Although it's still believed by many people, there's no real evidence indicating that women are less intelligent than men. This was commonly believed until women in Western societies were given the opportunity to prove themselves. Since the 80's women in the Western world make up a sizeable majority of college graduates.
Is this because our parents give us a preferential treatment? Available scientific evidence indicates the opposite. Parents save more for their sons' college education than they do for their daughters.1 We are also proving our abilities in math. For SAT scores in math above 750, the male to female ratio between 1996 and 2008 has dropped from 2.7 to 1.9. For a twelve year period, that is an incredible accomplishment and thus if given the right conditions we will likely prove ourselves as good at math as men.
Finally, we are not just succeeding at math and college, but outside of education as well. Although we make up a small minority of hedge fund managers, female hedge fund managers are more successful than male hedge fund managers.3 Thus, in the coming years, we will increasingly take our rightful place among top business managers and CEO's.
The idea that men are smarter than women didn't go away after we were given the opportunity to prove ourselves, it merely took a new shape. Instead of being less smart than men, we must be more average! It can be rationalized through biology, by pointing out that women have two X chromosomes, while men have one. Thus, whatever unique trait is found on a woman's X chromosome is balanced by her other X chromosome.
However, theories are not useful until they manage to stand up to scrutiny. People who think boys are more likely to be extremely intelligent point at IQ studies, where boys were overrepresented among the highly intelligent. However, what these people forgot is that parents have to sign their children up to take the IQ test in the first place.
Parents are more interested in their son's intelligence than their daughter's, thus we find that sixty percent of children tested for giftedness are boys. When we actually look at the children whose intelligence is tested however, we find that girls don't perform any worse than boys! In fact, of those with a very high IQ, we find as many girls as we find boys, indicating that we produce just as many geniuses as boys.4
Girls who are intelligent are unfortunately overlooked and feel afraid of coming out and revealing their talents to the world, because they do not receive enough encouragement. Instead we are taught when young that our value is derived from our beauty.
If we are just as intelligent as men, the question becomes why history ever turned into his-story in the first place. Surely if we are just as intelligent as men we should have seen more successful female rulers and inventors? There are a few explanations for this. One thing to keep in mind is that we underestimate the power of women throughout history for various reasons. Women as regents often had more power behind the scenes than they did in public.
Many women in power were forced to take on the role of a man. This is a tradition that still exists in Yugoslavia, in the form of "sworn virgins", women who can take a position of power if they choose never to have sex and dress like men.
When women did rule a country, they were often forced to remain chaste, as sex was seen as an act of a man overpowering a woman. Hatshepsut is an example of a female Pharaoh of Egypt who had to take on a male role. Later rulers tried to eliminate her from history, but unsuccessfully. We don't know how many female rulers were successfully eliminated from history or recast as men.
This same phenomenon sometimes occurred with inventors. Women were banned from most scientific organizations and often published using male pseudonyms. The success of women in science is only now become more broadly known as history is reexamined.5 We have a bright future ahead of us in science, as the scientific community is discovering that scientific fraud is very common. A single fraudulent study that goes undiscovered is very damaging to the scientific process and studies show that men are overrepresented among those who commit scientific fraud.
However, there is one aspect where we will always lag behind men and which led to history turning into his-story. That aspect is physical strength. A woman's body grows in a manner that allows her to carry a child for nine months. Thus we are genetically predisposed to storing more fat than men. We are also less tall than men. Throughout history, men could thus rule by physically intimidating us and overpowering us. Sadly, men even had the ability to force us to carry a child against our will for nine months. Eventually men can cease physically overpowering us by turning their rule over us into tradition and patriarchy is the result.
Patriarchy takes different forms in different societies and thus patriarchy in Western society was historically less oppressive than in Islamic society. Men were officially(!) not allowed to have sex slaves in Christian Europe and expected to remain monogamous, whereas in Saudi Arabia slaves were legally sold until the 1960's. Still in every patriarchal society the fact remains that women have been exploited and oppressed, it is merely a difference of degree.
As I believe I have shown in this essay, when given the freedom to develop our intellectual skills we will take our rightful place in society on equal footing with men. The only factor that can still prove a significant barrier to our emancipation are the societal structures and mentalities that perpetuate patriarchy.
One of these factors is the patriarchal glorification of male physical strength. When we look at the sixty-four highest paying sports contracts in history, we find that all of them have gone to men!6 In many countries, most millionaires under forty are professional sports players and of course all of them are men.
