Who Really Exploits Women?

`` Marx himself discriminates between men and women when he suggests that women are to be in the household and men in the workplace. ``

First of all, Marx never `discriminated` against women like that; all his theories are rooted in a socio economic causes that result in the consequent evolution of a system. Thus, the above assertion is false. Let me place this statement within context.

He argued that due to historical reasons, the placement of women, evolved, under capitalism, in the sphere of the domestic. Women do not possess the means of production, under capitalism; no economic control equals `` inequality``. This discrimination was the fault of capitalism, not Karl Marx`s assertion. He obviously found this unjust as he argued under communism this inequality would be abolished.

Peace..

Here`s something else on exploitation of women in the name of religion.
Sad & Ironic.

---

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10315095/site/newsweek/

Women of Al Qaeda
Jihad used to have a gender: male. The men who dominated the movement exploited traditional attitudes about sex and the sexes to build their ranks. They still do that, but with a difference: even Al Qaeda is using female killers now, and goading the men.
By Christopher Dickey
Newsweek

Dec. 12, 2005 issue - Very little is known about the first woman to become a suicide bomber for Al Qaeda in Iraq, except that she dressed as a man. Two weeks after a U.S.-backed operation to clean out the town of Tall Afar near the Syrian border in September, she put on the long white robe and checkered scarf that Arab men commonly wear in Iraqi desert towns. The clothes disguised her gender long enough for her to walk into a gathering of military recruits with no one taking much notice. The clothes also concealed the explosives strapped around her womb. ``May God accept our sister among the martyrs,`` said a Web site linked to the organization of Jordanian-born terrorist Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi. She had defended ``her faith and her honor.`` No name was given. But the bomb that blew apart that anonymous woman killed five men, maimed or wounded 30 more, and opened a new chapter not only in the war for Iraq but in the global struggle against terror.

Never before had any branch of Al Qaeda sent a woman on a suicide mission. Since female bombers first appeared in Lebanon two decades ago, their ranks have come mainly from secular Arab nationalist groups, from Kurdish rebels in Turkey and the non-Muslim Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam fighting the government of Sri Lanka. Only in the past few years did the Palestinian ``army of roses`` carry out terrorist attacks against Israelis, and the ``black widows`` strike at the enemies of Chechnya`s rebels. Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda in Iraq, Al Qaeda and its offshoots around the world held back. But as he has before, Zarqawi broke the taboos. His strategy is to create images of horror, ``to look like he has more capability than he truly has,`` says Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, the Coalition forces spokesman in Baghdad. Zarqawi recruits where he can, he exploits whom he can and he attacks the softest of targets to get the peculiar kind of publicity he craves. Women are his new weapon of choice.

In October, Al Qaeda in Iraq claimed that a second female bomber, this time accompanied by her husband, killed herself attacking an American patrol in Mosul. And last week the world learned of the third: Muriel Degauque, 38, a fair-skinned Belgian from the grim rust-belt city of Charleroi near the French border. As a girl, she often ran away from home. As a woman, she had a succession of failed relationships with Muslim men: a Turk, an Algerian and finally a Belgian of Moroccan descent who followed the teachings of radical Salafists, similar to those of Al Qaeda. They went to live for at least three years in Morocco, and when she returned home she was fully veiled: alienated, lonely, in the thrall of a husband who consumed her entire world. Muriel—now calling herself Myriam—``couldn`t have children,`` a spokesman for the Belgian prosecutor`s office said last week. Even when she was near her parents, she rarely spoke to them. The last they heard from her was during the summer. On Nov. 9, she blew herself up attacking Iraqi police near the town of Baqubah. American troops gunned down her husband shortly after Myriam was killed.

That same night, Nov. 9, bombers hit three hotels in the Jordanian capital, Amman. As scores of dead and wounded were still being counted, Al Qaeda in Iraq announced that a woman had been among the suicide attackers there, too. Zarqawi, once again, was publicizing his new approach. But what Zarqawi did not know was that the woman had failed to detonate her bomb.

Sajida Mubarak al-Rishawi, 35, hid out for three nights in the Jordanian town of As-Salt, never removing the dud suicide belt concealed around her waist, until security agents tracked her down. It turned out that she had lost three brothers in the fight against the Americans, and had married her fellow bomber less than a week before she went on her suicide mission. The man was less a groom than a chaperone: according to Jordanian government sources, the marriage was never consummated. In a brief televised confession, al-Rishawi recounted how her bomb failed—but her husband`s did not—amid a Jordanian wedding party. ``There were women, men and children,`` she said. ``My husband is the one who organized everything. I know nothing else.``

There will be more women launching more attacks, a fact that is provoking new and growing concern among U.S. officials. Until recently, many analysts in American government agencies saw the threat of women suicide bombers as a largely theoretical problem. Their best judgment was that ``Al Qaeda Central``—the close-knit organization around Osama bin Laden and ideologue Ayman al-Zawahiri—would resist any effort to use women as homicidal martyrs. But after the incidents of the past few weeks, they are taking the threat of female Islamic terrorists, particularly suicide bombers, much more seriously, according to two U.S. counterterrorism officials who asked for anonymity because they were discussing intelligence matters.

Having seen the phenomenon spread suddenly to Iraq and Jordan, the U.S. officials worry that the plague will move still farther, with women suicide bombers carrying out attacks in Western Europe or the United States. The agencies are particularly concerned about the threat posed by ``married couples,`` either real long-term partners or couples who have been joined together for no other purpose than a suicide mission.

If there`s consolation, it`s that the terrorist assets now known to exist were not used as effectively as they might have been. The Belgian woman Degauque, with her European Union passport and her northern European looks, could have gained easy access to soft targets in many Western countries. Instead, she blew herself up in Iraq.

But the real lesson of the Degauque bombing is to expect the unexpected. ``The terrorists are quite aware of the profiles that exist, and they always change things just enough to throw them off,`` says Prof. Mia Bloom, author of ``Dying to Kill: The Allure of Suicide Terror.`` They also aim to provoke. American soldiers in Iraq may become ever more suspicious about women, particularly pregnant women. But in traditional Muslim societies, the need to search women meticulously—``invasively,`` as Bloom puts it—is sure to create popular anger. ``It`s a win-win proposition for the terrorists,`` says Bloom.

Yet the increasing use of women as weapons of holy war also challenges the view of the world that many jihadists thought they`d set out to defend.

