Women Liberation

[Ifti]

Women Liberation

I find Islam to be liberating not oppressive: women are partners.

Islam is the first religion which systematically empowered women when women were considered as totally subservient to man. There was no concept of her being an independent entity and enjoying equal right with dignity. We live in a country where women are over-sexualised and sold as 'products' for capitalist gains. A woman's beauty is splashed around everywhere, and she is only judged by that. Islam tells a woman to cover up so that she is not abused as Western women are. Islam provides the security and respect to women community than other religions. The western countries are using the women as an entertainment channels. All the women in the world should think about themselves then decide what is right and what is wrong for them in other religions (than Islam)

What is feminism? Nothing but women’s movement to empower her and to consider her full human being and not mere second sex as ‘Simon de Bouire called her. Thus we see in western countries until early part of twentieth century she did not enjoy an independent status. It was only after thirties of twentieth century that she won equal status legally and various western countries passed the laws to this effect. Yet patriarchy is looming large on her in these countries.

Qur’an empowered her and gave equal status. Another important question is what is the difference between Islamic and western feminism or is there any difference at all. If we go by definition of feminism as an ideology of empowerment of women, there is no difference. On the other hand, women had no rights and but won through great deal of struggle and this struggle came to be known as ‘feminism’ i.e. women’s empowerment.

But there are significant differences also between Islamic and western feminism. Islamic feminism is based on certain non-negotiable values i.e. equality with honour and dignity. Freedom has certain Islamic responsibility whereas in the west freedom tends to degenerate into licentiousness, though not in law but certainly in social and cultural practices. In western culture sexual freedom has become a matter of women’s right and sex has become matter of enjoyment and lost its sanctity as an instrument of procreation.

Qur’an does lay down certain strict norms for sexual behavior. Both man woman have right to sexual gratification (a woman has as much right to sexual gratification as man) but within marital frame-work. There is no concept of freedom for extramarital sex in any form. Sex is permissible only with marital framework. Sex, as far as Islam is concerned, is not mere enjoyment but an act for procreations and hence has sanctity.

It is important here to emphasize that in a patriarchal society men decided the norms of sexual behavior. It was theorized that man has greater urge for sex and hence he needs multiple wives and woman tends to be passive and hence has to be content with one. This is not true as far as Qur’an is concerned. Qur’an’s approach is very different. It is not greater or lesser degree of sexual urge which necessitates multiple or monogamous marriage.

Whole emphasis is on monogamous marriage (in both the Qur’anic verses i.e. 4:3 and 4:129). Multiple marriages were permitted only to take care of widows and orphans and not for greater sexual urge and the verse 4:129 gives the norm of monogamy and not to leave first wife in suspense or neglected. Thus as far as Qur’an is concerned sexual gratification is a non-negotiable right for both man woman. And hence a divorcee and a widow are also permitted to marry and gratify their sexual urge.

Also, in western capitalist countries women’s dignity has been compromised and she has been reduced to a commodity to be exploited. Her semi-naked postures and her sexuality is exploited commercially unabashedly. It is totally against the concept of woman’s honour and dignity. Unfortunately western feminists do not consider this as objectionable but accept it as part of woman’s freedom. Some (though not many) even advocate prostitution as woman’s right to earn her bread.

This is against the concept of Islamic feminism as while sanctioning sexual gratification as much right of woman as that of man, it prohibits extra-marital sexual liaison and on one hand upholds dignity and honour of woman and on the other, exalts sex on the level of sanctity and restricts it for procreation.. Thus it would be seen that discourse of Islamic feminism, while having something in common with modern western feminism, it also significantly differs from it. Islamic feminists have to observe certain norms which modern western feminists are not obliged to.


There is institutionalised oppression of women in all cultures. In India Hindu female foetocide numbers approximately two million every year. Hinduism is rife with sexism. Women are classed as objects owned by men. The Muslims from the Sub-continent were converted from Hinduism. They carry even now a lot of Hindu traditions of dishonouring women mostly in isolated ruler areas. In urban areas Muslims are well educated both Islamically and worldly and women have all the rights given by Islam.

