women's rights in France that had not existed on some scale
prior.

I just don't know what tree you're barking up this time.

(Gwynn/39722) Bodhi:

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:30:00 -0500

Bodhi:

Sorry champ, I'm not playing.  You're the one who made a claim.  That this act
by Britain was surrending its cultural values, this is a problem, and is in
fact the real thing you care about.  If you can't talk about that and
demonstrate it intelligently without appealing to some sort ofgeneralized
problems with diversity, well, that's nothing to do with me.

I don't care if we can formulate such a generalized argument based on
diversity.  What I care about is this.  You claim that Britain is giving up its
native culture for a foreign one, unproven and undemonstrated, that you find
this to be a problem, no explanation given, and imply that we should think it
is as well, i.e. this isn't just your personal quirk, you think it really is a
demonstrable problem that should concern everybody, it actually is a problem
and does have consequences.  You haven't given an example, either from your
cited case or anything else, to illustrate just why this is a problem and what
sort of effects it has in practice.

I get your abstract argument, now I want to see some evidence backing it up.
Give us some illustrations.  Give us one ilustration.  I realize you might have
to use another case since the British one is so current we don't really know
what the effects might be.  That's fine.  But let's have it.  Let's get out of
this genralized haze of "can we make a generalized argument based on diversity
that ...." and into some actual meat.  You're saying that this is giving up
native culture for a foreign one, and you have concerns about it.  Simply
asserting this over and over again doesn't do much.  Show me why I should be
concerned.  Hell, show me why *you're* concerned.

(Mean Mr Mustard/39721) I think I understand what you're trying to say. I wonder if you...

Mean Mr Mustard@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:24:00 -0500

I think I understand what you're trying to say.  I wonder if your boundaries
aren't a bit rigid, though.  Immigration, migration, social mobility--all of
these have contributed to cultural evolution all over the world.

Whether all of these cultural addenda have been for the good is certainly
debatable; where I live, there are some hybrid cultural practices (from various
combinations of Pueblo, Spanish, Mexican, Anglo backgrounds) that occur
side-by-side with some less regionalized American institutions and weave a rich
and sophisticated cultural milieu here.  From a feminist perspective, there are
certainly cultural conflicts between older schools of thought--particularly
more rural, less educated, more conventionally Catholic populations--that
define the role of women in their homes and in society much differently than do
others.  So it's not that I misunderstand your ultimate concern, I don't think,
but that I wonder why you express it so abstractly.  The questions we seem to
be examining here probably aren't very black and white.

(Bodhi Dharma/39720) re msg#39718

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:23:00 -0500

re msg#39718
It is when the new cultural component is foreign, counter to the existing
cultural components, and the existing cultural components are reduced in scope
to make room for it.

(Bodhi Dharma/39719) MMM> There is room for the inclusion of new cultural practices t...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:17:00 -0500

MMM> There is room for the inclusion of new cultural practices through time.
But, of course, we're not discussing cultural evolution from within.  We're
talking about cultural evolution where the 'something new' is coming from
outside and rooted in foreign values which are counter to the native values.

(Mean Mr Mustard/39718) Is the addition of a cultural component, even one that is unfami...

Mean Mr Mustard@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:17:00 -0500

Is the addition of a cultural component, even one that is unfamiliar to most
people in a society, a "surrender"?

(Bodhi Dharma/39717) Gwynn> Let me ask you a question I asked Step which I don't beli...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:15:00 -0500

Gwynn> Let me ask you a question I asked Step which I don't believe he
answered.
Is it possible to make an argument grounded in valuing diversity for
surrendering one's native culture to make room for a foreign culture?

(Mean Mr Mustard/39716) How static is "culture", anyway? In a pluralistic society, is t...

Mean Mr Mustard@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:16:00 -0500

How static is "culture", anyway?  In a pluralistic society, is there not room,
in general, for the inclusion of new cultural practices through time?

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39715) Bodhi,

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 13:49:00 -0500


Bodhi,
Another question I'd like to add to Gwynn's: would you be more comfortable with
the alternative i.e. a country that refuses to accomodate "a bunch of
foreigners"
like France's animosity towards hijab (and yermulkes, but we'll limit it to
females for purposes of this discussion)?

(Gwynn/39714) Bodhi:

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:53:00 -0500

Bodhi:

Here's an honest question.  I agree with Step, you seem to be saying that
Britain is giving up its native culture in favor of Islamic culture, and you
seem to see this as some kind of a problem, a bad thing.  So it's harm, but
it's not harm.  It's about rights, but it's not about rights.  It's about
freedom, but not really.