II. Knights & Maidens
``Chivalry`` is not a word normally associated with terrorism, at least not in the West. But the world in which Osama bin Laden would like to live, and the vision that inspires so many of his followers, is literally about days of old when knights were bold—and fair maidens were kept behind veils, their virtue protected, their lives entirely controlled by men. Since the 1990s, bin Laden has cast his fight as one against ``crusaders,`` and the most important ideological tract by his right-hand man, Zawahiri, bears the title ``Knights Under the Prophet`s Banner.``

While gender roles are evolving in many of today`s societies, Al Qaeda has hoped to freeze them in a time of feudal traditions. Many of the organization`s leaders have been intellectuals, doctors, lawyers and engineers who are perfectly at home with other aspects of modernity. But they differ violently with the West about the way women should be allowed to participate in daily life, viewing females as chattel in some cases, as revered mothers in others and almost always as icons to be protected from outside influences.

In jihadist propaganda, the invasion and violation of Muslim lands is intimately tied to the violation of Muslim women, either directly or through the corrupting role of Western values and attitudes. In its 1988 covenant, the Palestinian Islamist organization Hamas laid out its view of ``the Muslim woman`` as ``the maker of men`` and the educator of future generations—the person who prepares future fighters. ``The enemies have realized the importance of her role,`` says the fundamentalist manifesto. ``They consider that if they are able to direct and bring her up the way they wish, far from Islam, they would have won the battle.``

In fact, many Arab and Muslim men, not just jihadists, see foreign occupation as a form of emasculation. (Just weeks after Saddam Hussein was toppled in 2003, Qasim Alsabti, the cosmopolitan owner of a Baghdad art gallery, told NEWSWEEK the U.S. occupation was ``part of a plan to steal our souls—to castrate us.``) Years under Israeli rule have broken down the structures of Palestinian families. ``The image of the strong, providing father who can protect his women and children has been badly damaged and the male role has been eroded away,`` says Dr. Eyad Sarraj, director of Gaza Community Mental Health. That opens the way for radical groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad to teach young boys that the way to be real men is to be religious—and to be ready to die.

The recruitment of men and boys for radical Islamic groups exploits not only their anxieties and fears but their basic sexual needs and desires. For years, well before anyone had heard of Osama bin Laden, Egypt`s Muslim Brotherhood exploited the frustrations and confusion of people whose patriarchal societies were being challenged by urbanization and the inroads of Western ideas. In Cairo, where middle-class tradition demands that a man offer his wife a fully owned and furnished apartment before a marriage can be performed, or consummated, men often have to wait until they are in their 30s. The brotherhood preaches that piety is far more important than kitchen appliances, and couples can wed earlier if they follow the proper teachings. When the Iranian-backed Hizbullah militia started the systematic recruitment of holy warriors to fight the Israeli occupation of Lebanon in the early 1980s, its mullahs approved so-called mut`aa marriages, involving contracts of matrimony that could be almost as short as one-night stands.

Muslim men who come from traditional conservative backgrounds, or yearn for them, find themselves surrounded by the temptations of Western media. Increasing numbers actually find themselves living in the West, but on the margins of society and out of sync with its mores. The young men in the outer-city ghettos of France who recently rampaged for three weeks of nihilistic violence were, for the most part, brought up amid a confusing mix of their immigrant parents` conservative traditions, the casual sex of the hip-hop culture they see on the streets and in school, and denigrating pornography on the Internet. A women`s organization called Ni Putes Ni Soumises (Neither Whores Nor Passive Victims) has fought for years against a plague of gang rapes and horrific ``honor crimes`` in these neighborhoods. Last month, when a girl from a Muslim background in a Paris suburb refused to go out with a Pakistani immigrant, he doused her with gasoline and set her aflame. She remains in an induced coma with burns over 60 percent of her body.

The pressures of sexual frustration in this life and the lure of sexual as well as spiritual rewards in the next are exploited as part of a cynical spiel by jihadist recruiters looking for boys and men to be suicide bombers. Hizbullah in Lebanon, Hamas and Islamic Jihad among the Palestinians, and the various incarnations of Al Qaeda have all played on Muslim teachings that promise 72 houris—virginal beings with black eyes and alabaster skin—to attend the martyr`s desires in paradise.

The directions for physical and spiritual cleansing that Muhammad Atta gave out to his fellow hijackers before the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States advise them to ``feel complete tranquillity, because the time between you and your marriage [in heaven] is very short.`` Atta`s own personal will, written in 1996, is a study in obsessive carnality. ``Women must not be present at my funeral or go to my grave at any later date,`` he wrote. ``He who washes my body around my genitals should wear gloves so that I am not touched there.`` In the mind of such a man, suicidal sacrifice is a path to ecstasy. There would have been no place in Atta`s Qaeda for the women suicide bombers of today.

III. Killers & Virgins
What changed? The simplest answer is that al Qaeda`s core organization in Afghanistan and Pakistan and its avant-garde in Iraq need more recruits. Jordanian researcher Hassan Abu Hanieh, who knew Zarqawi personally, says the terrorist leader is goading Muslim men. Before the attacks by women began, a Web site often linked to Zarqawi posted a message signed by him. ``Are there no men, so that we have to recruit women?`` he asked at the conclusion. ``Isn`t it a shame for the sons of my own nation that our sisters ask to conduct martyrdom operations while men are preoccupied with life?``

Zarqawi`s sense of urgency may be fueled by the fact that he`s on the run. ``Since the first of this year, we have taken out 117 members of the leadership of the Zarqawi network, tier 1, tier 2 and tier 3,`` General Lynch told the press last week. But the need for recruits could also reflect a movement that is expanding, or aiming to expand, in both size and scope.

Of course, Zarqawi is also meeting a demand—by women. ``The recourse to women doesn`t happen at the start,`` says Haizam Amirah Fernandez, a Madrid-based analyst. ``It comes when the battle escalates to all sectors of society. It happens after men become activists in guerrilla groups, fight and die, perhaps in suicide attacks. Then the widows or family members seek vengeance, or want to give their life in the same cause.``

Al-Rishawi, the failed suicide bomber in Jordan, had lost three brothers and her sister`s husband to the war with the Americans. Some women who first shocked and terrified Israel in 2002 were motivated by the deaths of family and friends. But the most striking cult of vengeance, setting an example for other jihadist organizations, is the ``black widows`` of Chechnya. Although they have attracted relatively scant attention in the West—their targets are mostly Russian—their example among heroines of jihad is an important factor in the spread of suicidal terror.