Women in sports are not given the attention that men are given. How many people choose to watch women's soccer, compared to men's soccer? Entire industries are built on male interest in watching other men play with balls. We could attempt to force people to pay more attention to women in sports, but I do not believe this to be realistic or desirable.
As a woman I refuse to perpetuate patriarchy by spending any of my money on professional sports. The same physical strength that is glorified in boxing, football, soccer and baseball is the physical strength that has allowed men to rule over women through intimidation and violence since time immemorial.
When 1.1 billion dollar in subsidies are given to the Minnesota Vikings to build a giant stadium, you are watching men perpetuate patriarchy.7 It may not happen with the conscious desire to reinforce the rule of men over women, but for us the outcome is the same. Without such subsidies, could sports teams hand over millions of dollars to male athletes?
When we look further, we find that the entire culture surrounding sports is toxic. Women stand at the sidelines as cheerleaders, using their sex appeal in an effort to drive the crowd wild for a group of men who are the center of attention. In race events, women serve as "pit babes". I have no desire to serve as a marketing tool for men, valued only for physical beauty and youth.
To reward men with sport contracts worth millions of dollars because they are stronger than women makes as much sense as it does to reward women for the fact that our eyes can perceive more colors than men's. Instead, let our financial rewards go to those who have done the most to help other people. I expect my government to end the subsidies that go to professional sports. In addition, I wish to see legislation put in place that puts a cap on the exorbitant contracts given to sports players.
References
1 - http://majorsmatter.net/gender/Readings/Gendered%20Kids.pdf
2 - http://i.imgur.com/sspag2C.png
3 - http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/15/us-hedgefunds-women-idUSBREA0E07K20140115
4 - https://www.giftedchildren.dk/attachment.php?attachmentid=1854&d=1366750364.
5 - http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/nov/21/royal-society-lost-women-scientists
6 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_sports_contracts
7 - http://www.fieldofschemes.com/news/archives/2012/05/4957_vikings_stadium_31.html
Friday, January 24, 2014
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Apartheid in the Middle East? Yes, but not in Israel.
It's easy to end up feeling a bit isolated when you're from a country that's in the news a lot. When your country is in the news, people are going to have an opinion about the events and think of you in relation to those events and wonder about your views on the matter. Chances are however that like the majority of people you have no strong feelings one way or the other and just wish people could get along with each other.
As a woman of Iranian origin I've had this attitude for a long time. I like my country and I'm proud of our long history, but when living as a minority among people of a different culture I don't want to let my origins define how I am perceived as a person. Similarly, I don't enjoy the validity of my opinions depending on my personal origin, but being from a country that is sadly perceived as Israel's prime nemesis makes people interested when my views don't align with those of our country's leadership.
When people ask how I can support Israel, I always like to start by pointing out this was in fact the Iranian government's position until the Ayatollahs took over. In 1950 Iran became the second Muslim majority country to recognize Israel, after Turkey. Iran's relations with Israel remained positive until the revolution of 1979 that turned our nation into a theocracy.
It can thus be said that at the root of the hostility between Iran and Israel lies not an ethnic conflict, but rather, a religious conflict. If, hopefully sooner than rather, Iran manages to escape from the yoke of the Ayatollahs, we may see a return to the previous state of relations. This may be difficult to understand for those not familiar with the doctrines of Islam.
Why would Islam have an inherently hostile outlook to the state of Israel? The reason is because Israel is located on land that was once controlled by Islam. Israel's independence in the heart of the Ummah runs contrary to the 1400 year long history of Islamic government spreading out over the globe. Within Islam it is in fact more important for a people to be subjected to rule by Islamic law, than to convert the subjected people to Islam. This is in contrast to Christianity, where spreading the gospel is of primary importance, while Christians are expected to be obedient to their government.
The religious nature of the conflict is exemplified in the integration of the Druze in Israel. The Druze, an Arab speaking minority, participate in Israeli military service and are highly represented in Israeli politics. In their position in Israeli society there is no evidence at all of the "apartheid" that critics perceive in Israeli society.
There is apartheid in the Middle East, but it's not in Israel. Anyone with an Israeli stamp in his passport who seeks to visit Iran will likely encounter the apartheid I am referring to. Similarly, anyone who seeks to sell Israeli goods to neighboring countries will discover apartheid. A number of neighboring countries try to exclude their people from entering business and tourist relations with Israel on equal footing.