Can we get a clear example, minus the semi-academic jargon, of just why/how
this is A. giving up native culture to a foreign one, and B. why/how this is a
problem?  I get that you don't agree with it, I get that you think this is
what's happening ... I'm just not sure why.

(Bodhi Dharma/39713) Step> You seem to be implying that terms like "control", "isolat...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:13:00 -0500

Step> You seem to be implying that terms like "control", "isolation", and
"cult" -inherently- have negative connotations.  I've been attempting to focus
less on such purported negative connotations and more on the consequences of
how such things operate.
As for arguing from a feminist perspective, I admit I've been doing so (this
is, after all, the feminist forum), but I've been trying to keep a distinction
rather clear.  I can discuss apples using general principles of fruits, but the
fact that 'apple' is not synonymous with 'fruit' should be kept clear.
And British courts making the statement that something is not immiscible with
overall values of British society is not the same thing as something not being
immiscible with overall values of British society.  You put far too much
emphasis on legal rulings without acknowledging the political games going on
behind the making of law.

(Steppenwolf/39709) "Freedom loving cultures must make exceptions to freedom or ceas...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:46:00 -0500

"Freedom loving cultures must make exceptions to freedom or cease to be
free."

I agree.  But what are the nature of those exceptions?  If Britain has
determined that shari'a courts are not transgressive of fairness to the point
that they should be outlawed, that seems like a statement regarding how their
fairness is perceived, and that is is NOT "immiscible" with the overall
values of British society.

Your stance on this whole matter has been very odd.  You've tried to argue
from a traditional women's rights perspective, despite explicitly disavowing
it.  You've used terms like "control," "isolation," and "cult" to heap
seriously negative connotations on the foreign culture, and then tried to
clean your hands of calling this a value judgment.  You've called other such
integrations a "disaster," and then disavowed using a harm standard.  You
scorn the actions a culture accepts, then turn around and call yourself a
relativist.  What's going on?

(Bodhi Dharma/39708) Regarding Britain's strong belief in freedom, no culture is full...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 09:43:00 -0500

Regarding Britain's strong belief in freedom, no culture is fully embracing of
freedom - I think this is a consequence of Godel's incompleteness theorem. 
Freedom loving cultures must make exceptions to freedom or cease to be free.
"resolve their disputes by whatever means they find fair" - Western culture
(and, perhaps, particularly feminism) incorporates the concept of codependence
- that is, under certain circumstances, people are not able to express what
they find fair.  So, native institutions include mechanisms which first empower
people before asking them to declare what is fair.

(Steppenwolf/39707) NOW we're getting somewhere!

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:54:00 -0500

NOW we're getting somewhere!

Why do you think that?  Consider:
1) British, like much Western culture, has a strong belief in freedom, not
least of which is freedom to contract, on which is premised much of our
property rights.

2) As such, diversity is arguably part and parcel of British culture.  That is,
by allowing diverse cultural ideals, Britain is _fulfilling_ its culture, not
surrendering it.

3) EVen further:  The freedom of contract allows two parties to resolve their
disputes by whatever means they find fair (though limits exist).  This is part
of British culture.  You think they're hypocrites for extending that freedom
when it's exercised by a foreign culture.  Au contraire: they are fully
realizing their culture.

(Bodhi Dharma/39706) I despise hypocrisy.

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:52:00 -0500

I despise hypocrisy.
Surrendering one's own culture in the name of diversity is hypocrisy.

(Steppenwolf/39705) You seem to condemn their choice quite strongly. On what ground...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:51:00 -0500

You seem to condemn their choice quite strongly.  On what grounds?

(Bodhi Dharma/39704) "its their choice to trade away their culture like that" msg#396...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:49:00 -0500

"its their choice to trade away their culture like that" msg#39640

(Steppenwolf/39703) BD:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:40:00 -0500

BD:

So you're saying that the law allowing shari'a offends _your_ values, quite
separate from Britain's values?

Because, given that you aren't British, I can't quite understand why you'd
care.  I've seen you accept justifications for infanticide in the past; why
_this_ would bother you seems very odd.

At any rate, what I've been trying to get you to do is elucidate what values
_you_ are using to say this is bad, and why Britain should give a damn what you
think.

(Bodhi Dharma/39702) harm as in being wrong

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:37:00 -0500

harm as in being wrong
You seem to believe that the only basis for being against something is if that
something creates harm
That's a -very- rights-oriented view and, yet, you are accussing me of being
culture-bound in a rights-oriented paradigm.

(Steppenwolf/39701) BD:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:35:00 -0500

BD:

"What upsets me here is the idea of a bunch of people setting aside the culture
of their homeland in order to pacify a bunch of foreigners.
"

This seemed to strongly imply you saw some harm involved.

