sigma@usl.UUCP (Spyridon Triantafyllopoulos) (12/17/84)
Any comments anyone about that? An American woman graduating,
getting married to an Iranian and going to Khomeini's Iran...
Putting on the veil (Chador in Persian..), stayin' at home and
admitting in American TV that:
"Men and women are not equal... you can not compare
apples and oranges"
Or another shot:
"Islam gives respect to women -- The veil makes people
look at you, not your appearance, this is freedom"
and on and on. (Quotes as exact as possible). And the parents of
the girl being happy about their daughter being happy (Typical
"Hi Mom -- Hi Dad" shot).
Well, me and my (Iranian) fiancee' watched with interest as the
girl (one of ~500 in Iran) stayed home.... It was sickening.....
Is this what some girls want?? freedom in four walls and a black
veil??? We got some specimen around here as well, but they do not
(dare not) wear the full apparatus.. They just use handkerchiefs
on the head instead of the veil. (I mean American women)
Well, ladies, what 'ya all think???
--- Spiros Triantafyllopoulos
Computer Science Department
University of Southwestern Louisiana
{ut-sally, akgua}!usl!sigmacrs@lanl.ARPA (12/21/84)
> "Men and women are not equal... you can not compare > apples and oranges" It seems to me that this is a matter of semantics. The question becomes "are you talking the same kind of equal?" But that is not why I followed up (follow-uped? |-) this article. an incongruity struck me further on: > > Or another shot: > > "Islam gives respect to women -- The veil makes people > look at you, not your appearance, this is freedom" > > . > . > . > > Is this what some girls want?? freedom in four walls and a black > veil??? We got some specimen around here as well, but they do not > (dare not) wear the full apparatus.. They just use handkerchiefs > on the head instead of the veil. (I mean American women) > > --- Spiros Triantafyllopoulos The obvious thing is, of course, if that's what she wants, who's business is it but hers. But, I digress. What bothers me is: ...but they do not ** (dare not) ** wear the full apparatus... [emphasis added] This is freedom? Not daring to wear what they would like? Charlie
jcp@brl-tgr.ARPA (Joe Pistritto <jcp>) (12/27/84)
On the subject of Islam and women: Islam did indeed improve the position of women in the society at the time of its founding. (Think about the position of women in Europe along about, say the Dark Ages or so). Before the Koran was created, women in the Arab countries were commonly only used as property, and were most often purchased, not married. (This still happens in some Arab countries). The Moslem practice of returning the dowry to a divorced woman was distinctly 'liberal' for the time. Also, the new religion protected women from being literally stolen off the streets by assigning to their brothers and fathers the responsibility for protecting them. (This still happens in India, and the Arab countries, although to a much less degree than 500 years ago). Since that time, the Western countries have greatly improved the status of women, and Islam has remained fairly unchanged, hence the current impression of the Moslem religion as one that oppresses women. Before condemning it, consider the relative incidence of rape in Moslem and Christian countries, (particularly the US). By the way, the original reason for women wearing the veil was to make it more risky to just 'pick up' (literally) a woman off the street, after all, she might be ugly! Interestingly enough, I have noticed that Hindu women will often partially cover their faces when speaking to strangers in India, (using the top of their saree). -JCP-
rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (01/01/85)
Re Joe Pistritto's posting : To me it sounds more like islamic apologetics than historical fact. I'm not denying the possibility Islam may have been relatively liberal circa 600 ad, but there are too many objections to the picture Joe paints.... > Islam did indeed improve the position of women in the society > at the time of its founding. Is this actually true, except for Arabia & its bedawins (& not for the town dwellers of Mecca etc.)? The many different societies of the Levant, Egypt, North Africa, the Byzantine lands, etc. were very different from the nomadic tribes of the desert wastes. > Before the Koran was > created, women in the Arab countries were commonly only used as > property, and were most often purchased, not married. "property" and "purchased" must be metaphorical, else the above assertion is simply not true of the pre-islamic middle east. If the words are used figuratively, they apply with just as much force to the middle east under Islam. > Also the new > religion protected women from being literally stolen off the streets by > assigning to their brothers and fathers the responsibility for protecting > them. (This still happens in India, and the Arab countries, although to > a much less degree than 500 years ago). This sounds completely fanciful. What's the source for this statement? A few "primitive" cultures practice ritualized bride theft as a part of marriage procedures and some (primarily Victorian) anthropologists spe- culated it was the genesis of all marriage , but the middle east isn't "primitive"; around 600 ad it was culturally one of the most advanced areas on earth. > Since that time, the Western countries have greatly improved the > status of women, and Islam has remained fairly unchanged, hence the current > impression of the Moslem religion as one that oppresses women. This is a myth, the changeless east, here employed to make excuses for contemporary problems. Both the religion & civilization of Islam changed constantly from within Muhammad's own lifetime & teachings down to the present. Islam spans wildly differing societies, from Bulgaria to Nigeria, Morocco to Mindanao in the Phillipines. Islam CAN be faulted for imposing a uniform subjugation of women (purdah, polygamy, etc.), which by the law of averages would represent greater sexism for at least some of these societies. Islam has as much doctrinal & denominational variation as Christianity. Its sects, schools, & laws developed & changed, often greatly, over time. The political history of the middle east shows perhaps even more change & volatility than that of Europe; Islam closely identifies religion & politics, & was thus intimately involved in much "secular" change. > Before > condemning it, consider the relative incidence of rape in Moslem and > Christian countries, (particularly the US). Are there reliable statistics on rape even in the US, nevermind Mediter- ranean countries? Given the rigidity of islamic sexism, how would it be possible to even obtain such information? Secondly, if women are permanently sequestered in their homes, there is drastically less opportunity to commit rape. A lower incidence of rape in islamic societies wouldn't be meaningful per se. > By the way, the original reason for women wearing the veil was > to make it more risky to just 'pick up' (literally) a woman off the > street, after all, she might be ugly! [ )=; ? I'll assume it isn't. ] Again, where does this information come from? I haven't read the Koran but I'd guess the original (& continuing) intention was to enforce "female modesty", an aim which presupposes a belief that males have (to put it mildly) trouble controlling their sexual urges and "naturally" are inclined to sexual aggression & assault; this is sexism at its most pristine. Ron Rizzo