Interesting article by Asra Q. Nomani, a muslim peace activist, entitled “Clothes Aren’t The Issue.”
When dealing with a “disobedient wife,” a Muslim man has a number of options. First, he should remind her of “the importance of following the instructions of the husband in Islam.” If that doesn’t work, he can “leave the wife’s bed.” Finally, he may “beat” her, though it must be without “hurting, breaking a bone, leaving blue or black marks on the body and avoiding hitting the face, at any cost.”
Such appalling recommendations, drawn from the book “Woman in the Shade of Islam” by Saudi scholar Abdul Rahman al-Sheha, are inspired by as authoritative a source as any Muslim could hope to find: a literal reading of the 34th verse of the fourth chapter of the Koran, An-Nisa , or Women. “[A]nd (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them,” reads one widely accepted translation.
The notion of using physical punishment as a “disciplinary action,” as Sheha suggests, especially for “controlling or mastering women” or others who “enjoy being beaten,” is common throughout the Muslim world. Indeed, I first encountered Sheha’s work at my Morgantown mosque, where a Muslim student group handed it out to male worshipers after Friday prayers one day a few years ago.
Verse 4:34 retains a strong following, even among many who say that women must be treated as equals under Islam. Indeed, Muslim scholars and leaders have long been doing what I call “the 4:34 dance” — they reject outright violence against women but accept a level of aggression that fits contemporary definitions of domestic violence. […]
Born into a conservative Muslim family that emigrated from Hyderabad, India, to West Virginia, I have seen many female relatives in India cloak themselves head to toe in black burqas and abandon their education and careers for marriage. But the Islam I knew was a gentle one. I was never taught that a man could — or should — physically discipline his wife. Abusing anyone, I was told, violated Islamic tenets against zulm, or cruelty. My family adhered to the ninth chapter of the Koran, which says that men and women “are friends and protectors of one another.”
However, the kidnapping and killing of my friend and colleague Daniel Pearl in 2002 forced me to confront the link between literalist interpretations of the Koran that sanction violence in the world and those that sanction violence against women. For critics of Islam, 4:34 is the smoking gun that proves that Islam is misogynistic and intrinsically violent. Read literally, it is as troubling as Koranic verses such as At-Tauba (“The Repentance”) 9:5, which states that Muslims should “slay the pagans wherever ye find them” or Al-Mâ’idah (“The Table Spread with Food”) 5:51, which reads, “Take not the Jews and Christians as friends.”
Although Islamic historians agree that the prophet Muhammad never hit a woman, it is also clear that Muslim communities face a domestic violence problem. A 2003 study of 216 Pakistani women found that 97 percent had experienced such abuse; almost half of them reported being victims of nonconsensual sex. Earlier this year, the state-run General Union of Syrian Women released a report showing that one in four married Syrian women is the victim of domestic violence. […]
As long as the beating of women is acceptable in Islam, the problem of suicide bombers, jihadists and others who espouse violence will not go away; to me, they form part of a continuum. When 4:34 came into being in the 7th century, its pronouncements toward women were revolutionary, given that women were considered little more than chattel at the time. But 1,400 years later, the world is a different place and so, too, must our interpretations be different, retaining the progressive spirit of that verse.
Domestic violence is prevalent today in non-Muslim communities as well, but the apparent religious sanction in Islam makes the challenge especially difficult. Some people seem to understand this and are beginning to push back against the traditionalists. However, their efforts are concentrated in the West, and their impact remains small. […]
Meanwhile, shelters created for Muslim women in Chicago and New York have begun to preach zero tolerance regarding the “disciplining” of women — a position that should be universal by now. And some Muslim men appear to grasp the gravity of this issue. In Northern Virginia, for instance, an imam organized a group called Muslim Men Against Domestic Violence — though it still endorses the “tapping” of a wife as a “friendly” reminder, an organizer said.
Yet even these small advances, if we can call them such, face an uphill battle against the Saudi oil money propagating literalist interpretations of the Koran here in the United States and worldwide.
There’s more – it’s worthwhile to read the whole article.