The tales of these Chechen women are as much about tawdry victimization as battlefield heroics. They come from a rugged society where an old tradition, made worse after years of gunslinging war and anarchy, allows men to kidnap the bride of their choice. The kidnappers can settle disputes with the woman`s family in cash, or with violence, according to Lida Yusupova of the Memorial Human Rights Center in Grozny. But once she`s been taken, she`s unlikely to find another husband. ``No intelligent, nice young man in Chechnya would marry a nonvirgin girl,`` says Yusupova.

Some Chechen women who have lost husbands or sons in the war want to live only long enough to take revenge. The first attack by a ``black widow,`` in the summer of 2000, killed 27 members of the Russian Special Forces. Then the spectral, silent presence of 18 ``widows`` during the deadly hostage siege of a Moscow theater in 2002 heightened their mystique. Over a four-month period in 2003, Chechen women carried out six out of seven suicide attacks on Russian targets, killing 165 people. Women bombers allegedly brought down two Russian airliners last year, killing all 90 passengers and crew.

Yet it`s hard to say these Chechen women, whatever their grim accomplishments, have won respect in their own brutal world. The one detailed chronicle that exists of how a would-be martyr was trained is the confession of Zarema Muzhakhoyeva, who was 23 when she was caught two years ago. She had been kidnapped by a man 20 years older than she, a metal trader, and was pregnant with her first child when he was shot. (``Something went wrong between him and his competitors.``) After some petty thievery, Muzhakhoyeva became a disgrace to her family. Her child was taken away. She volunteered for a suicide mission and was given training, a target and a bomb—but decided in the end that she didn`t want to die, and gave herself up. In a long prison interview with the newspaper Izvestiya, Muzhakhoyeva talked about her male handlers almost like a streetwalker talking about her pimps: ``Rustam treated me well, always told me jokes, never talked about death with me. On the one hand, he trained me to be a suicide bomber. On the other hand, we laughed like crazy when we saw each other. Because of that I was under the impression that maybe I wouldn`t even have to blow myself up, that somehow I would survive. Rustam`s wife hated me.``

In the Middle East, Palestinian women have been among the ranks of fighters and terrorists attacking Israel since at least the 1970s, but the first to become a suicide bomber was Wafa Idris, a 27-year-old ambulance worker, who killed an Israeli civilian and wounded 140 in January 2002. In death she became a celebrity. More women and girls volunteered to die for a branch of Yasir Arafat`s secular Fatah organization. He talked of an ``army of roses,`` and the leadership of the radical religious organizations, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, were taken by surprise. Sheik Yassin, the crippled spiritual leader of Hamas, opposed the use of women as bombers. There were more than enough men, he said.

Still, Palestinian women clamored to fight and die to try to free their homeland. They argued that since the days of the Prophet Muhammad, women warriors have battled for the banner of Islam. Yassin and other religious scholars eventually gave ground, but only after debating how long a woman on a suicide mission could be away without a chaperone—before she died.

Not until January of last year did a woman from Hamas carry out an operation. Reem Riashi, a mother of two, recorded a videotape before her mission, saying she hoped her ``organs would be scattered in the air`` and her soul ``would reach paradise.`` Would there be 72 houris to greet her there? No. The religious scholars who endorse suicide attacks have described an alternative paradise for women. Thauria Hamur, a 26-year-old captured by the Israelis before she could set off a bomb in May 2002, told NEWSWEEK in a prison interview that women martyrs would ``become the purest and most beautiful form of angel at the highest level possible in heaven.``

IV. The Hunt for Answers
In a letter written from hiding by Ayman Al-Zawahiri last summer, and meant for Zarqawi to read in Iraq, the Egyptian physician paused to talk about the women in his life. His ``favorite wife,`` he wrote, was crushed by the concrete of a collapsed ceiling in an American bombing. ``She went on calling for aid to lift the stone block off her chest until she breathed her last, may God have mercy on her and accept her among the martyrs,`` Zawahiri wrote in the letter, which was intercepted and disseminated by American intelligence. ``As for my young daughter, she was afflicted by a cerebral hemorrhage, and she continued for a whole day suffering in pain until she expired. And to this day I do not know the location of the graves of my wife, my son, my daughter.``

Such is the price of war, said Zawahiri. Yet the core leadership of Al Qaeda remains divided, it seems, about whether women should enter the struggle against the ``satanic power`` of the United States as combatants, much less as suicide bombers. Zarqawi has made his own decision. But a U.S. counterterrorism official, who insisted on anonymity because he was discussing intelligence matters, says that until authorities begin to see Saudi women sacrificing themselves in attacks, they will remain skeptical about the extent to which Al Qaeda Central has embraced the idea of female bombers. NEWSWEEK`s investigation suggests, however, that those barriers are gradually falling.

A Taliban source, who for his own protection did not want to be further identified, says Zawahiri is an ardent supporter of both the education of women and their participation in military activities. Before the fall of the Taliban in 2001, Zawahiri tried to persuade Afghan leader Mullah Mohammed Omar to allow girls to have some basic schooling and combat training. The Taliban leader would not hear of it. After the American invasion of Afghanistan, Zawahiri raised the subject again. He even brought up the example of a famous Afghan woman named Malalai who fought against the British in the 19th century. But Mullah Omar dismissed the idea once more, saying that the presence of women at the front or among soldiers would lead to a breakdown in discipline. After the meeting, the Taliban leader`s private secretary warned Zawahiri not to raise the matter again, but Al Qaeda continued to hold military training for women at bases near the Jalalabad and Kandahar airports, according to this source, and kept it secret from the one-eyed leader of the Taliban.

Then, in late 2001, an aging mujahed named Sufi Abdul Aziz Baba was given the task of caring for the widows of 22 Qaeda fighters. As casualties mounted among the men, the number of women in the group continued to grow. On the run from the Americans, they hid out in a compound in the southeastern province of Paktika. The women—Uzbeks, Chechens and Arabs were given Kalashnikovs to defend themselves, and soon began training within the compound walls, out of sight of the men. Forced to flee again across the border into Pakistan, they fought a three-hour gun battle against the forces of an Afghan warlord who had gone over to the American side. A year later, to avoid an offensive by Pakistani troops, the women fled again to a new hideout near the Afghan border, Baba told NEWSWEEK. All the while, they continued military training. Last year a new Pakistani offensive forced these women, now well versed in the arts of killing, to disperse again along the Afghan frontier. There, says Baba, they are supported by a tightly woven network of jihadist organizations and family ties.

