Politics As Usual

[notcasesensitive]

A new thread. Just for you.

[Hank Chinaski]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by notcasesensitive
does your wife know about your marriage to fringey?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



some of them do, some don't.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

• POZZO:
  Where are we?
  
  VLADIMIR:
  I couldn't tell you.
  
  POZZO:
  It isn't by any chance the place known as the Board?
  
  VLADIMIR:
  Never heard of it.
  
  POZZO:
  What is it like?
  
  VLADIMIR:
  (looking round). It's indescribable. It's like nothing . There's nothing. There's a tree.
  
  POZZO:
  Then it's not the Board.
  
  ESTRAGON:
  (sagging). Some diversion!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
The question is whether the religion is an improvement over secularism in each religion's region.

No, that is not the question. The question is whether the practices and beliefs of a religion are sexist/misogynistic or not.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• POZZO:
  Where are we?

Would you stop that! As I was saying, before you closed the thread:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Now then, where were we?

You were missing my point. I said that Christianity, and in particular, the protestant work ethic, were responsbile for social conditions conducive to equal rights for women, and implied thereby that certain dogmatic turns in Islam had created a corresponding period of economic stagnation that has led to a generally worse position for women in Islamic countries (note this was not always the case - until the 13th or 14th century is was the Muslims who were clearly the innovators).

You responded by pointing out the Amish (by using the anachronistic device of suggesting they were calling on the phone - nice touch). This of course is beside the point; the Amish don't control the Western economy, and the fact that they have opted out of the modern western economy may correlate with a view of a woman's place in the world that might not comport with the views of, say, a modern moderate Muslim living in the US.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Not Me
No, that is not the question. The question is whether the practices and beliefs of a religion are sexist/misogynistic or not.

Do you think that a "win" for us in Iraq depends upon their society becoming non-sexist?

[bilmore]

I hate this between-the-batches confusion.

posted somewhere in a dead thread by that AG guy
The answer in the case of fundamentalist Islam is more often "yes" than it is in the case of fundamentalist Christianity, because Christianity predominates in regions in which secularism coincides with economic prosperity, freedom of travel, and freedom of marriage, three cultural contexts that benefit secular women but are denied to women in the same region for religious reasons.

There is a huge cause-and-effect issue that is being skirted in this statement.

But, with the change in threads, I'm too lost to say more.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by baltassoc
You were missing my point. I said that Christianity, and in particular, the protestant work ethic, were responsbile for social conditions conducive to equal rights for women, and implied thereby that certain dogmatic turns in Islam had created a corresponding period of economic stagnation that has led to a generally worse position for women in Islamic countries (note this was not always the case - until the 13th or 14th century is was the Muslims who were clearly the innovators).

You responded by pointing out the Amish (by using the anachronistic device of suggesting they were calling on the phone - nice touch). This of course is beside the point; the Amish don't control the Western economy, and the fact that they have opted out of the modern western economy may correlate with a view of a woman's place in the world that might not comport with the views of, say, a modern moderate Muslim living in the US.

I agree with everything you said, but was simply trying to make the point that gross generalizations about Christianity and Islam are just that.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Do you think that a "win" for us in Iraq depends upon their society becoming non-sexist?

I think there are many in the current US administration who would agree* that there isn't a true win in Iraq until their society becomes Christian, with a bias towards Baptist.

*which isn't to say NotMe agrees.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Not Me
No, that is not the question. The question is whether the practices and beliefs of a religion are sexist/misogynistic or not.

In order to ensure I'm not on the business end of a Turing Test gone horribly, horribly awry, I need to know your basic principles first.

Is a religious-based rule that facially treats women differently from men sexist? If not, is it misogynistic? Must religiously-based rules be facially neutral with regard to sex to avoid your ire?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I agree with everything you said, but was simply trying to make the point that gross generalizations about Christianity and Islam are just that.

How 'bout this:

The average muslim woman is treated less well in life than is the average christian woman.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I agree with everything you said, but was simply trying to make the point that gross generalizations about Christianity and Islam are just that.

I actually live my life like an Amish on extended rumspringa.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
How 'bout this:

The average muslim woman is treated less well in life than is the average christian woman.

That's probably true. The difficulty comes when you try to introduce the aspect of causation.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I said that Christianity, and in particular, the protestant work ethic, were responsbile for social conditions conducive to equal rights for women, and implied thereby that certain dogmatic turns in Islam had created a corresponding period of economic stagnation that has led to a generally worse position for women in Islamic countries (note this was not always the case - until the 13th or 14th century is was the Muslims who were clearly the innovators).

I was with you (sort of) until you got to the part about dogmatic turns in Islam "creat[ing]" a period of economic stagnation. Until about 1880, Islam prospered in regions of the world where the natural resources were, um, overlooked. They did not have an industrial revolution as a result. By the time the value of the Arabic resource in particular was recognized, it was exploited (in the good, capitalist sense) by external powers in conjunction with local warlords a manner hearkening back to African "cooperation" with the slave trade.

The dogmatic turns taken by Islam were a response to, not the cause of, those economic stagnations. Islamic thought, at its best, despises corruption. Petro-politics, at its best, requires it.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That's probably true. The difficulty comes when you try to introduce the aspect of causation.

Do you think it's all that difficult? I do see Islam as a code that dissuades from outward, material and technical achievement far more so than christianity, and most of the learned commentary I've seen either supports this view, or at the least doesn't refute it. For this reason, there is an economic handicap to traditional Islamic culture. For THAT reason, and using the other principle of [poor guyz beat dere wives lots], I see causation.