Killing of infants on rise in Pakistan | CNN· Page 2

zombieslayer
Registered

13 years ago

I am not in favor of abortion rights, yet I also recognize that I would probably not want to live in the kind of country in which things like abortion, pornography, etc. were illegal. Heck, it gets on my nerves that drugs and teenage sex are illegal in this country.

It is important to separate religion from culture, but Westerners seem to have a really hard time doing that. If you read the Qur'an, you will see that Islam is one of the least misogynistic religions ever. Women under Islam are supposed to enjoy unparalleled equality and have as many rights as men. The problem is that Islam has been adopted mostly by tribal cultures, which are by and large misogynistic, so the provisions of the Qur'an relating to women's rights are subverted in favor of traditional cultural practices. Likewise, what passes for Christianity in the United States is vastly different than Christianity in Africa or the Middle East.

Lest we forget, however, the greatest misogynists in the world are not men but women. Most of the practices we find most abhorrent are perpetuated by the women themselves. When the king of Saudi Arabia heeded the pleadings of a Western physician and outlawed female circumcision, his mother and wives were outraged.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel

Heh. I almost felt like adding the culture vs religion thing in there before NSD replied. Yes, I'm well aware of culture vs religion in Islam.

So, is it safe to say that Islamic cultures are among the most misogynistic in the world?

And you know how I feel about religion. Nobody follows it. I've met very few Christians. I've met very few Muslims. I've met plenty of people who claim to be both. That's what I'm getting at.

They all pick and choose what they want to follow then conveniently forget the rest.

As for misogynistic women, the biggest misogynists I've met in the good ol' US of A have called themselves "feminists." Go figure.

My man Donald Driver

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷

all_about_da_packers
Senior Member

13 years ago

#12

THANK YOU! And how much better off would Pakistan (hell - the middle east as a whole) be without religious fundamentalists running the country?

Originally Posted by: Since69

Actually, very few middle east countries are run by religious (see Islamic) fundamentalists.

I'll speak to Pakistan in particular, since much of my graduate work relates to that area.

Pakistan's history has scarce evidence of being led by any religious fundamentalist. From it's inception (Jinnah) to current leader Zardari, it's hard to find anyone who imposed staunch religious based laws. The exception, perhaps, could be argued to be General Zia Ul Haq, an army general who took control through killing a democratically elected president in Zulfikar Bhutto; Haq certainly took no democratic path to reforming certain laws. Interestingly, Benazir Bhutto, the daughter of Zulfikar, was a part of Zia Ul Haq's government and would later democratically succeed Zia Ul Haq at the top post of the land herself also made no attempt to repeal the harsh laws (especially for women) that had been enacted. And frankly, Benazir was pretty damn liberal - certainly not a religious fundamentalist in any sense of the word.

Really, what becomes apparent is that much of the ruling class in the Middle East - while not being staunch fundamentalists - were certainly not democratically elected nor came into power on the basis of a popular vote. That is one of the biggest tensions in the Middle east: a peoples dealing with governments that they never authorized to take power, the very same governments who had done next to nothing for the vast majority of people in those lands. The irony, of course, is that many non-elected heads of the Middle East area have implicit, if not explicit, support of "the West", and in many cases the silence of "the West" (or rather it's leaders) on their illicit postings is deafening. And American's wonder why people from other countries do not like them that much? That's got something to do with it....

But back to my main point: Islamic fundamentalism is certainly a problem, but I'm not sure we can say fundamentalists are leading most of the middle east. As far as Pakistan... it's pretty hard to say fundamentalists would have been as bad as the corrupt and self-serving leaders that Pakistan has had in its short history because fundamentalists have never seized power their. It certainly is not a stretch to say that under fundamentalists it is hard to imagine Pakistan being much worse than it currently is under a democratically elected leader... and that is a pretty sad / depressing thing, to say the least.

The NFL: Where Greg Jennings Happens.

all_about_da_packers
Senior Member

13 years ago

#13

It is important to separate religion from culture, but Westerners seem to have a really hard time doing that. If you read the Qur'an, you will see that Islam is one of the least misogynistic religions ever. Women under Islam are supposed to enjoy unparalleled equality and have as many rights as men. The problem is that Islam has been adopted mostly by tribal cultures, which are by and large misogynistic, so the provisions of the Qur'an relating to women's rights are subverted in favor of traditional cultural practices. Likewise, what passes for Christianity in the United States is vastly different than Christianity in Africa or the Middle East.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel

Ah, reminds me of Ernest Gellner's "little traditions vs big traditions" and their cyclic nature...

