Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamal1425)

    In some instances I agree with the Pope. Women and Men are equal, but not the same, Men have certain reponsibilites and Women have certain responsibilities. As an intellect pointed out in one of the articles in the Guardian site, Women have an innate quality for caring. Im not saying Women should be confined to the home, rather the woman should prioritise family life over career, though many will disagree with me.
    I agree as well to the fact that women and men are different, however, that doesn't mean that women should have to prioritize family life over career. And while women who do so of their own volition deserve respect, those who put their careers first deserve the same. Forcing women to put their familial responsibilities first is archaic and outdated. To each his (or in this case her) own.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamal1425)
    And to fishpaste, everyhting is defined in life anyway as it is,
    you are always following orders, rules - are you , is your life not being defined? You know you cant do 100 miles on the motorway, you know you cant kill your neighbour because he trodded all over your plants. Mate, we're all defined by laws and rules!
    In both of the examples you gave, I'm myself am limiting somebody's choices. THere is something fundamentally wrong with this. And I think that's the crucial difference. It's fair enough to say "don't kill somebody, that infringes on their choice to live." It's fair enough to say "don't do 100 on the motorway, that infringes on somebody's choice to be safe." But to say "Abandon your other aspirations, you have a duty to stay in the home" infringes on a woman's freedom. This is different because choosing to follow her aspirations affects her and nobody else. To limit this is to limit her choices when it's her business and not yours or mine.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamal1425)
    "Basicly, we dont mind people being muslim, but I have personally little left for the extremists who insist that wommen should be completely covered up and beaten if they talk to a man without their husbands consent."
    __________________

    This is disturbing, when you talk like that, ie "We dont mind" you make it come across as if you are this overseeing power or force that controls who follows what or who does what, by the use of your "WE" pronoun.
    Actually I was referring to the post you repplied to. Sorry, should have made it more clear.

    (Original post by jamal1425)
    If only you take some time to read into WHY women are instructed to veil themselves, it is not simply covering cos your husband is going to beat you. This ia grave misconception, why people cling onto theses false ideas! Islam places a high emphasis on modesty, and with sexual permissiveness and rape and other things norm in todays society, the virtue of veiling should be seen as a rescue or saviour!! .
    The truth is however that there are many extremists which do surpress the righst of wommen around the world. You dont eaven have to leave Europe to find the examples. In sweden a poor girl was shot dead by her father merely because she had a swedish boyfriend. Its ok if wommen themselves chose to wear these clothes, but in many cases they are forced to.

    (Original post by jamal1425)
    "Beaten if they talk to a man without husbands consent" - who did you get this from, weejiemei>? A woman can speak to a man other than her husband yes, without his consent, yes, but what sort of a man with any bit of senes, would want his wife talking to strangers, is this not how relationshios outside of marriage start? Then mariage breaks down, divorce, etc, etc. This is all too common nowadays, and it's really saddening.
    It happens. My mom is a doctor and gets to see a lot of it. Im not saying it is a fundamental part of Islam, Im just saying that its rather frequent in many extreme communities. Furthermore, your insinuation that wommen should not be allowed to speak with other men than their husband is simply horrific. Wommen have rights equal to men and thus should not be prohibited from speaking to other people. Also, what kind of marriage do two people have if it cant survive the womman speaking to another man? If it was that problematic the two should not have married in the first place.

    (Original post by jamal1425)
    And to fishpaste, everyhting is defined in life anyway as it is,
    you are always following orders, rules - are you , is your life not being defined? You know you cant do 100 miles on the motorway, you know you cant kill your neighbour because he trodded all over your plants. Mate, we're all defined by laws and rules!
    His point was that these laws changes. What is morally acceptable and not was not necessarily the same 50 years ago. Thus you should recognise morals as something that is partially determined by society and not a god-set standard applying throughout the universe.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamal1425)
    Islam places a high emphasis on modesty, and with sexual permissiveness and rape and other things norm in todays society, the virtue of veiling should be seen as a rescue or saviour!!
    Women should have the freedom to dress how they wish without being raped. "She was dressing provocatively" does not cut it with rape, not for a second.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamal1425)


    If only you take some time to read into WHY women are instructed to veil themselves, it is not simply covering cos your husband is going to beat you. This ia grave misconception, why people cling onto theses false ideas! Islam places a high emphasis on modesty, and with sexual permissiveness and rape and other things norm in todays society, the virtue of veiling should be seen as a rescue or saviour!!