Indeed, in these remote lands Al Qaeda`s fighters and their wives and widows often seem to be part of one extended family. Frequently the sisters and daughters of a holy warrior will marry one of his comrades in arms. The widows of slain guerrillas commonly wed one of their late husband`s jihadist relatives. Although these networks appear isolated, they could form the enduring core of Al Qaeda in the future, or a new incarnation of it. And some of the women among them are now more than ready to take up arms, or to carry bombs, whenever the organization needs them. Or whenever the men are gone, or get out of the way.

As Mia Bloom writes in a forthcoming book, ``The underlying message conveyed by female bombers is: Terrorism has moved beyond a fringe phenomenon and insurgents are all around you.`` But that is only the message for their enemies. In their own world, their willingness to carry out suicide attacks means something different. Among Palestinians, for instance, ``the idea of violence empowering women has spread throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip,`` writes Bloom. Suicide bombing is changing the rules of deference and subservience that have dominated the traditional society—a strange path to liberation for women hidden behind veils and burqas.

Can the West offer something better? Something to defuse the explosive anger of jihadist widows bent on vengeance, or young women craving freedom from foreign occupation for themselves and their people? In the comfort of Wash-ington, the answer would seem an obvious yes: education, jobs, equal rights. But in the dusty alleys of Tall Afar, the arid hills of Waziristan, the rubble of Grozny, the walled-off villages of the West Bank and maybe even the dilapidated rows of factory housing in Belgium, the answer may not always be so clear. In a television interview last week, after the people of Belgium learned to their horror that their Muriel had died as a suicide bomber in Iraq, Glenn Audenaert, director of the federal police, said he was not surprised to find such a woman in the ranks of people who ``embraced the ideology of Al Qaeda.`` ``It`s a new generation, and, perversely, emancipation allows women to aspire to martyrdom,`` he said.

Finding another answer that is right—a variety of answers, in fact, for many unique societies—will help make the difference between an endless war of terror with ``insurgents all around`` and a fight that is won, with a peace that endures.

With Ron Moreau and Sami Yousafzai in Kabul, Scott Johnson and Kevin Peraino in Baghdad, Joanna Chen in Jerusalem, Mark Hosenball and John Barry in Washington, Anna Nemtsova in Moscow, Stefan Theil in Berlin, Eric Pape and Tracy McNicoll in Paris, Emily Flynn Vencat in London and Michael Hastings in New York
© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.

Re: # 31

Samina,

There was a reason for posting this study here :)

Re: # 29

That is one of the funniest and saddest studies I have read.

What were the priorities for Pakistani and/or Muslim men?

Dawood,
Thank you for a relevant and timely discussion about how to move forward. We all agree that the status of the majority of women (and men) in this world is unacceptable. Where we differ in opinion is that while those who are sincere, and this group includes most women and most men, really want to help women socially, economically, politically, and effectively, there is a minority of women, with very few men along for the ride, who could care less about women and their real issues. This tiny minority just wants to practice misandry, create an Amazonian utopia where men don`t exist, and build sand castles of female domination, unabashed lesbianism, and uncontrolled hysteria. It is important to focus on the first, and gently ignore the second.

The Greatest Insult to a Man

Men are confused. Very, very confused. They have no clue about their societal role. Are they supposed to be tough and macho or sweet and caring?

When 2,000 men in 13 countries were grilled by the Chicago ad agency Leo Burnett with a bunch of survey questions in the ``2005 Man Study,`` it was easy to see that males worldwide fell into one of four categories, depending on their personality, life goals and daily work:

1. Metros
2. Retros
3. Patriarchs
4. Power-seekers

The study concluded that we are now witnessing a new experience of male insecurity and confusion, report The New York Post and Brand Republic. That said, men`s sense of what`s offensive has certainly become more sensitive than in previous generations. Nearly 75 percent said one of these three statements was the greatest insult someone could throw at them:

* 29 percent say: ``He`ll never amount to anything.``
* 24 percent say: ``Everyone laughs behind your back.``
* 21 percent say: ``You`re stupid.``

Some surprising findings:

* Just over half of the men surveyed said their role in society is unclear. Frenchmen are the most confused at 64 percent, while Indian men are the least confused at 36 percent. Half of American men are confused.
* 10 percent of men of all ages think their role in society is becoming less dominant.
* 73 percent of men prefer to have a job that they love versus a job that pays well.

The ultimate male fantasies were ranked in this (surprising) order:

1. End world hunger.
2. Be a world famous sports star.
3. Marry a supermodel.

What is the cause of this global identity crisis? The study authors blame it on the rise of feminism and empowered women in the workplace.

The study findings were reported at the Cannes International Advertising Festival.

A friend forwarded the following to a mailing list. This is way too depressing.
http://womenforhumanity.org/

Who should be blamed? Culture or religious fanaticism or both?

Dawood: Men like you should write for those men who are not gender sensitized. The following is an excellent example. You can do a lot to educate your fellow men who are still living in caves and have little or no respect for women as an entity. Do you think the majority will ever explore the concept of letting women pursue their dreams about their life? That`s a point to ponder.

---

Samira Munir, Norwegian politician of Pakistani origins, died on November 14, 2005. All the details surrounding her death have not been revealed, but the police have hinted that it may have been suicide. It is not impossible that this could be the case, but she had received death threats many times from the Pakistani community in Norway because of her courageous fight for the rights of Muslim immigrant women, and for banning hijab, the Islamic veil. The website of Human Rights Service brought the shocking news that Samira had died under circumstances which still seem mysterious. Officially, she was killed by a train at Kolbotn station one of the suburban lines outside Oslo. However, there has been quite a lot of speculation unofficially that the details surrounding her death don`t add up, and that she may have been killed or even was dead before she was hit by the train.

Muslim men go to great lengths in Western European nations to control their women from outside influence and signs of independence. In Denmark recently, a number of Pakistani taxi drivers with immigrant backgrounds were spying on female immigrants who were hiding from their families. Taxi drivers using mobile phones are photographing females, who are seeking asylum in crisis centres, and their whereabouts are being sent onto their families. A group of Taxi drivers informed a Pakistani man recently, who was looking for his sister, where she could be found. The man murdered his sister outside Slagelse train station because she had married a non-muslim man against her families orders. Samira Munir invoked the wrath of very powerful people with her fight against the veil and for the liberty of Muslim women. A Pakistani by birth, she was even threatened by Pakistani authorities and Pakistan`s ambassador to Norway on several occasions.