Why do westerners focus so much more on the veil and the hijab, while more or less ignoring wife-beating? I think the answer is obvious: Both Muslims and Christians beat their wives ((It should be needless to say, but probably isn’t, that I’m not claiming that 100% of Muslim or Christian husbands beat their wives, merely that the problem exists in both Muslim and Christian cultures.)), but only Muslims use hijabs.
Or because various clothing items thought to be mandated by Islam and forced upon women are the tip of the iceberg that is visible.
There’s also the tiny fact that in Western nations, there are laws against wife-beating. I don’t know if Muslim men beat their wives less or more than Christian men, but I will point out that Muslim men don’t even have to beat their wives to make them obedient and subservient, the fact that it is legally and morally (under Islam) permissible for man to do so is probably enough for most women.
And no, this isn’t “getting the gravity of the issue”:
This is more like “Damn, the kuffar will feel contempt for us* if we beat the shit out of our women real bad! Let’s hold back… a bit”
*= Yep, speaking for myself, we do, more each and every day.
Both Chritianity and Islam have violence and bigotry within their Books, and taking them literally is the root of most religious tragedies. Maybe their Gods never meant them to be so, but the politics of power have had their way with them.
Why do westerners focus so much more on the veil and the hijab, while more or less ignoring wife-beating?
Because the veil and hijab are visible, whereas domestic violence is not. Usually. There’s been plenty of coverage of Islam’s support of domestic violence, but you don’t see it in the streets. Your assertion that it’s because “Both Muslims and Christians beat their wives1, but only Muslims use hijabs.” may be obvious to you, but not to the rest of us.
Although Islamic historians agree that the prophet Muhammad never hit a woman
I’m curious to know how Islamic historians can know whether or not Muhammad ever struck one of his wives if he didn’t do it in front of witnesses and never left a mark on a visible part of their bodies (as is apparently the Islamic recommendation)?
I think another reason, or at least one the supplements the answer you gave, is that the veil, even as it asserts a particular form of male power over women, disrupts the male gaze’s unfettered access to women’s bodies as that access is defined in the US–and perhaps in the West in general–and I think that makes people in the West very uncomfortable. In other words, the veil is an affront to male heterosexual privilege as it is constructed in the US, even while it is an expression of male heterosexual privilege as it is constructed in Islam. Domestic violence, on the other hand, has been and continues to be the “dirty little secret” that almost every culture in the world tries to hide behind the closed doors of the ostensibly private and inviolate, usually father-headed, family sanctuary. Domestic violence in the Muslim community, in other words, does nothing to threaten the hegemony of men in the West.
(A slight tangent: I have spoken to women who wear an hijab–and one or two who have been places where they had to go out completely veiled–and while I would not posit their experience as representative of all women, and while these women were certainly aware of the ways in which the veil was an expression of male power, they were also quite assertive about how freeing it was for them to be able to walk around and not have to worry about men ogling them. I am not trying here to defend the veil here, but it is worth thinking about the ways in which it offered at least the women I have spoken to a kind of solution to the problem of male ogling–and when I say this I do not mean that it is worth thinking about as a solution that ought to be implemented, but rather, it is worth thinking about what the male gaze does that it might lead women to see veiling themselves as, in fact, a kind of (impoverished, according to the women I have spoken to) liberation.)
I’m a Catholic and not a bible reader, but I don’t remember anything from the Gospel that endorsed violence.
To the person in comment #4: We know he did not beat his wives because there are saying telling people not to do it and because the wives, who have left us the majority of the ahadith in the first place, did not report it and they certainly would have, as they were very outspoken.
I have a lot of problems with how to interpret 4:34 and so do many Muslims and it’s a problematic verse. Asra Nomani is actually not doing a damned thing to help Muslim women though. What is her suggestion for what to do about 4:34? Well she does not have one. Also, she’s a damned liar. I met the imam from Virginia. He strongly criticized the patronizing “tap them as a friendly reminder” way of interpretation at a talk he gave on the problem of domestic violence that I attended at the latest ISNA conference. He had absolutely a zero tolerance of domestic violence. And he said that if any imam did not go as far as he did then the person was not suited to give advice to couples.
And just exactly how is Nomani a “Muslim peace activist”?????