Frankly, I think the Qu'ran, if it is to be accepted as God's word, must account for culture. In other words, it was revealed into a a context, and surely if the Qu'ran is to hold up to critical analysis then it must do so in light of it's own understanding that it will be accepted to many a diverse cultures, contexts, histories, etc. Culture is a fundamental human condition, and any attempt to locate a scripture as essential as the Qu'ran is to Islam outside of culture is to limit critical analysis.

Frankly, from the little I have read the Qu'ran and some critical scholarship on the Qu'ran, it does accept that it will be - by virtue of it's entrance into the world - subject to some level of cultural exegesis. Any religious doctrine, in my opinion, if it is to stand the test of time and thrive, must account for the fact of entering different cultural spheres.

Zombie: Frankly, no culture / locale / era / civilization has a monopoly on mistreatment of women. I suspect the reasoning, in particular for countries with Islamic majority, is quite large. From simple socialization into believing females should be submissive, to maintaining honour in the face of humiliation or socially stigmatizing situations, to backward thinking that females are the lesser of the species by quite a margin, to simply not being able to control one's anger, to viewing females as more burdensome to family prosperity than males... the reasoning for female mistreatment is quite vast. I'm not sure I'd say Islamic cultures are amongst the most misogynistic, because that is too simplistic and miscasts the multifaceted reasons as stemming from one thing: hate of women. I'm not sure hate of women is at the heart of most mistreatments of females in countries with a majority Islamic population.

The NFL: Where Greg Jennings Happens.

Nonstopdrivel
Preferred Member Topic Starter

13 years ago

#14

Democratically elected leaders the United States has deposed, despite giving lip service to the idea that democratic regimes are in our best interests, that immediately come to mind are Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh of Iran (1953); Jacobo Arbenz of Guatemala (1954); Prime Minister Patrice Émery Lumumba of the Democratic Republic of Congo (1960); and President João Goular of Brazil (1964). There have probably been others.

all_about_da_packers
Senior Member

13 years ago

#15

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel

You can add Chile to that list; the interesting thing is though these ousters took place in the complicated climate that was the cold war.

What becomes more difficult to justify is the support of Western nations for regimes that have come into power forcefully. Pakistan, for example, had an army general lead a coup against the then-head in early 2000s and declared an indefinite postponement on democratic elections. None of the Western nations expressed concerns over this. Hell, recently Egypt's army took control after Mubarak's reign came to an abrupt end. Western states - while supporting Mubarak - all claimed that they supported freely elected governments in Egypt once the revolution got going. The evidence, however, suggests they were quite comfortable with Mubarak in charge.

The NFL: Where Greg Jennings Happens.

zombieslayer
Registered

13 years ago

#16

Zombie: Frankly, no culture / locale / era / civilization has a monopoly on mistreatment of women. I suspect the reasoning, in particular for countries with Islamic majority, is quite large. From simple socialization into believing females should be submissive, to maintaining honour in the face of humiliation or socially stigmatizing situations, to backward thinking that females are the lesser of the species by quite a margin, to simply not being able to control one's anger, to viewing females as more burdensome to family prosperity than males... the reasoning for female mistreatment is quite vast. I'm not sure I'd say Islamic cultures are amongst the most misogynistic, because that is too simplistic and miscasts the multifaceted reasons as stemming from one thing: hate of women. I'm not sure hate of women is at the heart of most mistreatments of females in countries with a majority Islamic population.

Originally Posted by: all_about_da_packers

I do believe it's ok to compare and contrast cultures. We're by no means perfect when it comes to sexism (men are on the losing end of many sexist beliefs in our culture so it's almost a wash), but there's a HUGE difference between 1st world and 3rd world treatment of women. Saudi Arabia is among the worst. I mean, being buried alive and stoned to death? That's worse than female circumcision or the full body veils.

Sure I got horror stories of Christian majority nations as well like Mexico, Brazil, and the Philippines for instance, but on such a smaller scale. The prostitution problems in Thailand have more to do with economics than religion (Buddhism) so I won't even use that as an example.

Women tend to have more rights in a Christian majority country than an Islamic majority country. Can we at least agree on that much?