This apartheid goes back many decades and began with the persecution and deportation of hundreds of thousands of Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews from Arab countries, after a coalition of Arab nations failed at destroying the state of Israel in 1948. These Jewish refugees found refuge in Israel, after being treated by their own countries of birth as second class citizens.
Contrast this with Israel, which to this day is the most successful multicultural society in the Middle East, with cities home to Arabs, Sephardic Jews, Ashkenazi Jews, Russians, Ethiopians, Armenians, and even some Black Hebrews, who are African American converts to Judaism. At no point during my visit to Israel did I feel as if I was not welcome.
For those concerned about genuine apartheid it might make more sense to look at the treatment of Kurds, particularly in Syria. A total of 120,000 Kurdish Syrians had their citizenship taken away from them by the Syrian government in the 1960's, a fact I learned after meeting a Syrian girl in the Netherlands whose family had their citizenship taken away from them. Those without citizenship are pariahs, forbidden from marrying and receiving education, and their land is taken away from them by Arab settlers.
But then, what about the Palestinian refugees and their right to return? Surely the ongoing plight of the Palestinian refugees is evidence of Israeli racism, as Jews are free to migrate to Israel, while Palestinians born in Israel can not return?
There are an number of things to note here. Israel after its foundation was a fragile state, already poorly equipped to handle the large influx of impoverished Mizrahi and Sephardic refugees. Nonetheless, Israel offered to absorb a significant number of Palestinian refugees, an offer that was rejected. The expulsion of Jews from Arab countries can be seen as a de facto population exchange, whereby Israel takes care of Jewish refugees, in exchange for Arab nations assimilating Palestinian refugees.
Finally it has to be noted that reintegration of refugees is only a realistic option when no state of hostility exists between the refugees and the host nation. Considering that 62% of Palestinians consider suicide bombings against Israel justified, I don't see the reintegration of Palestinian refugees as a desirable option, especially as it would make Arab citizens of Israel the majority, which would make Israel a non-Jewish country.
Most of these issues are known to Israeli's and people who have been to Israel, but people outside of Israel have not heard of many of these issues. The main road I see to peace in our time is through secularism. It may be naive, but I believe that people are born good. It requires years of indoctrination with hate to reach the kind of state where 73% of Palestinians support a genocidal Hadith about killing Jews who hide behind rocks and trees. When this type of indoctrination from an early age with religious hatred falls away, the main source of conflict falls away with it and peace in the Middle East becomes imaginable.
As a woman of Iranian origin I've had this attitude for a long time. I like my country and I'm proud of our long history, but when living as a minority among people of a different culture I don't want to let my origins define how I am perceived as a person. Similarly, I don't enjoy the validity of my opinions depending on my personal origin, but being from a country that is sadly perceived as Israel's prime nemesis makes people interested when my views don't align with those of our country's leadership.
When people ask how I can support Israel, I always like to start by pointing out this was in fact the Iranian government's position until the Ayatollahs took over. In 1950 Iran became the second Muslim majority country to recognize Israel, after Turkey. Iran's relations with Israel remained positive until the revolution of 1979 that turned our nation into a theocracy.
It can thus be said that at the root of the hostility between Iran and Israel lies not an ethnic conflict, but rather, a religious conflict. If, hopefully sooner than rather, Iran manages to escape from the yoke of the Ayatollahs, we may see a return to the previous state of relations. This may be difficult to understand for those not familiar with the doctrines of Islam.
Why would Islam have an inherently hostile outlook to the state of Israel? The reason is because Israel is located on land that was once controlled by Islam. Israel's independence in the heart of the Ummah runs contrary to the 1400 year long history of Islamic government spreading out over the globe. Within Islam it is in fact more important for a people to be subjected to rule by Islamic law, than to convert the subjected people to Islam. This is in contrast to Christianity, where spreading the gospel is of primary importance, while Christians are expected to be obedient to their government.
The religious nature of the conflict is exemplified in the integration of the Druze in Israel. The Druze, an Arab speaking minority, participate in Israeli military service and are highly represented in Israeli politics. In their position in Israeli society there is no evidence at all of the "apartheid" that critics perceive in Israeli society.
There is apartheid in the Middle East, but it's not in Israel. Anyone with an Israeli stamp in his passport who seeks to visit Iran will likely encounter the apartheid I am referring to. Similarly, anyone who seeks to sell Israeli goods to neighboring countries will discover apartheid. A number of neighboring countries try to exclude their people from entering business and tourist relations with Israel on equal footing.
