more about idiotic fundamentalists!!

Forbidden

When Saddam Hussein's regime fell prostitutes went back to their trade in greater numbers, and porno movies began to be shown.Islamic fundamentalists waxed nostalgic for the good old days when Saddam beheaded prostitutes and those interested in porn, one guy commenting something along the lines of "that's what they deserve."While Hussein was not a fundamentalist leader, he did this to keep fundamentalists happy.Shall we end the burgeoning trade and throw the girls in prison? Or behead them?Where is the line of idiotic fundamentalism?As far as I can tell, the argument from fundamentalist Xtians and feminists is "let the women undress enough to offend traditional Islamic tastes, but not enough to offend my own."------------------
holmes[This message has been edited by holmes, 11-04-2003]

quote:

---

What went wrong in my opinion was because of the misogynist attitudes and the dominance of patriarchal societies in which Islam grew. In such societies, a woman's body is viewed as property, with national, cultural and moral significance. Her body no longer belongs to the individual woman. Her body as property belongs to the men of the family. In this perspective she is the representative of the family's honor or shame and all its extensions in their lives. Her moral conduct is everyone's business. Thus it is clear that controlling and restricting her physical movements, public appearance and mode of attire serves the patriarchal agenda. Men, by securing their womenfolk against slander, believe they have saved themselves from slanderous remarks. To seal this form of control, Islam as a religion is used against women, to legitimize the patriarchal agenda.

---

Schraff, you know what Islamics think should happen to you by implying their prophet Muhammed was idiotic? !!! !!!Better read up on what the prophet taught about the role of women in his Quran and how they were to be regarded and treated. The kind of stuff in this paragraph from your opening link did not grow to become in place by these societies. It was put in place by the prophet himself. True Islamic fundamentalists follow his teaching with things like we read in this paragraph. Muhammed taught that beatings were ok to keep them in line and that they were to be regarded as property of the man.Biblical fundies, on the other hand are taught to love their wives and treat them as Christ also loved and cared for his church with that noble agape highest form of love, giving honor to them and so forth.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 11-04-2003]

Buzsaw, you have behaved just as I suspected you would.You are quite offended if I call any fundamentalist Christian "idiotic", no matter how boneheaded their attitude or agenda.However, you pipe right up to bash the Islamic fundamentalists!I didn't care all that much about this particular link about right-wing Islamic fundamentalists. I put it up in this thread because I was curious whether you truly objected to my calling religious fundamentalists "idiotic", or if you only cared that I happened to single out the group you identified with.I certainly have my answer.It's not my behavior you care about. If that was true, you would have chided me for the title of this thread, too.No, it's solely your own, particular in-group you wish to defend.Thank you very kindly for participating in my little test of your motives.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-04-2003]

I guess you didn't catch on to what I was doing in this thread, but since you said this...

quote:

---

As far as I can tell, the argument from fundamentalist Xtians and feminists is "let the women undress enough to offend traditional Islamic tastes, but not enough to offend my own."

---

I don't know about the fundamentalist Christians, but I think most feminists would say, "Let the women dress however the hell they want to dress."That's what this feminist thinks, anyway.

I got what you were doing with this thread. A trap laid for poor Buz who just can't help himself.However, I feel your jabs at the Xtian fundies regarding their ethics (particularly with regards to sexual freedom/health, sexual honesty, and treatment of women) is hypocritical. Ah, I think you understood my point better than that. "Dress" was a bit more metaphorical than that. My reference to Saddam's brutality against prostitutes was supposed to make the "dress" metaphor more clear.Certainly you have criticized strippers and pornstars. So at least in a literal sense you have been against women choosing to wear nothing at all if they enjoy doing so, and making money at it. This is very similar to the arguments Xtian and especially Islamic fundies make when chastising (beyond strippers and porn): beauty contests, and just plain fashion shows.In a more metaphorical sense, you are ardently opposed to prostitution, and so unwilling to let women "dress" themselves in life as they may want to do, in order to fit your own tastes.Freedom will only be had for women, once they have total sexual freedom, and that includes not only what to wear on the outside, but how they choose to reveal their own interests (even if it includes selling sexuality). I guess what I am saying is freedom will not be had for women, until they stop being treated as a unit that must have rules of behavior designed to protect conceptions of "womanhood".I've seen enough feminists tell other women to put some clothes on, literally and metaphorically, to know feminist fundies don't think women should dress however the hell they want to. Not if it will make women "look bad" and allow men to think of them as mere "sex objects".Whoops, wasn't that almost exactly what that article said about Islam?------------------
holmes