Munir received many death threats against herself and her family because of her work as a champion of the rights of Muslim immigrant women. In an interview earlier this year, she claimed to receive threatening phone calls on an almost daily basis, and that Muslim men would stop her in the streets, intimidating her and threatening to kill her. She told that Muslim girls who refuse to wear the veil are seen as whores. She also claimed that there was widespread cooperation between the Socialist parties and Muslim communities during this year`s elections in Norway. ``The heads of families and the mosques would decide how entire groups of immigrants would vote. They made deals such as ``How much money will we get if we get our people to vote for you?``, and the deals were always made with the Socialist parties`` said Munir, who was a local politician and a member of the city council in Oslo.

But Munir`s own party, the Conservatives, were far from blameless in courting Muslims. Even as she lived with death threats for her fight to ban the veil, her own party leader managed to pass a law that would make any opposition to the veil ``discriminatory`` and illegal and that those accused of discrimination have to mount proof of their own innocence. Former Cabinet minister and leader of the Conservatives Erna Solberg, who has earlier called for the establishment of a sharia council in Norway, proposed the new act. In a recent case, a local furniture store wouldn`t allow a female employee to wear a head scarf, arguing that it violated the store`s dress code. Solberg argued that existing law already made it illegal for employers, for example, to prevent women from wearing head scarves if their religion calls for it. Her new law ``would make this even more clear.``

Samira Munir thus received no support whatsoever from her party in her struggle for the rights of Muslim immigrant women. Quite the contrary, one of her party colleagues, a Muslim, threatened her with a lawsuit for some of her statements. Her proposals to improve the conditions for Muslim women in Norway were continuously sabotaged and backstabbed by the rest of the party. She spoke about how Muslim girls who in public said they wore hijab of their own free will in private confided in her that they were being forced to do so, and urged her to carry on being a voice for those who had neither the possibility nor the courage to speak for themselves. There are many uncertainties about Samira’s tragic death. But even if it was a suicide it does not add up. A healthy 42-year-old woman and the mother of two does not just jump in front of a train for no reason. As a matter of fact there has to be a very good reason. If that is what actually happened we will probably never know the true reason in detail, but a few facts we do know. We know that both she and her family were being harassed and received death threats, and we know she was being very concerned about the evelopment of the Muslim immigrant community in Norway, which is becoming ever more radical and extremist. The pressure against her, and the bleak outlook for the future can surely be enough to drive a person to commit suicide, and the lack of support from within the Conservative party most certainly did not make it any better. So even if the final act was one of her own choosing her blood remains on the hands of Norwegian Muslims and their appeasers on both sides of the political spectrum.

Perhaps the real question isn`t whether Samira Munir was pushed in front of that train, but whether she was pushed physically or just mentally. The night before she died, Samira Munir had expressed great satisfaction on Norwegian radio with the European Court of Human Rights upholding a ruling banning the veil in Turkish universities. She was a brave woman, and will be missed. Her death puts this country to shame. May she rest in peace. But first of all, she is a symbol and a tragic reminder of just how bad the situation is becoming for Muslim women in Europe, and how hypocritical ``Multicultural`` Europeans are. Even in Scandinavian countries priding themselves of being champions of women`s rights, Muslim women who stand up for their rights receive too little support and risk ending up dead in front of a train. Samira Munir`s death is thus a warning to Europeans of how dangerous things are starting to become, not just in France, but all over Western Europe.

Another Link: http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article758943.ece

Re: # 10

Oh, dear hamzaad, beware of Illam Dini fanatics. Raj Pal, a Hindu, who had compiled a book containing just such jems was murdered by one, Illam Din, a 17 year old carpenter`s son. He had denied having done so in the court but after having been sentenced to death by the court and lost in appeal also he repented for lying in the court and claimed to be real murderer of Raj Pal.

Dawood:

[Now, if women are equally talented, if not more, as well as more committed and honest than men, why is it that they are still not being empowered to make their own choices? Why are they still the underpaid of our workforce? ]

You have valid concerns, but you do not have any data to support the validity of your concerns. What makes you think or conclude that women do not make their own choices? Just to give an example: Despite being a single muslim woman, I have always made my own decisions when it came to financial, business, and personal matters in life. Similarly, I have many single friends, who have their own mortgages to pay, businesses to run, corporations to deal with and life to enjoy. They don`t need to bank on an external entity to come to their aid.

Yes, culturally you have a lot of issues with the mindset of your traditional Pakistani Society. This is not to say that everyone follows the same line of thought. After all, most of the women I am quoting are of Pakistani origin. They have parents in Pakistan, but they reside, work and enjoy life in the western world as an independent entity. By saying that they have an independent entity, I do not mean that they do not rely on their circle of friends, family and mentors. What I mean is, they have the sole responsibility of the steps they take to shape their future and the transactions they make to buy or sell their assets. These women are not relying on the assets of their fathers or husbands to gain security in life. That`s where they have their own identity. To your point, having education and the desire to continually grow yourself in certain fields is necessary for women to stay in the competitive corporate sector and be the master of their destiny.

[So why is it that no government in South Asia has yet devised a specific policy to exploit its more committed work force?]

The culture is the culprit. Those who set the direction of that culture are equal culprits. It`s self-explanatory.

[According to Marx, the household is the place of work for women. Well he might have predicted that women would be exploited and would be underpaid under a capitalist system, if their wages are left to market forces, and thus recommends that women need to be in the household and the household work needs to be recognized. There is a lot of sense in his theory but it is a bit impractical and also would not find many proponents among women themselves, who would like to use their brains when education and ideas matter and have become pre-requisites for better livelihoods.]

I understand that you are trying to research the dynamics. If I were you I would discard this rubbish. This is a very vague analysis. You need to compare apples with apples. In your doctoral program, I am hoping that you will consider a woman in your class as an equal entity. She may end up with a better opportunity based on her thesis. What will you do? I hope you will celebrate :) Obviously, if she is investing that many years of her life in broadening her horizons then she is pretty damn serious. How dare someone question her motives and determine her role based on Marxist nonsense, cultural hogwash, and religious extremism? She is the master of her own destiny.