This apartheid goes back many decades and began with the persecution and deportation of hundreds of thousands of Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews from Arab countries, after a coalition of Arab nations failed at destroying the state of Israel in 1948. These Jewish refugees found refuge in Israel, after being treated by their own countries of birth as second class citizens.
Contrast this with Israel, which to this day is the most successful multicultural society in the Middle East, with cities home to Arabs, Sephardic Jews, Ashkenazi Jews, Russians, Ethiopians, Armenians, and even some Black Hebrews, who are African American converts to Judaism. At no point during my visit to Israel did I feel as if I was not welcome.
For those concerned about genuine apartheid it might make more sense to look at the treatment of Kurds, particularly in Syria. A total of 120,000 Kurdish Syrians had their citizenship taken away from them by the Syrian government in the 1960's, a fact I learned after meeting a Syrian girl in the Netherlands whose family had their citizenship taken away from them. Those without citizenship are pariahs, forbidden from marrying and receiving education, and their land is taken away from them by Arab settlers.
But then, what about the Palestinian refugees and their right to return? Surely the ongoing plight of the Palestinian refugees is evidence of Israeli racism, as Jews are free to migrate to Israel, while Palestinians born in Israel can not return?
There are an number of things to note here. Israel after its foundation was a fragile state, already poorly equipped to handle the large influx of impoverished Mizrahi and Sephardic refugees. Nonetheless, Israel offered to absorb a significant number of Palestinian refugees, an offer that was rejected. The expulsion of Jews from Arab countries can be seen as a de facto population exchange, whereby Israel takes care of Jewish refugees, in exchange for Arab nations assimilating Palestinian refugees.
Finally it has to be noted that reintegration of refugees is only a realistic option when no state of hostility exists between the refugees and the host nation. Considering that 62% of Palestinians consider suicide bombings against Israel justified, I don't see the reintegration of Palestinian refugees as a desirable option, especially as it would make Arab citizens of Israel the majority, which would make Israel a non-Jewish country.
Most of these issues are known to Israeli's and people who have been to Israel, but people outside of Israel have not heard of many of these issues. The main road I see to peace in our time is through secularism. It may be naive, but I believe that people are born good. It requires years of indoctrination with hate to reach the kind of state where 73% of Palestinians support a genocidal Hadith about killing Jews who hide behind rocks and trees. When this type of indoctrination from an early age with religious hatred falls away, the main source of conflict falls away with it and peace in the Middle East becomes imaginable.
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Why Islam and Feminism will never be compatible
As a former Muslim and a feminist, the greatest issue I have with modern feminism is it's ineffectiveness caused by an insistence on political correctness. An example is the ongoing controversy surrounding "white feminism", an abusive term used against white Western women by a minority of women of color.1
If there is in fact such a thing as "white feminism", its defining characteristic is not the exclusion of WOC, but rather the idea that white women internalize of having no right to speak out against injustice when they see it, out of fear of being perceived as racist or culturally insensitive.
It's interesting to note that most of the open critics of Islam from white backgrounds are not women, but rather men. This is important, because Islam as a political system is very patriarchal in nature compared to Western liberal democracy. And yet, many white men feel comfortable speaking out against these issues while Western feminists are afraid of addressing them.
The main explanation I see for this is internalization of a patriarchal gender role. Under patriarchy, men are the link between different groups, while women are forced to watch on the sidelines. Wars are declared and ended by men, while women are exchanged as goods by tribal elders to foment relationships between clans.
An example is the ongoing issue of female circumcision in many Islamic nations. In an effort to discover the effect political correctness has on hampering the fight against female circumcision Leyla Hussein, a woman who was circumcised herself as a child, asked people to sign a petition in favor of circumcision.2 Within half an hour, nineteen people had signed the petition. What is perplexing is that many of these signatories were women themselves!
Political correctness and cultural relativism increasingly have the effect of reversing progress booked in the emancipation of women. In an effort to avoid appearing culturally insensitive or even "racist", white women, many of whom genuinely see themselves as feminists, accept being dictated by men on what to wear, who to talk to and who to shake hands with.
The success of feminism in the Western world means that white women today enjoy a position of power when compared to their sisters in the Islamic world. Had our roles been reversed and had religious influences kept Western women in Europe and North America from enjoying the basic rights universal to all humans, I would expect Western women to call on emancipated women in other countries to stand up for their rights.
As a woman of Islamic background I understand that we can not accomplish the immense task ahead of us by ourselves. Women in Iran are assaulted and arrested on the street for wearing their headscarf in a wrong manner and our political representation is limited. Considering that patriarchy has been the norm for most of recorded history, we have no guarantee that activism by women in Islamic countries alone will be enough to overthrow patriarchy.