UNICEF photo of the year shows, a bridegroom, 40, with his 11-year-old bride in Afghanistan. The bridegroom is going to take care of her and their future children. UNICEF photo of the year must show that the teenage pregnancies and abortion, drug addiction, binge drinking and anti-social behavior is on the rise in Britain. All of them are burden on British tax-payers. This is sickening. It's no wonder Great Britain is in such a bad shape. Ten years old British girls are haveing babies out of wedlock. They are not allowed to get married but are allowed to have babies. Teenage pregnancy rate in Great Britain is the highest in Western Europe. It is a civilised country and Yemen is a backward country because it allows young girls to get married.

The Holy Quran gives more rights to women than the so called western civilisation.
Western Secularism cannot teach Muslims how to treat women. Islam teaches us how to be civilised. Islam is a middle path. Women are even abused in the UK Parliament, which is called the Mother of Parliament. It is not just verbal abuse the female MPs have had to deal with. The tradition of killing women for family honour is a “curse”. Violence against women is a global phenomenon. An Australian Judge failed to jail nine males who admitted gang-raping a 10-year old Aboriginal girl, by saying the victim probably agreed to have sex with them. More than half the babies born to British mothers this year will be outside marriage for the first time since records begins. There is a steady decline in marriage among British couples. Nearly all births to Pakistani mothers are within wedlock.

The veil signified the rejection of an unacceptable system of values which debased women while Islam elevated women to a position of honour and respect. It is not liberation, where women go naked. It is just oppression, because men want to see them naked. Miniskirts and plunging necklines represent oppression. Veil is a sign of liberation from a prevailing and dangerous western, secular norm – namely, a view of women purely as sexual objects. Western culture is liberalism, and that is in itself a set of norms. But now the time has come that liberalism must change its attitudes because Britain and the whole of West has undergone significant change. It is a fact that a veil cannot be equated with forced marriages, female circumcision or unequal education for girls. The real difference between man and woman is that they have different kinds of bodies designed for very different purposes, and they have also different kinds of mind because these, too, are designed to contribute differently to human needs and purposes. Men tend to be more imaginative and have more flair than women, but women are much more tenacious and better at multilasking than men.

Muslim boys and Girls need state funded Muslim schools with bilingual Male and female Muslim teachers as role models during their developmental periods. Muslim youths feel torn between two cultures, thanks to the state schools with monolingual non-Muslim teachers. Islam teaches Muslims youths to be virgin but western education system teaches the opposite. It makes their lives very confusing. They suffer from Identity Crises. The solution is that each and every Muslim child should be in state funded Muslim schools because western education makes a man stupid and selfish according to Lord Bertrand Russell.
Iftikhar Ahmad

[IamDZJ]

Of what use is freedom in a country where human rights are not recognized? What the **** would afghan women do with freedom?

[faye]

the problem is the continuing obsession by men to be dominators. they've had that position for centuries and they don't want to let go of that. it is a worldwide phenomena, not just in the east or west or confined to any particular religion or non-religous.

[Afghanistan2010]

response to the above claims regarding mens domination.(i do not have the time to give it in my own words,but its just biological)




Why Males Rule

A review of King of the Mountain: The Nature of Political Leadership, by Arnold M. Ludwig


By Larry Arnhart
Posted September 1, 2003
This article appeared in the Fall 2003 issue of the Claremont Review of Books. Click here to send a comment.



Why are the highest positions of political leadership almost always filled by men rather than women? Oddly enough, political scientists rarely acknowledge—much less explain—this universal pattern of male political dominance. In his biological writings, Aristotle compared human beings with other political animals, and he concluded that the males are by nature "more hegemonic"—more inclined to rule or dominate—than the females. Charles Darwin confirmed this and explained the natural inclination of males to dominance as a product of evolutionary history in which natural selection worked through male competition both between and within tribal groups of males. Most recently, Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson has included male political dominance as part of his sociobiological account of human nature.