Do I wish more Islamic countries were like Turkey? Damn right I do. But Turkey's an exception, not the rule by any means.

My man Donald Driver

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷

Nonstopdrivel
Preferred Member Topic Starter

13 years ago

#17

Women tend to have more rights in a Christian majority country than an Islamic majority country. Can we at least agree on that much?

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer

I think a more accurate way to say this is that women in individualistic cultures tend to have more rights than women in collectivist (tribal) cultures, regardless of what the prevailing religion happens to be. More specifically, women in urban areas tend to have significantly more rights (de facto, if not necessarily de jure) than women in rural areas. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a surprisingly liberal country when it came to the treatment of women, at least in the major cities. I personally used to know a woman who was in medical school under Hussein, though we have since fallen out of touch, and she didn't even have to wear a head covering. Women in Iran, contrary to the perception promulgated by our mass media, hold a large amount of power, not only in the home, but also in government; a number of women hold seats in parliament, and Iran has even had women in the cabinet, as well as female vice-presidents. Conditions for women have deteriorated starkly in both Iraq and Afghanistan since the United States invaded, so we shouldn't be too self-righteous on that front.

all_about_da_packers
Senior Member

13 years ago

#18

... but there's a HUGE difference between 1st world and 3rd world treatment of women. Saudi Arabia is among the worst. I mean, being buried alive and stoned to death? That's worse than female circumcision or the full body veils.

Women tend to have more rights in a Christian majority country than an Islamic majority country. Can we at least agree on that much?

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer

Oh, I never meant to disagree with the assertion that females are treated tremendously lesser in the 3rd world than 1st world; most, if not all, readily available data would show this to be true. Indeed Western civilization is predicated on Judeo-Christian values. My reply was directed at this question: "it safe to say that Islamic cultures are among the most misogynistic in the world?" that you wrote in your post. I think labeling cultures in countries with Islamic majorities as misogynistic leads us to miss the multifaceted nature of why females are treated and restricted as they are in those countries.

Saudi is actually an interesting example, because it does restrict women's rights on certain things. Using NSD's distinction between de facto and de jure, it's hard to find supportive evidence of their condoned treatment of women based on the sources of the law (Qu'ran and Hadith).

For example, take stoning: the principle of stoning is based on a part of the Qu'ran which states something to the effect of 'a child born out of an extramarital affair shall have a right on the father's assets (and) there shall be stones for the adulterer'. Many a learned individuals have translated this to mean that a child arising from an affair should be treated as if he is actually the couple's child and have right to the husband's assets, while the man who fathered the child shall be given nothing; "stones for the adulterer" is an idiom and not meant to be taken literally. Unfortunately, non-learned individuals who have been afforded positions of power have taken the saying literally and established stoning as a death penalty. It's got less to actually do with culture or religion, but almost all to do with how the wording itself is interpreted based on the socialization and education (or lack thereof) of certain individuals who found themselves capable of navigating the political climate their.

Take another example: the ban on female's driving in Saudi. It actually does not stem from any cultural or religious view, rather it stems from the fact that the ban has created an industry (chauffeurs and taxi drivers) that serves to employ a majority of immigrants to Saudi. A lifting of that ban would effectively leave many without a way of earning their living and supporting their families. That's the type of situation that effectively leads to people revolting... seeing that the Saudi King was appointed without a trace of democratic process, you can be sure the last thing he wants is to give impetus to people to riot and challenge his right to authority.

My point, again, is to take issue with labeling cultures / religion as misogynistic because I think that limits the scope of discussion you can have on the very real problem of female mistreatment in that area. It would be foolish to ignore the fact that many men do harm females as a result of their culturalization and/or their mistaken belief that their religion (be it Islam, Judaism, Christianity) gives them authority to do so. But to say the problem is misogynistic cultures unfairly limits the scope of the problem, in my opinion. To limit the scope of discussion, in my opinion, is to limit the scope of solution. I think there is something more beyond cultural or religious misogyny that needs addressing. The de facto treatment differs from what is prescribed de jure, but to say de facto treatment stems primarily from cultural misogyny is to potentially ignore analysis of the various things that contribute to de facto treatment in the first place, in addition to culture.

The NFL: Where Greg Jennings Happens.