The success that women in the Western world have had in the 20th century is sadly an exception to the rule. Previous societies where women were treated on equal footing with men, such as Cathar society in Southern France, were violently suppressed and live on only in our history books.
As women of Islamic background we are all too familiar with our own examples of historical societies where women lived in freedom and in control over their own lives before the religion of Islam spread and imposed a patriarchal theocratic system. I will outline some of these examples below and make clear why I hope that Islam will one day only be found in our history books.
Muhammed had a particular hatred of female leaders, as becomes clear through the story of Umm Qirfa. In Muhammed's time, Umm Qirfa was a powerful woman who ruled over the Banu Fazara. After overpowering the Banu Fazare, the Hadith mentions that Muhammed ordered her to be tied to two camels and torn in two. Her head was then put on a stick on the orders of Muhammed and paraded around Medina.3
It's rarely mentioned that Islam does not allow women to rule. Whereas Medieval Europe and India have seen plenty of female rulers, Islam explicitly forbids women from ruling over men as mentioned in Sahih Bukhari.
Islam values the testimony of women as half of that of men. The testimony of non-Muslims is invalid against Muslims. Muslim women are only allowed to marry Muslim men, whereas Muslim men can marry non-Muslim women as well as Muslim women. Islam allows men to marry four women, whereas women are only allowed to marry one man.
Worse still is the fact, rarely discussed, that Islam allows a man to rape women he has captured:
Worse still are the apologists who proclaim that Muhammed simply adhered to the values of his time. If so, then his teachings should be irrelevant to us, as he has shown no intent whatsoever to provide future generations with a justice system that is more egalitarian in nature. If anything, the entirety of available evidence indicates to us that Islam was meant to be forever unchangeable. Islam has the term Bid'ah that serves to describe any attempt at changing Islamic doctrines through innovation, it is perceived as a great sin.
In conclusion, Islam is not compatible with Feminism. "Muslim Feminist" is a misnomer. In reality we are dealing with women who have internalized patriarchal oppression and fear the consequences of finally abandoning the teachings they grew up with. A prophet who practices and encourages the rape of women can never be redeemed.
If white feminists fear offending us WOC, then as a feminist and a WOC let me make clear that the only time I ever feel offended by white feminists is when they turn a blind eye to the oppression of women in non-Western cultures, or attempt to rationalize such oppression as "cultural differences" or the product of Western imperialism. Feminism is incapable of emancipating women in the Middle East until it dares to address the problem of Islam.
References:
1 - http://groupthink.jezebel.com/this-is-what-i-mean-when-i-say-white-feminism-1498799007
2 - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10428740/Leyla-Hussein-Meet-the-woman-tackling-FGM-and-The-Cruel-Cut-with-humour.html
3 - http://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Story_of_Umm_Qirfa
4 - Sahih Bukhari 9:88:219
5 - Sahih Muslim 8:3432
If there is in fact such a thing as "white feminism", its defining characteristic is not the exclusion of WOC, but rather the idea that white women internalize of having no right to speak out against injustice when they see it, out of fear of being perceived as racist or culturally insensitive.
It's interesting to note that most of the open critics of Islam from white backgrounds are not women, but rather men. This is important, because Islam as a political system is very patriarchal in nature compared to Western liberal democracy. And yet, many white men feel comfortable speaking out against these issues while Western feminists are afraid of addressing them.
The main explanation I see for this is internalization of a patriarchal gender role. Under patriarchy, men are the link between different groups, while women are forced to watch on the sidelines. Wars are declared and ended by men, while women are exchanged as goods by tribal elders to foment relationships between clans.
An example is the ongoing issue of female circumcision in many Islamic nations. In an effort to discover the effect political correctness has on hampering the fight against female circumcision Leyla Hussein, a woman who was circumcised herself as a child, asked people to sign a petition in favor of circumcision.2 Within half an hour, nineteen people had signed the petition. What is perplexing is that many of these signatories were women themselves!
Political correctness and cultural relativism increasingly have the effect of reversing progress booked in the emancipation of women. In an effort to avoid appearing culturally insensitive or even "racist", white women, many of whom genuinely see themselves as feminists, accept being dictated by men on what to wear, who to talk to and who to shake hands with.