Proponents of sexual equality have challenged this Aristotelian and Darwinian explanation of male dominance. Some feminists have claimed that there have been many matriarchal societies in which women ruled over men, or egalitarian societies in which women and men ruled as equals. Some Marxist feminists have adopted Friedrich Engels's claim that in the earlier hunter-gatherer societies, women were equal or superior to men in status and power. Engels was influenced by Lewis Henry Morgan's anthropological account of the high status of women in Iroquois communities in North America.

It has become clear, however, that there is little evidence for truly matriarchal societies. Even Morgan indicated that although Iroquois women helped to select the male leaders, women were not permitted to hold leadership positions in the hierarchy. Describing the "absence of equality of the sexes," Morgan observed that "the Indian regarded woman as the inferior, the dependent, and the servant of man." In recent decades, even the most radical feminist scholars have generally given up on the search for matriarchy in human history.

When sociologist Steven Goldberg published his book The Inevitability of Patriarchy in 1973, he was denounced for his claim that the desire for dominance is naturally stronger in men than in women, as a consequence of biological differences, and that this explains why male dominance is universal. But when he published a revised version of his argument in 1993 in his book Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance, he provoked less controversy because scholarly opinion had begun to shift in his favor. Goldberg's most persuasive evidence came from his surveying the cases of purported matriarchies and showing that they were not matriarchies at all. Goldberg concluded that there had never been a society in which the proportion of women in the highest positions of leadership surpassed about seven percent. We can easily think of examples of politically dominant women in recent history—women such as Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain, Indira Gandhi of India, or Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan. But the dominance of these women as individuals only highlights the fact that the political hierachies of England, India, and Pakistan are generally dominated by men.

Of course, it is still possible that the universality of male dominance in politics throughout history shows the persistence of cultural traditions of patriarchy that are only now beginning to weaken. After all, some feminists would insist, it is only quite recently that women have had the opportunity to rise to the highest positions of power. If so, then one would expect that the 20th century would show some trend towards female dominance or at least some weakening of male dominance in politics.

* * *

And yet Arnold Ludwig's book shows that the political history of the 20th century confirms the claim of Aristotle and Darwin that male dominance of politics is rooted in human biological nature. Ludwig argues that the male desire to be the supreme political ruler expresses the same biological propensities that support the dominance of alpha males among monkeys and apes. He supports his argument with a meticulous analysis of the 1,941 chief executive rulers of the independent countries in the 20th century. He illustrates his points with lively anecdotes from the lives of the 377 rulers for whom he had extensive biographical information.

Of the 1,941 chief executive rulers in the 20th century, only 27 were women. And of those 27, almost half came to power through their connection to their politically powerful fathers or husbands. For example, Benazir Bhutto rose to power in Pakistan after the assassination of her father; and Corazon Aquino rose to power in the Philippines after the assassination of her husband. The odds against a woman rising to the dominant position in a political regime in the 20th century were about a hundred to one.

But showing this fact of male dominance in politics is easier than explaining it. Like Aristotle, Darwin, and Goldberg, Ludwig explains it as manifesting biological differences between men and women. Men are by nature more inclined to seek dominance than are women. To sustain his claim that this arises from the evolutionary history of natural selection favoring a strong dominance drive among males, Ludwig quotes from recent studies of monkeys and apes showing the importance of dominance hierarchies in which males compete for the alpha position. He emphasizes the remarkable similarities between human politics as an arena for male rivalry for high status and the "chimpanzee politics" of male competition for dominance as described by Frans de Waal and other primatologists.

And yet Ludwig's reasoning here is too superficial. He quotes occasionally from the primatological reports, casually notes the similarities to human politics, and then moves on without providing the rigorous analysis that would be required to make his case fully persuasive. For example, he acknowledges in a footnote that bonobos seem to be "more female-dominated" than other great ape species, but he says nothing more about this.