Over the years, I have been reading about an interesting trend among the married women (with kids) who are heading corporations in the United States. The men of these accomplished women are taking care of the children and the wives are working full time. I guess these women wanted to have kids but they did not believe in comprising their career goals. As women are taking on leadership roles, the role of men is changing with time as well.

On the other hand, not all women leaders are married women. In fact, the % of successful marriages among women who are leaders is pretty low. That tells you that men were not willing to support their women. After all, no woman fell apart on the breakage of that marriage. In fact, they pursued their ambitions and career goals even more passionately. If you follow the lives of the women CEOs and CIOs you can read it for yourself. This change may not be very easy to accept for those who come from traditional cultures. But if men believe in making their relationships work, they have to be more accommodating. Otherwise, women of today have options to pursue.

#20, develop a decent argument, rather than throw out verses without understanding either the Arabic or the context of the verse. The purpose of people who throw out bits and pieces of verses is that you take those bits and then interpret them based upon your stereotypes. This type of ``scholarship`` is trickery and not much else; 4:34 from the Quran is discussed at http://women.rationalreality.com

The allocation of status based upon work is what is the real issue here. The way the economic institution is set up under industrial capitalism, status is given to work outside the home. The corporations have convinced all that looking after their affairs on ``the job`` is somehow more important than maintaining your own home or family. Whenever the two compete, corporations win hands down (in today`s world), as a result we see the escalating divorce rate in the West and women that work outside the home feeling ``superior`` to those that work equally hard at home maintaining their household. Nurturing the corporation is more important than nurturing your own kids, that is the message the corporate economy sends out based upon how it allocates status and income.

women were hired cuz they made cheaper labour.....if they demand more...cheaper men will take over.....u r one of the few gender sensetized folks.....men and women in general.....take teh short cut....raher then fighting for the rights of daughters.....lets pray w have sons.....rather then working outside...lets stay at home as a home maker and watch kyunkey saans bhi kabhi bahu thee......educating and empowering women is not so easy u see......thanx

#16, your sense of logic is skewed. Can you not make out simple arguments? That paper, http://women.rationalreality.com, relies on the Quran and Quran alone as far as Islamic doctrine regarding women is concerned, and then it is comparative, it compares what the Quran says with other religions/philosophies. What you said about 1400 years postdate is totally absurd

Regarding the inheritance, for the vast majority- society as a whole, whether in the US or India, the facts are that most women get married, the ones that don`t usually end up in poverty as is the case in the US, especially the single mothers. The Quran does not want to encourage lack of marriage and the way economic systems are set up in Patriarchal societies like the US, where there are glass ceilings and labor segmentation, marriage and not the job market- for the vast majority of women- is a better way to keep out of poverty. Like I said, the Quran seeks equality with justice- circumstance specific. It does not have to follow your absurdities of giving equal to daughter/son, when the son will be at a total disadvantage when he sets up his own family compared to the daughter. General laws, like the inheritance laws are not made in a vacuum where other laws, those concerning marriage are ignored; they are made for the general trend in a society, and in society MOST women, the vast majority get married.

Re: # 18Read the following text and get back to us:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/


REPLY: Sorry. Why dont you qoute something here from the link that can say it wasa the saimilar argument !?!?
or just digest some lines of mine make up my original argument. In the mean while ill look at the link.

some more very-feminist gems from the Glorious Quran for mullas and the oxymorons -islamic-feminists:

004.034
YUSUFALI: Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband`s) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).


078.031
YUSUFALI: Verily for the Righteous there will be a fulfilment of (the heart`s) desires;

078.032
YUSUFALI: Gardens enclosed, and grapevines;

078.033
YUSUFALI: And voluptuous women of equal age;

A very good article on chowk previously published on the same topic can be found at the following link:

http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00000964&channel=chaathouse&start=50&end=59&page=6&chapter=1&order=0

re: #17 and #14:

Read the following text and get back to us:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/


And Kaka Begum,

If you want anyone to believe that your Tourette`s syndrome is not directed at moderates and progressives, you`ll have to somehow delete your current `` chutyana`` (your words, not mine) paen to Mantolives.

The disingenuousness should be beneath you.

Re: # 2Dawood,

Don`t think you`ve thought through this argument. But far be it from me to supply info that chowk writers eventually claim as their own....

(REPLY) SAMINASHA: I CHALLENGE YOU TO BRING THE SASME ARGUMENT FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE. DO WHAT EVER SEARCH YOU MAY LIKE TO DO.

My arguments (esspecially) the twists are several. Marxists think that they know karl Marx well. Well Who would know a marxist well than the student of new liberal economic thought.

Femenist women like you who tail behind socialists/marxists are unfortunately fail to realise that karl marx never talks about women inequality. So if you dont find my line from any other source, I would take that as a big complement. I am also interested to know whether i am just a copy cat or a genious. :)))))))
so you do the search on this one, and help me out by helping your self out of your mindset and bias.
p.S. I hope i got your point right or hope you picked up the point I was trying to make.

Re: # 15

Al-brother-ul-masadi!

Your #1 and #2 are.. what they are, YOUR number 1 and number 2 (there is also drift that you want kaka to smell?). Do you realize that the website that you are offering is postdated 1400 years after the death of our pyaray nabi? Don`t you think the website might have strayed from the path of PBUH and Al-Ghazala per the logic offered in post #12? Brother, you are leaving the orginal message of the Quran to please modern sensibilities, aren`t you! Please desist, or kaka will tell Allah MiaN!

However, your #3 (which sequentially should be slotted as your masturbation) is interesting. What if the daughter never married or has a poor husband or whatever.. why didn`t the Creator of Universe (including rhinos and masadi) just make EQUAL and JUST distribution of inheritance the ol` fashioned way? kaka is convinced that these fitna verses were added by the enemies of Islam after PBUH had croaked..

Brother, if you don`t already know the references of what kaka is talking about, then you are a newbie.. and will be schooled by kaka further and all your #1, #2 and #3.. kaka has heard it all.

#14, we have already discussed this in posts under the article ``songs of dissonance``- you want me to repeat answers to all the misinformation that ``kaka and his friends`` are spreading about the Quran again? By the way, they are discussed in the article http://women.rationalreality.com as well.