(Steppenwolf/39700) "Did I claim that it is harmful for a native society to surrende...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:32:00 -0500

"Did I claim that it is harmful for a native society to surrender its
value system to a foreign value system?"

Your tone seemed STRONGLY to imply it.

"Is it possible to make an argument
in the name of diversity for surrendering one's native value system to make
room for a foreign value system?"

Yes and no.  That is, diversity is in and of itself a value, and one I feel
somewhat uncomfortable imposing on other cultures.  However, if a native
culture values diversity, then it may well be able to accommodate foreign value
systems.  I tend to say that yes, an argument can be made, but it's not a slam
dunk.

(Bodhi Dharma/39699) Step> Did I claim that it is harmful for a native society to sur...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:29:00 -0500

Step> Did I claim that it is harmful for a native society to surrender its
value system to a foreign value system?
I'd like you to answer a question for me.  Is it possible to make an argument
in the name of diversity for surrendering one's native value system to make
room for a foreign value system?

(Steppenwolf/39698) BD: Not so much taking as a priori as allowing the concept of "...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:34:00 -0500

BD:  Not so much taking as a priori as allowing the concept of "crime" to
define when a society determines that its values have been encroached upon,
up to the point that you can show otherwise.

I probably should have been more explicit.  I figured this was the direction
you were going to go (that is, that natives were harmed), but so far you had
completely failed to make a case for this harm (other than that one's values
were offended, which wasn't nearly sufficient), so I was (and am) waiting for
you to do it, and quite curious on what value grounds you're going to
determine harm.

(Bodhi Dharma/39697) Step> We've been getting nowhere until now. In msg#39694, you m...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:27:00 -0500

Step> We've been getting nowhere until now.  In msg#39694, you make explicit
what your are basing your argument on.  So we can start having a productive
discussion.  You write, "..and the harms are not such that it affects the
social fabric of the entire state.."  You are taking as a priori that the exact
question which we are asking has been definitively answered - whether or not
the harms of surrendering native institutions and native values in order to
make room for foreign institutions and foreign values affects the social fabric
of the entire state.

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39695) You might want to search for "sharia" on this page

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 20:12:00 -0500

You might want to search for "sharia" on this page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_for_Human_Rights

(Steppenwolf/39694) BD:

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:57:00 -0500

BD:

That's a very good question.  I _think_ the answer is that while civil law is
merely an attempt to equitably compensate harm done to one party by another,
criminal law is harm done to the State itself, an attack on its fabric.
Therefore, when two parties are simply operating under a framework where their
mutually held vision of fairness and justice differs somewhat from the
geographic locale in which they happen to find themselves situated, and the
harms are not such that it affects the social fabric of the entire state, they
may justly use those different held visions of fairness to resolve their
disputes.  This has been done in the United States for many years--two Jewish
parties may sign a contract (even a marriage contract) to have their disputes
resolved by the Beth Din, and they are beholden to that contract,  So far, the
Beth Din hasn't led to the unraveling of the United States.

Criminal law, on the other hand, is a codification of the point that attacks on
values are so severe that they threaten the entire nation.  At that point, the
native culture's norms DO override the foreign culture's, because the harms
wreaked extend beyond the two parties' values.

Make sense?

(Bodhi Dharma/39693) Step> It seems important to you whether or not the foreign insti...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:56:00 -0500

Step> It seems important to you whether or not the foreign institution is
disagreeing with a law or is just disagreeing with native values.
Why is that distinction important to you?  What is intrinsic about -law- that
is so relevant?

(Steppenwolf/39692) It's quite a leap to complain that civil shari'a (i.e. as separa...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:44:00 -0500

It's quite a leap to complain that civil shari'a (i.e. as separate from
criminal cases) is "mental castration."  More to the point, there ain't much
one could sue for in a normal court that one couldn't sue for in a shari'a
court that would qualify as "mental castration."

(Ralph/39691) How exactly do you make the distinction between Sharia law being...

Ralph@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:42:00 -0500

How exactly do you make the distinction between Sharia law being a lesser harm
among people versus FGM being a harm done to the state?

Physical castration versus mental castration?

(Steppenwolf/39690) I shouldn't speak for BD, but I will nonetheless; he's never see...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:41:00 -0500

I shouldn't speak for BD, but I will nonetheless; he's never seemed like much
of an imperialist to me, and I've little-to-no doubt that he would have
certainly opposed British hegemony in India.  I believe he relies on Western
values more than he thinks he does, but he's the furthest thing from an
expansionist.