Bonobos resemble chimpanzees so much that even experienced observers of primates have had a hard time telling the difference. And until recently, bonobos were regarded as a subspecies of chimpanzees. But now there is general agreement that bonobos are a distinct species. Not only are they distinct in their anatomy, but also in their behavior. Chimpanzees have dominance hierarchies for both males and females, but the dominant male tends to be dominant over all. By contrast, bonobo females seem to dominate over males. Apparently, the females form strong coalitional ties with one another—reinforced by sexual bonding—that allows them to keep the males subordinate. The females also use their power to tame male violence. Chimpanzee males in the wild have been observed launching lethal raids against those outside their own group in a pattern of behavior that resembles human warfare. Bonobos have not shown such behavior. Some feminists now look to the bonobos as a model of lesbian matriarchy that promotes peace based on a policy of "make love not war."

But while primatologists such as Frans de Waal and Amy Parish see the bonobos as a clear case of female dominance that might provide lessons for human beings seeking greater sexual equality, a few primatologists suggest that bonobos might not be so different from chimpanzees. The problem is that bonobos have not been as well studied as chimpanzees. In any case, the serious study of dominance hierarchies among primates has to take account of the bonobos.

Moreover, if Ludwig is right about males having a stronger propensity to dominance than females, then he should be able to show the underlying neurophysiological mechanisms that support this difference. But he offers little more than some casual references to higher levels of testosterone among males. As Lionel Tiger and others have shown, there are important differences between males and females not only in levels of testosterone but also in levels of neurotransmitters such as serotonin that are associated with male dominance behavior. This is complicated, however, because we would need to explain not only male-female differences but also temperamental differences among males such that some males are far more aggressive in their pursuit of dominance than others. If we could do this, we could explain the biological basis for what Thomas Jefferson and other political thinkers have called the "natural aristocracy"—that is, the natural tendency in all societies for a few individuals to display a driving ambition for power, fame, and glory.

One of the fundamental problems for political life is devising ways to channel that natural desire for dominance so that we can secure energetic leadership but without tyrannical exploitation. Ludwig generally depicts the pursuit of political power as a Machiavellian world in which tyrants prevail through the exercise of force and fraud. And yet he also shows that democratic leaders in established democracies act with more restraint than leaders in other kinds of regimes. Democratic leaders are less corrupt than tyrannical leaders. And by comparison with democratic leaders, tyrants are much more likely to suffer bad outcomes from their rule such as being assassinated or being deposed by a coup. As Ludwig says, tyrants face "a whopping 85 percent chance of leaving office in disgrace or in a casket." (It is with good reason that Machiavelli devoted the longest chapters in The Prince and the Discourses on Livy to conspiracies and assassination plots.)

* * *

Ludwig does not reflect on what the apparent success of democratic institutions might tell us about the political nature of human beings. Consequently, he misses a chance to show how a Darwinian theory of politics could support democratic principles. Beginning with William Jennings Bryan, American critics of Darwinism have feared that Darwinism subverts American democratic principles by supporting the idea that the rule of the stronger is an ineluctable law of nature. Although Ludwig's talk about the natural drive for dominance as shared by human beings and other primates might seem to confirm that fear, Ludwig also shows a natural resistance to exploitation that can check the power of the dominant few.

Among rhesus monkeys, the alpha males show a despotic style of dominance. The dominant individual asserts in every way his priority over subordinates. For example, the dominant individual never shares food with subordinates; and he never tolerates resistance from his subordinates. But among chimpanzees, the alpha males show a more egalitarian style of dominance. The dominant individual often acts to help and protect subordinates, and he will share his food. Subordinate individuals can form coalitions with one another to resist the unacceptable behavior of a dominant individual. Moreover, dominant chimpanzees often break up fights within the group in an apparently impartial way. Frans de Waal sees this egalitarian style of chimpanzee dominance as a move towards a society where leadership is based on the principle of primus inter pares, "first among equals."