1. The half a witness claim is false. At times the Quran gives greater weight to a woman`s testimony where it concerns the husband accusing the wife of infidelity/adultery. Her testimony can override his. In one particlular case, that of witnessing a financial transaction involving future debt does the Quran supplement a man with two women- for the sake of their own protection and justice- Since in certain situations the Quran gives GREATER weight to a woman`s testimony you can not therefore conclude that because in another case it is different the Quran considers women inferior. You cannot make that conclusion simply because that would imply that the Quran considers men inferior in case #1- catch my drift??

2. What is your conclusion based on Qisas of women for women? Complete your thought! make an argument and then I can answer you. What about the Qisas of man for a man? Geez man, atleast be smart enough to construct an argument and THINK it through.

3. The half inheritance is based on incomplete information as well. In the case of mother/father the inheritance is the same, the case of son/daughter is different because in the case of the son, he is expected to provide for his wife regardless of her financial status and then also give a big part of his property to her as Mahr; the daughter on the otherhand would not only get a chunk out of her husbands wealth as Mahr, she would life free regardless of what she had or where she works. It is only FAIR in these circumstances that the son gets more than the daughter- otherwise it would be injustice- the Quran seeks equality WITH justice- it is circumstance specific- you cant have laws regardless of circumstance.

The 50 year postdate statement as well as your statements about ``free for all`` represent just ignorance on your part. Also, when you try to suggest that things are in the Quran, be kind enough to your readers to provide references, don`t just throw out claims and expect them to take your word for it. Good day to you ``brother`` hamzaad.

Re: # 12

Brother masadi,

What about the verses where women can only have half a witness, half the inheritance and sometiems one-fourth of a husband? This is not to mention the qisaas of only woman for a woman and free-for-all on female-slaves. These surely could not have been from the Creator of the universe! kaka suggests probably a post-date of 50 years after PBUH when these ungodly verses were entered into the Quran, no?

Re: # 6

The keyword is `individual`. Not unlike kaka`s, who thirsts for things that are Urdu and Karachiesque etc, individual consciousnesses around the world desire certain cultures to be promoted more than others.., in the name of majority or wonderfulness or some other criteria. The dynamic forces (including royal patronage or popular support) that govern such determinations will have their way no matter what the conclusion of our discussion. All kaka is asking is that individuals, say samina for instance, need to take into stock their own strengths and weaknesses and within her 70 years of her lifespan look to improve her own life. The good news is that we are all going to die eventually.

Can we not agree that samina`s being an American (same way as Condi Rice) is an advantage compared to all the maleness that this kid from Afghanistan can muster? His being smarter than samina is not going to help; his being physically stronger than samina is not going to help; his being prettier than samina are all trumped by samina`s americanism. The point is individual circumstances (Nicole Ritchie`s, an adopted kid for example) have a lot to do with the what a person can achieve. All the accompanying distractions about dwindling cultures, identities and heritages are akin to worrying about the haircut you will wear in the afterlife.

.
.

Your `utility` question can be answered with the example of `diversity philosophy` that has been bandied about. kaka himself is convinced that yes, diversity helps bring solutions to table which a homogenized team of problem-solvers can never muster on its own. Here, the ethic of problem solving is being used to welcome diversity. Similarly, a strong case can be made for treating everyone the same, based on prospects of fresh (wo)man-hours, intimacy of feedback, extra competition for jobs that nobody has ever done well (collecting taxes, distributing resources) etc.

#10 unfortunately for you, debunking Islam is not that simple. Islam=Quran and Quran alone, everything else post dates the prophet by atleast 200 years. Ghazali is not Islam, he is not the Quran. What he said or didnt say is his business. If you used this kind of evidence in a court of law, x said y about z; they`d laugh at you. For those who want to know how Quran talks about women, i) read it ii) here is a comparative analysis http://women.rationalreality.com

Re: # 5

Brother samina!

Show kaka where he called anyone a `bitch` or a `cunt` except himself. Is self-deprecation a crime, brother? Even if it is, kaka is too cute to be held responsible..

If you do not desist from harassing kaka, then kaka will have Brother Teshan take care of you by quoting Al-Ghazali and stuff..

SNIFF!

Re: # 7

Brother Teshan,

Here`s some gems from Ghazali, the greatest Muslim tinker! Why have we forgotten his teachings brother? kaka recommends making a batti of the following and administering it to every Muslim baby just like the azaan..

``If you relax the woman`s bridle a tiny bit, she will take you and bolt wildly. And if you lower her cheek-piece a hand span, she will pull you an arm`s length ... Their deception is awesome and their wickedness is contagious; bad character and feeble mind are their predominant traits ... Mohammad said[36] : `The likeness of a virtuous woman amongst women is like a red beaked crow among a hundred crows.``[37]

In spite of all these deficiencies Ghazali found some redeeming features in women: ``[A man`s wife] fears him, while he fears her not, a kind word from him satisfies her, where nothing of hers has importance in his eyes, it is she who must tolerate the presence of concubines, and it is she who worries when he is ill whereas even her death would leave him indifferent.``

The reason for marrying more than one woman is given by Ghazali the great Muslim scholar:

``Some men have such a compelling sexual desire that one woman is not sufficient to protect them [from adultery]. Such men therefore preferably marry more than one woman and may have up to four wives.``[79]

And the reason for having sex with the slave girls beside one`s wives is also given by Ghazali:

``Since among Arabs passion is an overpowering aspect of their nature, the need of their pious men to have sex has been found to be the more intense. And for the purpose of emptying the heart to the worship of God they have been allowed to have sex with women slaves if at some time they should fear that this passion will lead them to commit adultery. Though it is true that such action could lead to the birth of a child that will be a slave, which is a form of destruction,...yet enslaving a child is a lighter offence than the destruction of religious belief. For enslaving the new born is a temporary thing but by committing adultery eternity is lost.``[82]

Ghazali gives us an example of this overpowering sexual desire.