I wonder if the reply offered by feminists might be that women only sell sexuality in response to the monetary incentives present within patriarchically dominated societies, and that such "selling" therefore represents a form of coercion to, rather than a free expression of, this type of behavior. In other words, that absent the incentives the behavior would also be absent.This also highlights a key contradiction of the feminist position. On the one hand woman are powerful and in full control of their own destiny, and on the other they are helpless victims of a system perpetrated and perpetuated by men in which they have no voice.--Percy

This line of reasoning constitutes much of the argument and I agree it constitutes one of the key contradictions of the feminist position.It often includes supporting statements that women in sexual roles get paid so much more than women in "thinking" professions (which show what value men put on women), but ironically are contradicted by other statements that prostitutes are poor and make barely enough to live (much less escape poverty).Then again there are also feminist arguments that women are conditioned to be receptive to male sexuality (apparently by men and not human nature), and only want such attention because they were "brainwashed" into liking/desiring that kind of attention. If women were not duped into believing sex with men (particularly promiscuous or exhibitionist sex) was fun, they would not be amenable to engaging in such behaviors in their careers.This latter argument is usually advanced when it is pointed out that women choose to engage in such careers outside of poverty stricken areas, and without pimps. And once again in a contradictory stance, they use this when trying to address women who manage to compete with men by operating their own brothels or making porn.This of course shares its roots in the Islamic and Xtian prudish vision of womankind, as basically chaste beings who are naturally offended by promiscuity unless corrupted by some outside influence (which must be stopped).I am wondering if schraf has noted that part of Arabic/Islamic reasoning for putting such a burden on women is that men are thought incapable of controlling their brutish desires towards women. Thus the veil becomes a form of safety from men, and by consequence a safety for the honor/guilt of the family.While it does place a burden on the female, the root condemnation (of lack of control) is on men, which is found through out feminist literature. This is why the veil is the Islamic equivalent of feminists who say pornstars and prostitutes should stop their work because it dishonors women (by tempting men to sexual acts against them).------------------
holmes

Holmes, I think you read too much kooky academic feminist navel-gazing. I certainly hope you don't think that these people speak for people interested in gender equality.I, myself, have very little patience for most of it. I think anyone who says that women are "conditioned" or "brainwashed" to be receptive to male sexuality is an idget.

quote:

---

I am wondering if schraf has noted that part of Arabic/Islamic reasoning for putting such a burden on women is that men are thought incapable of controlling their brutish desires towards women. Thus the veil becomes a form of safety from men, and by consequence a safety for the honor/guilt of the family.

---

Well, if the culture teaches men that they are, in fact, incapable of controlling themselves, then many will probably have trouble controling themselves.Religions are fun.

No I do not. I am for gender equality and they certainly don't speak for me. While this may be true, you have used the other argument under discussion. I was simply noting that in addition to the one Percy made example of (which you have used) there is this second argument.I find them both idgety. In this we are in complete agreement. This is why men must not be stereotyped, and women must not be stereotyped, and the nature of sex (including sex for profit) should not be stereotyped. It all becomes sort of self-fulfilling.Only when women and men are seen as individuals, and not as bearers of communal honor/guilt/weakness/predation can we get some movement on the real problems. Hey, not all religions are like the patriarchal monotheistic ones bogging down the world right now. Buddhism and shintoism aren't too domineering.------------------
holmes

Are you saying that there is no possibility, in a culture and society where women are marginalized and their oppportunities are limited, that the money offered them in exchange for sex acts is or could be coercive?