Christopher Boehm has elaborated this idea in his book Hierarchy in the Forest. Combining evidence from primatology and anthropology, Boehm argues for a complex view of human political psychology rooted in a political nature that we share with other primates. Like other primates, human beings show a tripartite political nature: some individuals are naturally inclined to dominance, others are naturally inclined to submission, and yet the subordinates are naturally inclined to resent their exploitation by dominants. The political history of primates shows us no clear case of a primate society without any hierarchy at all. Even human foraging groups, commonly regarded by anthropologists as radically egalitarian, show some hierarchical structure, even if informal and episodic, because any human society requires central coordination from dominant leaders, even if only occasionally. But what makes foraging societies look so egalitarian is that those individuals who act as leaders are restrained by the resentful suspicions of their subordinates. Those leaders who become too arrogant or bullying are cut down to size by ridicule, gossip, ostracism, or—in the most extreme cases—assassination. Boehm can see precursors of this in chimpanzees. Some chimpanzees become dominants. Most are subordinates. But even the subordinates can occasionally express their resentment of dominants. Human foraging groups develop that resentment of dominance into an egalitarian ethos in which hierarchy is tolerated only within the limits enforced by subordinates fearful of being exploited.

With the emergence of human chiefdoms and states, the egalitarian ethos of foraging societies almost disappeared. But modern constitutional democracies like the United States revive the egalitarian ethos through the institutional structure of a centralized republican democracy. The ambitious few can satisfy their natural desire for dominance by filling the offices of government. But while the people will submit to this dominance hierarchy, they rely on the institutions of a constitutional, electoral democracy to express their resentment of exploitation by dominants. The dominants must see themselves as only the "first among equals."

Developing a Darwinian political science along these lines would show that Darwinism does not subvert American democratic principles. On the contrary, a Darwinian account of our human nature as political animals could illuminate the American constitutional regime as designed to satisfy both the manly desire to rule and popular desire to be free from tyrannical rule.

Male-Female Brain Differences

What kind of brain do you have? There really are big differences between the male and female brain, says Simon Baron-Cohen, director of the Autism Research Centre, Cambridge University. In his new book, the Essential Difference: Men, Women and the Extreme Male Brain (published by Penguin) Baron-Cohen shows that, indisputably, on average male and female minds are of a slightly different character. Men tend to be better at analysing systems (better systemisers), while women tend to be better at reading the emotions of other people (better empathisers). Baron-Cohen shows that this distinction arises from biology, not culture.

Cell numbers: men have 4% more brain cells than women, and about 100 grams more of brain tissue. Many women have asked me why men need more brain tissue in order to get the same things done.

Cellular connections: even though a man seems to have more brain cells, it is reported that women have more dendritic connections between brain cells.

Corpus collosum size:it is reported that a woman's brain has a larger corpus collusum, which means women can transfer data between the right and left hemisphere faster than men. Men tend to be more left brained, while women have greater access to both sides.

Language: for men, language is most often just in the dominant hemisphere (usually the left side), but a larger number of women seem to be able to use both sides for language. This gives them a distinct advantage. If a woman has a stroke in the left front side of the brain, she may still retain some language from the right front side. Men who have the same left sided damage are less likely to recover as fully.

Limbic size: bonding/nesting instincts - current research has demonstrated that females, on average, have a larger deep limbic system than males. This gives females several advantages and disadvantages. Due to the larger deep limbic brain women are more in touch with their feelings, they are generally better able to express their feelings than men. They have an increased ability to bond and be connected to others (which is why women are the primary caretakers for children - there is no society on earth where men are primary caretakers for children). Females have a more acute sense of smell, which is likely to have developed from an evolutionary need for the mother to recognize her young. Having a larger deep limbic system leaves a female somewhat more susceptible to depression, especially at times of significant hormonal changes such as the onset of puberty, before menses, after the birth of a child and at menopause. Women attempt suicide three times more than men. Yet, men kill themselves three times more than women, in part, because they use more violent means of killing themselves (women tend to use overdoses with pills while men tend to either shoot or hang themselves) and men are generally less connected to others than are women. Disconnection from others increases the risk of completed suicides.

