Who Really Exploits Women?

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`.

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....

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.

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: # 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?

``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: # 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.

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.

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

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]

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!

#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: # 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.

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?

#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: # 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.