There is the concrete possibility in any culture and society, where humans of any "type" are marginalized and their opportunities limited, that the money offered them in exchange for X is or could be coercive.Now you can put anything in place of that X. Have you not heard of sweatshop labor? This type of industry is rampant in the same locations that coercive prostitution is rampant.Why are we to say that forced sexual work, or resorting to sexual work to make money in a bad economy is any worse than other types of work one may not want to do? It is not. Coercive labor of any kind is terrible... it must be fought. That includes coerced prostitution. I am with you on this.We have certainly been over this ground before.Personally (in any environment) I would rather have sex--- and many women I know would rather have sex--- for money, than scrubbing toilets, taking dictation, or making shoes for Nike.In fact, they enjoy it so much that in lands where it is unrestricted to do so, they choose to do this of their own free will and make some damn good money... and LOVE IT! They get protection from pimps and abusers, and good healthcare coverage. We should have these people lose such things and force them into a bad situation out of "pity" for those stuck in sexual slavery elsewhere?The irony of this whole thing, which has been PROVEN at this point, is that the illegality of the sex trade is what harms women THE MOST in that business, including the addition of more coercive controls (legal this time) over women stuck in the condition you described.The situation you outlined demands, if one follows the evidence provided by exhaustive studies, that women should both be helped out of their marginilized status (in general) and their opportunities LEGALLY expanded to include ANY type of work they choose to do.In an extremely topical turn of events, the Green River Killer turned himself in recently. He murdered over 48 prostitutes. He did so because 1) he knew they would not be missed, and 2) thought he was doing society a favor because prostitutes were scum. This is exactly what he said.We discussed the idea that what a culture fosters, people in that society start becoming. The vision of prostitutes as worthless people, or easy victims helped forge this killer.The illegality of its nature (resulting from that same vision) kept prostitutes from receiving the full protection they would have received had they been in any other legal profession.It is hypocracy to claim sympathy for the victims of prostitution is what demands its illegality, when the reality is that it only allows (and indeed fosters) further victimization. The studies are in. The results conclusive. We can ignore the studies good money has paid for, or we can accept them while making sane policy.To ignore them is to commit the same "error" as the TVC, except we lost some good money in the process.------------------
holmes

The women in Afghanistan would NEVER normally do this, right?...
(Miss Afghanistan wins award at Miss Earth pageant, daring to wear nothing but a bikini)...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news...I will note she is doing this despite the threats from back home, AND she was given her reward specifically for standing up for her rights to do what she wants.You may also want to note, that the article indicates she is the first Afghan woman to attend since that period in time you said Afghanistan should be getting back to.This isn't really necessary to augment what I already said, but it was topical and does support my position.------------------
holmes{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 11-11-2003]

quote:

---

There is the concrete possibility in any culture and society, where humans of any "type" are marginalized and their opportunities limited, that the money offered them in exchange for X is or could be coercive.

---

Good, we agree.

quote:

---

Why are we to say that forced sexual work, or resorting to sexual work to make money in a bad economy is any worse than other types of work one may not want to do? It is not. Coercive labor of any kind is terrible... it must be fought. That includes coerced prostitution. I am with you on this.

---

Great.

quote:

---

Personally (in any environment) I would rather have sex--- and many women I know would rather have sex--- for money, than scrubbing toilets, taking dictation, or making shoes for Nike.

---

Would this be true if all of those other activities paid many times more money than having sex for money?If paid sex got you $100 a week and scrubbing toilets got you $1000 a week, which one would you do?I still contend that it is the lure of money that draws people into this work more than anything, assuming no drug or homelessness issues.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-11-2003]

quote:

---

Certainly you have criticized strippers and pornstars. So at least in a literal sense you have been against women choosing to wear nothing at all if they enjoy doing so, and making money at it. This is very similar to the arguments Xtian and especially Islamic fundies make when chastising (beyond strippers and porn): beauty contests, and just plain fashion shows.

---

If money wasn't involved, then I wouldn't care one bit what people do.Money, especially at the levels available in the porn industry for women, can certainly be viewed as serious incentive.I recently watched a program on porn and porn magazines where a lot of current and former playmates and pornstars were interviewed and not a few of them said that they wanted to make it in LA as serious actresses but then did porn because they couldn't get "straight" work.There was even a famous male porn star...I don't remember his name but he is kind of short and dumpy with a lot fuzzy black hair on his head who said that he never would have gotten into porn if he had been able to get straight work.