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39689) Mean Mr Mustard brought up a good point a few posts ago, about B...

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:37:00 -0500


Mean Mr Mustard brought up a good point a few posts ago, about Britain imposing
its values on India during colonial times. Can those who oppose the nonviolent,
legal process of integrating Shariah into British law claim equal opposition to
British/western hegemony in India (and several predominantly Islamic
countries)?

(Steppenwolf/39688) I think there would be a huge difference. That's because such p...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:19:00 -0500

I think there would be a huge difference.  That's because such practices are,
in Western cultures, actively criminal--that is, they are a harm done to the
State, not a lesser harm among people.

((Unknown ISCABBS User)/39687) How would this discussion be different if the issue wasn't Shari...

(Unknown ISCABBS User)@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:17:00 -0500

How would this discussion be different if the issue wasn't Sharia but, say,
FGM or foot binding?

(Steppenwolf/39686) BD: No, your fundamental point of confusion is that, er, you be...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:53:00 -0500

BD:  No, your fundamental point of confusion is that, er, you believe that I
believe this.  What I am discussing is a framing difficulty you seem to have in
dealing with this problem--that is, while you claim to be talking about native
v. foreign value systems, you can't actually show that this is a bad thing
without personally slipping into Western value systems yourself.

Let me see if I can come up with another feminism-related example.  Say there's
a state that's strongly pro-life.  A sect of liberals come in and are allowed
to start practicing abortions.  (This isn't at all far from reality in the US,
incidentally, or at least parts of it.)  Well, you argue that this is bad for
the state to surrender their values.  A pro-lifer--say a Steve Austin type, who
is reluctant to force people to view the world like he does--asks why this is a
bad thing, and you say, "Well, God commands us to oppose abortion!"

That's not the point, really.  In other words, you aren't arguing this from the
standpoint of the culture itself, and how it will be affected by the
interloping group.  Instead, you're arguing solely from the perspective of
those values.  In order to make your point, you need to back away from that
narrow value standpoint and take a broader, utilitarian view on the question as
a whole.

(Mean Mr Mustard/39685) You mean like when the British took over India, imposing imperia...

Mean Mr Mustard@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:45:00 -0500

You mean like when the British took over India, imposing imperial rule and
subjugating 300 million people?

(Bodhi Dharma/39684) I still think your fundamental point of confusion is that you be...

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:43:00 -0500

I still think your fundamental point of confusion is that you believe this
discussion is about Western vs. non-Western value systems.  What I've been
discussing is actually native vs. foreign value systems and what happens when a
native value system surrenders to a foreign value system.

(Steppenwolf/39683) I don't see any major differences between the two, except perhap...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:20:00 -0500

I don't see any major differences between the two, except perhaps in the sense
of "institutions," which is a worthwhile change but not one that destroys my
basic understanding of your point--nor, more importantly, the way you have
tried to mobilize Western values to make a broader point which does not
necessarily follow so broadly.

To make this point clear, you said:
"Every anthro student has a long list of examples of the importing of foreign
cultural values leading to disaster."

How do you determine "disaster?"  What value system are you mobilizing to call
something a disaster?  Because, whatever that is, _that's_ the value system you
should be using to determine whether a civil shari'a court is unwise for
Britain to allow.

(Bodhi Dharma/39682) Step> Reread your msg#39680 and then read my msg#39464.

Bodhi Dharma@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:14:00 -0500

Step> Reread your msg#39680 and then read my msg#39464.
I think you've got a very different impression of what I've been saying then
what I've been saying.

(Steppenwolf/39681) Note: Ethnographic is obviously the wrong word. "Anthropologica...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:14:00 -0500

Note: Ethnographic is obviously the wrong word.  "Anthropological?"

(Steppenwolf/39680) BD: In general, feminism and relativism go very poorly together...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:00:00 -0500

BD:  In general, feminism and relativism go very poorly together, as you know.
This is why you get people like Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak concoting "strategic
essentialism," so that they can claim the best of both worlds.  (That question:
how you integrate a relativism that undermines Western
ethnocentrism/phallocentrism with the necessity of empowering the oppressed, is
a fascinating one, and possibly one well worth discussing here.)

But yes, it gets problematic from there.  I think the trouble with this entire
debate has been that you've been trying to use Western feminist values as a way
to convince feminists that your personal ethnographic theory (which I might
characterize as "foreign cultures should attempt to integrate into native
cultures, not hold themselves separate from it" is valid.  The problem is that
you ran into a lot of cultural push-back--the tendency to rate freedom of
culture over pure feminism, which moved the debate to entirely different
grounds.