The success of feminism in the Western world means that white women today enjoy a position of power when compared to their sisters in the Islamic world. Had our roles been reversed and had religious influences kept Western women in Europe and North America from enjoying the basic rights universal to all humans, I would expect Western women to call on emancipated women in other countries to stand up for their rights.
As a woman of Islamic background I understand that we can not accomplish the immense task ahead of us by ourselves. Women in Iran are assaulted and arrested on the street for wearing their headscarf in a wrong manner and our political representation is limited. Considering that patriarchy has been the norm for most of recorded history, we have no guarantee that activism by women in Islamic countries alone will be enough to overthrow patriarchy.
The success that women in the Western world have had in the 20th century is sadly an exception to the rule. Previous societies where women were treated on equal footing with men, such as Cathar society in Southern France, were violently suppressed and live on only in our history books.
As women of Islamic background we are all too familiar with our own examples of historical societies where women lived in freedom and in control over their own lives before the religion of Islam spread and imposed a patriarchal theocratic system. I will outline some of these examples below and make clear why I hope that Islam will one day only be found in our history books.
Muhammed had a particular hatred of female leaders, as becomes clear through the story of Umm Qirfa. In Muhammed's time, Umm Qirfa was a powerful woman who ruled over the Banu Fazara. After overpowering the Banu Fazare, the Hadith mentions that Muhammed ordered her to be tied to two camels and torn in two. Her head was then put on a stick on the orders of Muhammed and paraded around Medina.3
It's rarely mentioned that Islam does not allow women to rule. Whereas Medieval Europe and India have seen plenty of female rulers, Islam explicitly forbids women from ruling over men as mentioned in Sahih Bukhari.
Narrated Abu Bakra: During the battle of Al-Jamal, Allah benefited me with a Word (I heard from the Prophet). When the Prophet heard the news that the people of the Persia had made the daughter of Khosrau their Queen (ruler), he said, "Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler."4Thus it should come as no surprise that the last queen the Berbers have known was queen Dihja, who fought bravely against the Islamic invaders in an attempt to resist the subjugation of her people. Most of the other issues in regards to Islam should be clear to anyone who has basic knowledge of religion.
Islam values the testimony of women as half of that of men. The testimony of non-Muslims is invalid against Muslims. Muslim women are only allowed to marry Muslim men, whereas Muslim men can marry non-Muslim women as well as Muslim women. Islam allows men to marry four women, whereas women are only allowed to marry one man.
Worse still is the fact, rarely discussed, that Islam allows a man to rape women he has captured:
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah her pleased with him) reported that at the Battle of Hanain Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace te upon him) seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that:" And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24)" (i. e. they were lawful for them when their 'Idda period came to an end).Issues such as these are not the product of Western imperialism or systematic racism or other terms that some academics have come up with in an effort to solve the contradiction that emerges when one perceives his own cultural background to be the source of all evil and encounters oppression in non-Western cultures. It is amazing to me that Western academics can declare Islam to be "gender-complementary" and yet choose to completely ignore the abundance of evidence that Islam is a patriarchal religion that condones rape.
Worse still are the apologists who proclaim that Muhammed simply adhered to the values of his time. If so, then his teachings should be irrelevant to us, as he has shown no intent whatsoever to provide future generations with a justice system that is more egalitarian in nature. If anything, the entirety of available evidence indicates to us that Islam was meant to be forever unchangeable. Islam has the term Bid'ah that serves to describe any attempt at changing Islamic doctrines through innovation, it is perceived as a great sin.
In conclusion, Islam is not compatible with Feminism. "Muslim Feminist" is a misnomer. In reality we are dealing with women who have internalized patriarchal oppression and fear the consequences of finally abandoning the teachings they grew up with. A prophet who practices and encourages the rape of women can never be redeemed.
If white feminists fear offending us WOC, then as a feminist and a WOC let me make clear that the only time I ever feel offended by white feminists is when they turn a blind eye to the oppression of women in non-Western cultures, or attempt to rationalize such oppression as "cultural differences" or the product of Western imperialism. Feminism is incapable of emancipating women in the Middle East until it dares to address the problem of Islam.
References:
1 - http://groupthink.jezebel.com/this-is-what-i-mean-when-i-say-white-feminism-1498799007
2 - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10428740/Leyla-Hussein-Meet-the-woman-tackling-FGM-and-The-Cruel-Cut-with-humour.html
3 - http://wikiislam.net/wiki/The_Story_of_Umm_Qirfa
4 - Sahih Bukhari 9:88:219
5 - Sahih Muslim 8:3432
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)