[faye]

what is all that supposed to prove afghanistan? that we should behave like apes? darling that is the problem, too many men are still behaving like apes and too many women are still being submissive.
we don't need any domination by one sex over the other.
why do some people think that humanity has to stay stuck in old ruts and should not evolve to a fairer and more compassionate and empathetic world tribe. personally, i believe in a beyond the retarded behaviour that the human race has accepted as acceptable for thousands of years. if we did not have that capacity, then why would the prophet mohammad and others suggest to us otherwise?

[IamDZJ]

obviously someone has not heard of the value of quality over quantity...
i once heard a story of a king that had a bird which had a very beautiful singing voice. he kept his bird in a cage that was made of gold. though it was the dearest thing to him, he never let it outside that cage. instead he fed it well and admired himself for having captured this beautiful creature inside that cage. all the bird ever wanted was freedom. it could care less for the good food and the gold made cage. afghan or muslim women are like that. inside that cage we are valued, respected and loved alot but heaven forbid should we want to breath a bit of the same air that the rest of the creatures out there do.
of what use is your respect and love to us if all you ever give us is those four walls to confine our lives to and the golden opportunity to change diapers for the rest of our lives?

[emkhan]

Those women who consider their house a cage are not from the Pashtun society. The best place for a woman is her own house rather than sweating about jobs and moving around.
Love you pashtun woman.

[faye]

emkhan, i thought you wanted your women to be educated. what for?

[emkhan]

Islam talks about education for men and women both. Who am I to oppose women education. I am talking about women's being outside the house most of the time sweating about jobs in offices, in shopping malls etc etc. The best place for a woman is her house.
Taking care of her house and family. The man is supposed to earn for her and for the whole family.

[faye]

in this day and age there is air conditioning in many offices and shopping malls, even in india, so assumedly in pakistan as well. do you object to the women working in the fields as well?
so, you want women to be educated about cooking, sewing, baby care, sweeping, ironing,and the proper use of underarm deodorants and how to pamper to a mans ego? yes?

[emkhan]

in this day and age there is air conditioning in many offices and shopping malls, even in india, so assumedly in pakistan as well. do you object to the women working in the fields as well?
so, you want women to be educated about cooking, sewing, baby care, sweeping, ironing,and the proper use of underarm deodorants and how to pamper to a mans ego? yes?

No but I don't want a woman working from 9. am to 5. pm in offices in shopping malls leaving her children behind at home alone, get tired coming back, there is nothing cooked, husband is tired and hungry, children are tired and hungry, she herself is tired and hungry, it takes one to two hours cooking something, the husband starts shouting the children starts crying, the whole life gets disturbed.
Then fighting starts and end result is ruining the life of the children and then seperation.
Hayyyyyyyyyy I am talking about the pashtoon women and their system and not a western woman who don't care about anything.

[faye]

probably better to not educate the women then emkhan. we wouldn't want such a worse case scenario to happen.
i know from personal experience and many, many friends that this is definitely not the only way for a working life of a woman, to be led.

[emkhan]

Then Faye i don't know what type of education you want for her. may be you want to make a woman a money making machine working day and night,
My view is to give education to everyone both religious and contemporary.
But one should know what are the reponsibilities of one.

[faye]

emkhan, the question is= what kind of education do you want the women of your family, village, tribe, to have, if you don't want them leaving the house.
and don't throw that rubbish around about the western women who 'don't care about anything'. how many western women do you know? how many are your friends and how many of their homes have you been into?

[emkhan]

I told you already both religious and contemporary within the pashtun culture and islamic limits.
and I don't throw rubbish. Its the reality. The don't care about values, they leave their children behind, their children then grow up in such a way don't have love for their parents leave their parents because their parents have not given love and time. and many other things Faye don't you know.