    I know I can't speak for others, but I don't think the reasons why women are instructed to veil themselves are at all relevent. The fact that women are being 'instructed' to do so in the first place is what matters. Why is modesty held in such high esteem solely when it applies females? Surely if it's so wholesome and essential to the religion, then the fact that its a nonexistant virtue in half of the population would be cause for alarm? Why is nothing being done about the lack of men in veils if this is the way one shows their modesty?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    Women should have the freedom to dress how they wish without being raped. "She was dressing provocatively" does not cut it with rape, not for a second.
    I wholeheartedly agree. Too often people blame the victims for the way they dress. Rape survivors already have a hard enough time dealing with the guilt complexes in the aftermath. Its absolutely disgusting that some members of society tries to lessen the brutality of it with snide remarks. It doesn't matter if the woman dresses like a nun, dresses like a prostitute, or even if she is a prostitute! There is no excuse for rape and by no stretch of the imagination can any amount of blame be shifted to the victim. No means no regardless of what your wearing.

    Also, it's disheartening how a lot of times these comments are made by women.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Incomplete)
    The idea that women cannot be priests as they lack what my theology teacher termed "correct traits" and that God had given them a different role in life seemed very sexist to me.
    The Bible says so.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    The Bible says so.
    The bible sais a lot of things. It eaven contradicts itself on a large number of places.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamal1425)
    This is disturbing, when you talk like that, ie "We dont mind" you make it come across as if you are this overseeing power or force that controls who follows what or who does what, by the use of your "WE" pronoun.
    the non-muslim, democratic states of the West generally do have sovereign control of their populations. im assuming the poster represented this position.

    If only you take some time to read into WHY women are instructed to veil themselves, it is not simply covering cos your husband is going to beat you.
    i dont think that was entirely the suggestion. the suggestion was that an extremist interpretation of Islam strictly calls for women to be fully covered.

    This ia grave misconception, why people cling onto theses false ideas! Islam places a high emphasis on modesty, and with sexual permissiveness and rape and other things norm in todays society,
    rape is normal in todays society? where are you living? im very sceptical in believing that women wearing a skirt or dress attractively, has any more to do with rape than the inability for women in Islamic states to vocally appeal against or recognise comparable abuse they may suffer.

    the virtue of veiling should be seen as a rescue or saviour!!
    according to Islam.

    "Beaten if they talk to a man without husbands consent" - who did you get this from, weejiemei>? A woman can speak to a man other than her husband yes, without his consent, yes, but what sort of a man with any bit of senes, would want his wife talking to strangers, is this not how relationshios outside of marriage start?
    yes, we(the non-islamic west) call it friendship between two human beings who are considered equal.

    Then mariage breaks down, divorce, etc, etc. This is all too common nowadays, and it's really saddening.
    it is more common, yet men and women have always had friendships with members of the opposite sex. over the decades, women have gained more rights, more self-confidence and with that an independence. divorce and adultery occur for a great number of different reasons, not least freedom of choice and self-determination. im an advocate for a strong marriage and family unit, but given the choice, i would take divorce on my terms rather than live with the alternative you suggest.

    And to fishpaste, everyhting is defined in life anyway as it is,
    you are always following orders, rules - are you , is your life not being defined? You know you cant do 100 miles on the motorway, you know you cant kill your neighbour because he trodded all over your plants. Mate, we're all defined by laws and rules!
    the speed limit doesnt compromise your very basic rights as a human, that WE in the west embrace and promote.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    vienna, can I ask you to clarify something? You earlier said that you thought it was a sound opinion. I'm interpreting this as you agree with it. But don't you admire women like Ann Coulter, who clearly wanted to be powerhungry lawyers?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    the non-muslim, democratic states of the West generally do have sovereign control of their populations. im assuming the poster represented this position.


    i dont think that was entirely the suggestion. the suggestion was that an extremist interpretation of Islam strictly calls for women to be fully covered.


    rape is normal in todays society? where are you living? im very sceptical in believing that women wearing a skirt or dress attractively, has any more to do with rape than the inability for women in Islamic states to vocally appeal against or recognise comparable abuse they may suffer.


    according to Islam.


    yes, we(the non-islamic west) call it friendship between two human beings who are considered equal.


    it is more common, yet men and women have always had friendships with members of the opposite sex. over the decades, women have gained more rights, more self-confidence and with that an independence. divorce and adultery occur for a great number of different reasons, not least freedom of choice and self-determination. im an advocate for a strong marriage and family unit, but given the choice, i would take divorce on my terms rather than live with the alternative you suggest.



    the speed limit doesnt compromise your very basic rights as a human, that WE in the west embrace and promote.
    I be damned. Vienna put her point forward brilliantly, but this time in a very balanced and moderate way rather than her usualy very agressive tone. Im actually gonna rep you for that one. Only thing I can complain about is that she misinterpretated my use of the word "we" , but that is partially my fault.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamal1425)
    This is disturbing, when you talk like that, ie "We dont mind" you make it come across as if you are this overseeing power or force that controls who follows what or who does what, by the use of your "WE" pronoun.

    If only you take some time to read into WHY women are instructed to veil themselves, it is not simply covering cos your husband is going to beat you. This ia grave misconception, why people cling onto theses false ideas! Islam places a high emphasis on modesty, and with sexual permissiveness and rape and other things norm in todays society, the virtue of veiling should be seen as a rescue or saviour!!