Cheesey
Preferred Member

13 years ago

#19

Zombie, if by the word "christain", you mean what the word REALLY means, "Christ like", you are correct. NO ONE can be perfect as long as you are on this earth. The goal is to try, and if you mess up (sin), to ask for God's forgiveness and repent.
Too many people say "Well, i can't attain that, so why even try?" as an excuse to not try to be "christian" or "Christ like".

The only difference between Christians and non Christians is, Christians are forgiven. NOT because they are ANY better then anyone else, but beacuse they put their trust in Christ, having his death on the cross attone for their sins. (This does NOT give anyone a "license to sin", to do whatever you want and say "I can do it, cause i'm forgiven".) It doesn't work that way. God KNOWS what's in your heart. You can't fool Him.

Vince Lombardi said something to his team , "We will strive for perfection, and along the way attain greatness." (I don't think i got the quote exact, but i think you get the meaning.) That's what we try to do as Christians.

Think about it....if people actually followed what the Bible says, wouldn't this be a much better world? If people abstained from having sex outside of marriage, wouldn't it be a better world? If they didn't steal, murder, covet and so on?

If people treated others as they themselves want to be treated, wouldn't it be a better world?

People's "rights" are important, but i think even more important is people's responsibility.

Abortion gives people a "license to kill", as they don't have to worry about the possibility about any "unwanted" children. Again, no consequences to your actions makes you likely to do stupid things.

If we made it legal to rob convienience stores, do you think there would be more robberies? I bet the number would JUMP! The laws make people at least consider what might happen to them if they break said laws.
Of course there is a group in society that doesn't care what laws there are, or who they hurt. But at least the laws make some people less likely to commit crimes.

And as far as birth control items being avaiable, all a kid has to do is go to the school they go to and ask for them. How much more availability can you want? Or go to "planned parenthood" and they will give you anything you want. But people are lazy. It takes too much work to take a pill, or put on a condom.

Fact is, most people don't care, as they know they can just "flush away" their "problem" if the girl gets pregnant.

zombieslayer
Registered

13 years ago

#20

Good stuff. Enjoying this conversation.

Yes, in an ideal world, we should be judging culture vs culture and there's a lot of truth in the urban vs rural statement.

We screwed up. Twice.

We supported the wrong side in Afghanistan. The Soviets were supporting the good guys. Under the side the Soviets supported, women had rights. Lots of them. Then we supported the religious fundamentalists which later became the Taliban, which was among the most misogynistic groups on the planet (and we later went to war with the same people we supported and got shot by our own weapons, as alluded to in Iron Man 2).

I hate Saddam. But as a historian, I have to take my own personal feelings out of the equation. Women had WAY more rights under Saddam than they will with what will take over Iraq. We shouldn't have intervened. Of course, I'll probably alienate half the people on this board by saying that but as a historian, I have to look at facts and only facts and base my thesis statement on facts, not feelings.

And lastly, fundamentalists in all religions tend to restrict women's rights. Most people don't know just how misogynistic fundamentalist Jews are. They're as bad as fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims.

I only state the West because I don't know the East. I'm admittedly pretty ignorant to that half of the world.

AADP - Your very last point, it often comes down to availability of resources. I think the absolute root of the problem often isn't religion at all, but too many people for too few resources (which causes greed, war, and everything else). But religion just makes it worse as it restricts access to birth control and open discussion of sex and reproduction and accelerates the problem.

My man Donald Driver

(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Mucky Tundra (17m) : The Seattle Seahawks defeat the Chicago Bears 6-3. Jason Myers had 6 RBIs for Seattle while Cairo Santos had 3 RBI for Chicago

beast (1h) : Not nessarily, he might of been injured either way. He's playing about 50% of the games the last 4 years

Zero2Cool (7h) : If they'd been more patient with him, he'd be back already. Putting him out there vs Bears caused him to tweak it and here we are.

packerfanoutwest (7h) : well this is his last season with the PAck, book it

beast (8h) : Sounds like no Alexander (again), I'm wondering if his time with the Packers is done

Zero2Cool (15h) : Could ban beast and I still don't think anyone catches him.

Mucky Tundra (26-Dec) : Houston getting dog walked by Baltimore

packerfanoutwest (25-Dec) : Feliz Navidad!

Zero2Cool (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas!

beast (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁

beast (24-Dec) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : both games Watson missed, Packers won

Martha Careful (24-Dec) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???

Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th

beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (23-Dec) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS