grylliade.org Free minds. Free markets. Free beer.

I don't understand your smugness about this point, Dangerman. So by the same logic and proof (i.e. no proof), you must believe that there is a big genetic difference between races, too, right? The burden of proof is on you, Dangerman. So tell me why men and women are ultimately more different than similar.

Duuuuuuuuuuuude looked like a laaaaaaaaaaaaady.... :-)

Yeah, something about the thread title looked wrong. Fixed. Thanks.

No, I said we are different. That's it. Who is putting words in whose mouth?

No, I think there are very tiny, almost negligible differences, most of which are physical, but I think that physical differences inform our mental differences. If you are a large, obese person, (pick your characteristic) you make daily life choices based on what you can and cannot do. These choices add up. The history of the culture that we live in is informed by physical differences. If there were no physical differences between men and women, would the historical oppression and chattel treatment of women have been possible? I don't think so.

But I don't see your point. What I don't understand is how secondary sex characteristics would have much effect on mental differences, which is what you seem to be suggesting. Of course, maybe my uterus is just causing me not to be able to think clearly. So women cannot lead a mass because...they have tits? Men cannot wear a veil because...they don't have beautiful hair? (I think dhex would strongly disagree with you on that point). Hmm...sounds fair to me...I guess... /sarcasm

Again, I still don't see what you're saying...so you're rationalizing the treatment of women because they are women and not men? Isn't that circular logic?

Personally, I don't deny the existence of differences between the sexes; I simply deny that such differences need to be codified into law.

EDIT" Smacky, can you edit the title of this to remove one character? I keep getting those annoying "subject heading one character too long" notes.

So, while I'd fully oppose any effort to force women to wear scarves or veils or whatever, whether done by the government or random street thugs, it strikes me as nothing more than arrogance and ethnocentrism to denounce women who freely choose to wear any sort of clothing that one doesn't. (Or, naturally, those who don't choose to wear some sort of clothing one does wear.)

Unless you're a nudist, you've got some nudity taboos that aren't any more impressive or enlightened than anyone else's - and if you are a nudist, good for you, but other folks want to keep their pants on.

I am saying that in the past, and today, women are treated differently because of physical differences which is fucking painfully obvious.

What I am not saying is that this treatment is justified, or that I support it, but that I can point to why it happened.

How much is a lot? How much is a little? The important thing to understanding where differential sex roles came from is that these differences were socially signficant during the times that these roles developed. As Dangerman and I have both said, that's not to say these perceived differences continue to justify different roles. But that's up to individuals to decide for themselves.

Thank YOU, opaque-man, I mean Dangerman! :-)

And while I'm on a roll, allow me to ruin all my hard earned credibility, not to mention my good name, by bringing up the 1600 pound gorilla in the room. And that is that men, however insignicantly to our eyes, are likely (and at least seemingly) more sexually aggressive than women, and women, yes, are the only ones who bear children, which of course was a much bigger issue before technological birth control. This goes a long way toward explaining why some people have considered women's modesty more important than men's. It may explain why even in this day and age a woman such as Ali's sister considers modesty an important issue to her. Now, I am NOT saying women (or men) SHOULD look at sexuality this way, only that it explains why accepting this difference, however minor you or I may view it, is not inherently denigrative to women.

Are you saying I just shat in the pool?

Or are you saying that it shouldn't have been needed to be spelled out?

If it's the first, well, yeah, maybe I did. Oh well.

If it's the second, well, I guess that's the nature of big, lurking, but otherwise quiet gorillas. :-)

Superficial meaning not liable to affect one's ability in logic, comprehension, math, organization, and other such basic mental tasks.

No, that's just being nice.

I'd define "superficial" in this specific context as meaning "insufficient justification for keeping them in legally separate categories."

I argued on another thread a couple of weeks ago that there might be differences between the races, or at least that the possibility should be studied. But if any differences are discovered, I would deem them superficial in this context. Compare that to, for example, the non-superficial difference between children and adults: children should be in a separate legal class, and should not be expected to have the same rights and responsibilities as adults.

Women are, on average, more likely than men to want children. Fine. But that does not mean the law should be set up to assume that women must want children. And so forth.

Jennifer, do you mind if you tell me which mosque you went to for your piece? I may want to visit there sometime (if I ever find the time) and compare to other places I have been to. We've been to mosques (to be fair, only one in Toronto) were I was called a kafir, to others where I felt like I am the taliban itself. Regarding the latter, actually I am just kidding. I feel most comfortable in the most liberal mosques I have ever found so far (Wayland in MA, right outside the I-95 circle from Boston).

BTW - regarding women's uncovered hair and all. Korean and Japanese women generally have uncovered hair and they also wear fishnet stockings. But criminey! they are ultra-conservative.

That's always been my take. I also hold the door for my social superiors (full professors, chairs, provost, etc.) and the elderly.

But I have been informed [edit: by a certain demographic of women] many times that "I am perfectly capable of opening a door."

My point is that to some women the mere act of holding a door is considerred an implication that they are physically incapable of doing it themselves. What would one of those women think of the women who entered the door I held open? Would they think that they were socially coerced into doing so?

I also get very, very strange looks for shaking hands with women the way I do, but that was how I was brought up . . . .

It was an Ahmaddiya (which I almost certainly misspelled because I'm too lazy to look it up) branch.

Regarding the preachers, some are actually women, too, on TV. Regardless, have these preachers applied physical force to enforce the covering? No. Have they applied psychological force? May be. But ultimately words were used and those who decided to put on the scarf decided based on some (yes, may be not so flawless) logic, but they did. You may think the Mega-Church evangelicals stupid, but they do what they do out of free will. No?

With that said, as far as I know more and more girls wearing the head scarf (especially in the West) came as a reaction to the perceived attack on their Islamic identity. It is my understanding that that is the main cause for the increased rate of scarf wearing. It is also my understanding that this perceived attack is what many fundamentalist (and even non-fundamentalist) imams see as an opportunity to convince women to wear the scarf.

Finally, "the principle" is modesty. While "modesty" is a constant, its expression is not. So what is modest today in a certain geographic location might not have been modest yesterday elsewhere, or may not be so tomorrow. While the expression of modesty is variable, the Islamic principle of modesty is supposedly fixed.

BTW, especially Jennifer and Smacky, I think you are taking a position that Laila Lalami is critical of. Here is here article. It is a good read.

EDIT: I could not help the pun: your position, I think, which Laila Lalami is critical of is the "missionary position", which is the title of her article, where she also intends the pun :-)

Lalami does not wear the scarf, btw! And she is quite pretty. Eh, sad she's on the other coast. Here: http://www.lailalalami.com/author.html

And here is a funny (and totally unrelated) post from her blog:

smacky- Now that I remember your saying that these women do not deserve freedom if they do not want or appreciate it, or something along these lines (sorry if I am a bit off in expressing what you exactly said earlier), which was actually one of my original points (people should fight for their freedoms and not someone else fight it for them), then I think I mis-characterized your position. Sorry.

WADR IS WAHT LOLCATZ DRINK

Ali, Like I keep saying, people can believe whatever they want to, it has nothing to do with stupidity & it is none of my business. For me, this kind of thing only becomes a problem when they actually try to impose it as creationism or something - see the other thread for details :-)

Ali, You said -
"Regarding the preachers, some are actually women, too, on TV. Regardless, have these preachers applied physical force to enforce the covering? No. Have they applied psychological force? May be. But ultimately words were used and those who decided to put on the scarf decided based on some (yes, may be not so flawless) logic, but they did."

That's eaxctly what I'm saying ie a bunch of "preachers" ie advocates for their POV argued for a notion of modesty that insists on covering up - a notion that allows dudes to dress however they please, but women have to dress right. It didn't just happen because of some immutable principle. Now, whether there was coercion involved, psychological or otherwise, well - i think you are better placed to decide than me. I am certainly not an expert on Egyptian society.

SM- Sure. It is the end of the day and I am tired and I think my comprehension abilities have dropped sharply in the last 2 hours or so. This is what happens when you have a long day at work.

And the fanaticism over the female dress code, it almost seems like an over-chivalrousness. When I hear stories about some guy throwing acid in the face of some supposedly immodestly dressed woman, it almost seems like the man who did it thought he was defending the honor of Muslim women everywhere.

It made me rethink women who used to take offense at having a man hold the door or always take the check, etc. ...made me wonder if maybe they weren't on to something.

What?

Jennifer, smacky, and others-

Serious question: do I come across as misogynistic? Remember some time ago when I was worried that I'd be racist (and came to the conclusion that I was not, I do not think), that is a similar thing now. So? I really do not know because I do not get to talk about these things at work and at other places, so this is my opportunity to know.

EDIT: I do not know about my tone, I was just talking from the gut (I swear). I always try to tell about the view of Islam/Muslims as I see it from within. I see that the picture from without is seriously very different from the view from within.

Haha... :-) I won't strike you then!

Ah, good! Sometimes (as it always should be) when one gets immersed in a discussion (especially with topics like the one at hand) and let one's guard down, one is more likely to express natural feelings than during precautions discussions (am I making any sense?). I deal a lot with other female colleagues and friends, usually very progressive/liberal and independent and we seem to get along very well. We do discuss such questions (less now than when I was in grad school) but I wouldn't know for sure because people tend to be nice to otehrs sensitivities (even if misogynists). But with you guys... you're nicely blunt :-) (Just kiddin'). Bluntness is sometimes very helpful.

Anyhow... thanks!

I really wish I had more time to participate in this discussion, but I'm really slammed at work right now. (I also haven't forgotten that I've somehow committed myself to giving smacky an explanation of how religious people can remain associated with a religion whose scriptures seem to condone or even require a lot of misogynistic, racist and other vile, to modern perspectives, behavior. But that requires a lot of writing that I don't have time for right now.)

However, before too long I hope to make some points about our primate heritage. Human beings are slightly sexually dimorphic -- in general, men tend to be larger and stronger than women. In primates, that dimorphism correlates pretty strongly with a certain type of behavior: males tend to gather "harems" of multiple female breeding partners whom they "own as property" and "protect" from other rival males. And the males spend a lot of time and effort being watchful of their rivals and fighting them off.

It seems to me that the Mediterranean cultures, especially the Middle Eastern ones, have tapped into those primordial primate instincts and run with them, insofar as evolving their own particular culture goes.

Of course, we have minds and free will -- human beings aren't slaves to their evolved instincts, however deeply they are wired in. No more than a person with a reflexive fear of heights is necessarily prevented from climbing a ladder or crossing a bridge -- but it does make it a lot harder to do.

No special explanation is needed for the way men often treat women -- with possessiveness and aggression. You certainly can't blame religion, for example, for introducing this kind of behavior as if hadn't been there before. It's our evolutionary heritage. What's remarkable is the extent that we've been able to move away from that. To a large extent this has been made possible by the development of technology, which has made physical strength largely irrelevant to generating wealth, and created ways for women to support themselves and their children, making them less dependent on males as protectors and providers.

This is still a relatively recent development in human history, and the adjustment has been difficult.

I'm not sure what point I was making here, except Ken's comments brought it to mind. There is a certain yin-yang relationship between chivalry and male dominance, between the protection of and possession of women. Chivalry helps to mitigate the misogyny, but they are also connected. Now the trick is to retain the one while outgrowing the other.

Exactly.

Can't have these immodest harlots walking about destroying the good reputation of Muslim women everywhere--I think that's what they're thinking.

I'm a little surprised at some of the shocked responses above, I'm just suggesting that it just seems like the old Madonna/Whore complex.

http://primal-page.com/madonna.htm

Obligatory Picasso:

I remember reading that Picasso once said something to the effect that there were only two types of women, Madonnas and whores, and turning the former into the latter was his favorite sport.

I know different people do the same thing for different reasons, but I've heard more than one Muslim woman explain covering as emulation of Mary the mother of Jesus.

So, point being, certain men under certain circumstances tend to see two types, and only two types, of women--Madonnas and whores. If I were a woman, and let's face it, I'm not, but if I were and I sensed someone was shoehorning me into either side of that false dichotomy, I think I'd resist politeness with rudeness, etc.

Don't treat me like a whore, but don't treat me like a Madonna either--know what I mean? I think those guys who go around throwing acid in women's faces are exhibiting something like that Madonna/Whore behavior--[In their heads, they're] defending the Madonnas from the whores who would disgrace them.

That's all I was trying to say.

None of your goddamn business.

I'd like to thank Stevo and Ken for their contributions.

I would like to add that I do not think that by wearing a veil or scarf or some other symbol of modesty a woman is sanctioning a wackjob man throwing acid on the face of a woman not similarly dressed! What organizational principles are best for a society and what to do about those who do not follow them are different issues! Nor is a woman sanctioning subservience to men by doing this because she can agree with the principle of female modesty; it's not like the only reason she would do it is because of the threat of men throwing acid and/or the male authority. Now, I can see why these things could easily be conflated because the one is often only there when the other is. At least in today's world. But I hope it can be seen that there are other potential reasons for the phenomenon of Muslim taboos concerning female dress than pure hatred and subjugation of women by men and pitiful fear or self-hating collusion by women. (That subjugation of women is also often present does not mean that that's the "real" reason behind it but rather that social phenomena can often have more than one simultaneous explanation. To wit, men can justify their desire to subjugate women under the guise of protecting them.)

I would also like to add, after discussing the issue with Babushka last night, that it's easy for people in one culture to criticize the effects of others' culture on those in those other cultures, and easy as well to forget or ignore how much our own culture may affect our own worldview and our own way of thinking. Even "thinking for yourself" is an idea of our own culture and not found in all.

And now time for the disclaimer. As Ken put it, this is an explanation, not a justification. I do NOT think that taboos on immodest dress is a good organizational principle for a society. I am generally against taboos and against rules whenever possible, which I see as being in leauge with my libertarianism, even though it's technically a different issue when law and public policy is not involved. I think women and men should let their freak flag fly!!!

Ali,

Well God bless each and everyone of you!! :-)

Actually I do very much appreciate your posts too, as well as everyone's, including the ones I have differences with, but I guess Ken and Stevo were doing for me what Dangerman said I did for him, ie, express better what I was trying to say, although it wasn't just that, they went further too, although how they went further actually expanded on my own points too, so rather than try to express all that I just thanked them, which certainly didn't mean to imply a lack of thanks to anyone else, which of course you know already since you were only joking but I thought I'd be clear about that just in case and since I got started on all this and it was tough to stop....WHEW!

:-)

EDIT: And thanks for your appreciation, too!!!