    "Beaten if they talk to a man without husbands consent" - who did you get this from, weejiemei>? A woman can speak to a man other than her husband yes, without his consent, yes, but what sort of a man with any bit of senes, would want his wife talking to strangers, is this not how relationshios outside of marriage start? Then mariage breaks down, divorce, etc, etc. This is all too common nowadays, and it's really saddening.

    And to fishpaste, everyhting is defined in life anyway as it is,
    you are always following orders, rules - are you , is your life not being defined? You know you cant do 100 miles on the motorway, you know you cant kill your neighbour because he trodded all over your plants. Mate, we're all defined by laws and rules!
    I believe the overseeing force you should have issue with is that 'God' fellow. I think you're reading far too much into "We don't mind".

    I don't know what kind of society you're living in, but rape is hardly a 'norm'.

    Why should a man mind his wife speaking to strangers? How else do you make new friends?

    If you honestly think your wife is so weak as to cheat on you with the first stranger that comes along then perhaps you shouldn't have married her. Marriages don't break down simply because one partner speaks to a stranger.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamal1425)
    From a man of your stature , I really didn't expect something so kiddish!
    *boy
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    vienna, can I ask you to clarify something? You earlier said that you thought it was a sound opinion. I'm interpreting this as you agree with it. But don't you admire women like Ann Coulter, who clearly wanted to be powerhungry lawyers?
    yes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    If you honestly think your wife is so weak as to cheat on you with the first stranger that comes along then perhaps you shouldn't have married her. Marriages don't break down simply because one partner speaks to a stranger.
    indeed, trust is far more of a reason for marriage breakdown than your wife having a few male friends. but im assuming when you talk of marriage the concepts of trust, respect and equality dont really enter into things to the same degree.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    yes.
    Don't they contradict?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    indeed, trust is far more of a reason for marriage breakdown than your wife having a few male friends. but im assuming when you talk of marriage the concepts of trust, respect and equality dont really enter into things to the same degree.
    I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I think the concepts of trust, respect, and equality are all inextricably linked when you're talking about marriage.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    Don't they contradict?
    not in my eyes. from what i know, Ann would also found value in the views as expressed in this article. that being essentially three things i) there are biological differences between men and women. ii) men and women have different instincts pertaining to the role and relationship they play in society
    iii) the related statistics are a concern for us all.


    "Recent decades have seen a plunge in birth and fertility rates, particularly in the Roman Catholic heartland of southern Europe, as women struggle to combine jobs with their traditional roles as mothers, homemakers and carers.

    Church representatives have argued that this is symptomatic of a breakdown in values, and particularly a greater selfishness among young couples more interested in consumer goods than creating life."

    Ann Coulter is a woman who has decided that she wished to pursue a career. I fully support that. If she decided to raise a family then that would and should take precedence over her career, such that her career adapts to no loss in contribution to family life. From this article, the Pope expresses his concern over the lack of importance placed on the family, his belief that a woman has stronger qualities, in regard to her maternal instincts, than men(following from his assertion that we are different, something that many feminists refuse to accept) and that in his opinion, a woman should seek to put her responsibilities as a mother before her career. That it is not to say she cant choose to have a career, or the father cannot or shouldnt participate equally. It appears to be a question of self desire, that you want to have the high power job and be a good mother all at the same time. In this respect, he goes on to blame men and women alike for a selfish attitude which demeans the family to merely an equal of commodity.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    I'm not sure what you mean by that, but I think the concepts of trust, respect, and equality are all inextricably linked when you're talking about marriage.
    sorry, i was replying to jamal. my mistake.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    not in my eyes. from what i know, Ann would also found value in the views as expressed in this article. that being essentially three things i) there are biological differences between men and women. ii) men and women have different instincts pertaining to the role and relationship they play in society
    iii) the related statistics are a concern for us all.
    I do agree that she would see value in these things.

    Ann Coulter is a woman who has decided that she wished to pursue a career. I fully support that. If she decided to raise a family then that would and should take precedence over her career, such that her career adapts to no loss in contribution to family life. From this article, the Pope expresses his concern over the lack of importance placed on the family, his belief that a woman has stronger qualities, in regard to her maternal instincts, than men(following from his assertion that we are different, something that many feminists refuse to accept) and that in his opinion, a woman should seek to put her responsibilities as a mother before her career. That it is not to say she cant choose to have a career, or the father cannot or shouldnt participate equally. It appears to be a question of self desire, that you want to have the high power job and be a good mother all at the same time. In this respect, he goes on to blame men and women alike for a selfish attitude which demeans the family to merely an equal of commodity.
    "Ratzinger does not say how this is to be done, but it is clear he sees it as a way of encouraging women to spend as much time as possible in the home. "

    The vatican isn't just saying that if you choose to have a family it should take priority over a career, it seems, but that women should choose a family, and not a career. It troubles me that Ann would probably agree with something that would ultimately cast her as irresponsible.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.