``The son of `Omar who was an ascetic, and a scholar, used to break his fast by having sex before having food. And he might have had sex with three of his slave girls before the last meal.``[83]

The great scholar Ghazali quotes al-`Ouaza`i, one of the early scholars who commented on the above verse saying: ```Busy in their rejoicing` means busy taking the virginity of the virgins.``[110]

Ghazali reported the following Hadith:

``When a woman comes she comes in the form of a devil.``[145]

Let us hear it from the great Muslim scholar and philosopher Ghazali who stated the above position, some seven hundred years ago, when he summed up the situation, as follows:

``The most satisfying and final word on the matter is that marriage is a form of slavery (riq). The woman is man`s slave and her duty therefore is absolute obedience to the husband in all that he asks of her person. As Mohammad himself said: `A woman, who at the moment of death enjoys the full approval of her husband, will find her place in Paradise`.``[157]

In the US, women are discriminated against- it is a well established fact, and controlling for all factors they still make less than men, around 76 cents per every $1 made by a man, and for women of color it is even worse. And yes there is a glass ceiling and there is labor market segmentation also with women concentrated in low paying service jobs disproporionately. Most of the victims of violence in the US are women and children as well, around 4 million women are battered every year in the US, several thousands of them die, while millions suffer from post traumatic stress disorder due to violence in the home. This so called ``liberation`` of US women, that is massively advertised to the world is nonsense, women`s suffering within the US is second to none. Most of the poor in the US, the persistently poor are women bringing up children on their own. Fully one third of women in the US are sexually abused in thier lifetime, which by the way comes to a total number greater than the COMBINED female populations of Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. Around a million women are raped in the US every single year.

And yet these hypocrites, like the Bush Admn has the audacity to talk to other countries about ``women`s rights``- Get your own house in order first before you use women`s rights for your corporate agenda, we need to tell them.

For more info you can visit http://usa.asadi.org

Good day to you all

Arjun:

``So then why do women earn less than men in a system which theoretically doesn’t discriminate on the basis of gender?`` simply betrays this man`s ignorance. If you adjust for all relevant factors, women`s earnings are at par with men`s. There is no glass ceiling and no systemic discrimination against women, at least in the US. This is not to say that individual acts of discrimination against women (or men or blacks or whites or handicapped, etc) will not occur, they will. But there is no evidence of systematic discrimination against women.

Re: # 1

hamzad

``Understandably, no human would be interested in joining a revolution which seeks to redress whatever grievances animals have. Not because of the open enmity enshrined in a charter, but for a simple realization that whatever rights animals receive, they will come at expense of humans` position of prestige and entitlement. However, there are some: PETA and for trees and some unanimate things, Greenpeace``

This clamour for woman empowerment or equal rights all looks so foolish and bizzare when we consider that the men are mere extention of women who feel proud of the miracle when they give birth to the opposite gendre. What is equality and justice in the first place. Ghazali, the greatest Muslim thinker says, while justifying killing and eating of animals, that ``sacrifying the imperfect for the perfect is quite justified``. Now who is perfect and who imperfect its a matter of individual judgment. Since only the man is considered to be ``Ashrafumakhlookaat`` (the best of creation) before whom even the angels were made to prostrate how can women deny his superiority, at least those belonging to the Judaic religions.

``A transcendent approach to being just is to quit seeing individuals in terms of gender identities. ``

kaka, if we map this on race instead of gender, then MLK Jr. (whatever little i know) made a justice argument and so if the race is wiped out to make justice argument irrelevant, wouldnt it be wiping out the blackness, the culture, the various other facets that compose identity for a black into a big homogenized majority identity (then there wont be any minority majority either).?

the same thing in gender roles, if the approach is to remove gender altogether then a bi, hetero, or homo non-male identities will be wiped out into a big monolith of male(necessarily hetero) identity.
maybe what i am trying to say is that: Can those underpriviledged identities retain their cultures and still be equals?

could arguing on the basis of ``utility`` have an unsavory implication of subverting the power but in the process straitjacketing all the ``other`` groups into the same column/category? what is the give and take here?

Re: # 3

Kaka`s really good at calling people ``cunts`` and ``bitches``...his inability to be ashamed about his special form of Tourette`s may account for the collective incredulity of the non namard readership...but if kaka needs his diva crown to face the mirror, who am I to ask him to stop crying?

If you think about it, Capitalism takes men and women as equals, as both are labor. So then why do women earn less than men in a system which theoretically doesn’t discriminate on the basis of gender?


Capitalist theories work on individuals...not on groups....There are plenty of women who`re doing quite well in the IT industry(among other industries)..

Re: # 2

samina,

It is quite hard to respond to a water-tight `argument` as kaka`s timeless gems, though it is more of a comment. kaka saw you stuttering on unplugged, hiding behind errors of diction and typos. kaka didn`t say anything because you finally have kaka`s pity.

Look forward to more recycled masterpieces from kaka because, really, anything worth opining upon has been done by kaka years ago.

Re: # 1

kaka,

I see you continue to recycle an argument no one had responded to the few months ago when it first appeared....

Dawood,

Don`t think you`ve thought through this argument. But far be it from me to supply info that chowk writers eventually claim as their own....

Remember the revolutionary speech made by the boar in Orwell`s fable `Animal Farm`? Near the end of the speech, just before the vote on rats, he proclaims, `All men are enemies. All animals are comrades`. Even rats and rabbits.

Understandably, no human would be interested in joining a revolution which seeks to redress whatever grievances animals have. Not because of the open enmity enshrined in a charter, but for a simple realization that whatever rights animals receive, they will come at expense of humans` position of prestige and entitlement. However, there are some: PETA and for trees and some unanimate things, Greenpeace.

PETA`s motivation could probably be be summed up in the word `justice`. It seems to them that the appropriate way to deal with animals is to treat them kindlier. Greenpeace would make an argment about how everyone including humans benefit by being considerate to our environment. John Stuart Mill had something similar to say about the benefit of treating women as equals (more or less), not so much because of some Kantian Justice that must be done (he was utilitarain afterall), but because humanity in general would benefit by that move.

Between PETA/Kant and Greenpeace/Mill, two approaches emerge: Justice and Utility. Of course, there are the ocaasional deities who mix justice/utility with self-proclaimed wisdoms and various hells/heavens. some of us follow them.

One would think that any self-respecting woman, would clarify in her mind why she thinks any man should co-operate in giving women more rights, more whatever at the expense of a man`s sense of entitlement. For sure, some would argue that it is not a zero-sum scenerio. Mill has already argued that. But is this what the feminists also think? That the redress of women`s condition involves making a plea for utility and not justice? That kind of argument still remains to be popularized. Most of the time, the emphasis has been on shaming men into looking into the face of justice. Most men, understandably, have preferred to keep the status quo over the ethic of being just.

A transcendent approach to being just is to quit seeing individuals in terms of gender identities. Obviously, there are people on both side of the gender divide (male/non-male) who can be preferred over others on criteria other than genitals. An individual non-male, can benefit more by using this approach, then putting stock in the future of `sexual revolution`.