Is there something written by the said Imam that supports this?
It appears to me that she does not support the literal interpretation of it.
What is yours? Aside from saying “it’s a problematic verse”?
So what interpretation does she want to use? One guy at the ISNA conference suggested that the verse should be interpreted as “separate” rather than “beat” (i.e., if your wife is morally corrupt, first discuss, then spend some time apart, then separate for good i.e., divorce – which makes sense because it follows the prescription for regular divorce regardless of who’s at fault – first try to discuss/reconcile, then separate for a trial period, then if there’s no solution, divorce). This strikes me as a viable solution though Arabic speakers tell me it is going to be hard toconvince them that the verb in question could mean divorce.
Why do I have to submit written proof of the imam’s position? She is not submitting written proof of it, she’s submitting hearsay. I heard the guy speak in person which is one degree closer than her “somebody else says that he said”.
I am tired of Muslims dancing around this issue too. I have asked many people to help me understand this verse. But she has nothing to offer.
There is a very good post on Aqoul explaining for the really really dense why these “reform” Muslims who want jobs at American right wing think tanks are not really helping improve the practice of the religion. I recommend you read it as you will not get this otherwise. She is joining the club of Irshad Manji, that idiotic Somali liar who is now at the American Enterprise Institute or something after Holland had to deport her (ayaan Hirsi Ali) and neocons in Muslim clothing like Stephen Schwartz. We have been listening to these yahoos for years. They have next to no knowledge about the religion but they are the only ones who are able to fix it and they do nothing but diss people who are actually doing some good. Yes they make us frustrated, can you tell. I can spend years commenting patiently time after time on feminist blogs about my religion and the various reasons we do things or don’t do things – pointing people to actual scholars and people who actually know things and have studied them – and then along comes some ignorant neocon jerk like Asra or Irshad and ruins it all with her illiterate blather that sounds like what WEsterners want to hear.
Can you provide the URL for this, please? Thanks.
Look, is it really that hard to find that particular Imam condemning other imams who support DV, if he’s such a grand warrior against DV?
There are essentially two possibilities:
1) He didn’t say that
2) He did say that to please a certain audience, but won’t say it to more publicly out various reasons (he doesn’t really believe it, he dosn’t want to offend other imams etc.)
How about this: It means what it says. This may be tough pill to swallow for a Muslim who wants to believe that the religion does not condone bad things. But I’m saying it’s highly probable there is no hidden beauty there, no sacred progressive meaning.
As far as I see, this is how Nomani sees it. You’re just not accepting it.
Au contraire, I would like to believe that Islam is a beautiful religion. I’m not really a scholar, I judge religions (and any other ideologies) by the fruit they bear, from their empirical reality (religions are what people make them to be).
And so far, I’ve seen some pretty art and acrhitecture, nice poetry, and more importantly, absolutely medieval legislation and summary executions of those who “offend Islam”
Not good enough..
Eh, of course there is the possiblity that he said that and believes it, too.
Matt. 5:16-19
Jesus specifically endorses Old Testament law in its entirety, with all its brutalities.
No, of course you’re not saying that. What you’re doing is collectivising wifebeating, or more generally domestic violence against women.
Moreover while some domestic violence is ignored, domestic violence against women isn’t.
Richard Jeffrey Newman:
Gosh, if women are forced to cover up, as they are in some Islamic countries, then its symptomatic of their oppression by men. If they’re free to wear more or less what they like, then they’re being oppressed by men. Women won’t be free until they have complete control over their own bodies, and control over men’s eyes too. Even then, feminists will be finding reasons to declare women oppressed by men.
Hi Barry, sure, I will provide URLs for the Aqoul articles.
First article: How to be a Muslim Reformer (in 7 steps)
http://aqoul.com/archives/2006/03/how_to_be_a_mus.php
Second article: Irshad and Ijtihad
http://aqoul.com/archives/2006/03/irshad_ijtihad.php
There are others about Nomani, Hirsi Ali and others, but these are good for explicating the point I am not articulate enough to make in blog comments. :)
Tuomas, you may find these interesting too.
To all, I am not trying to harsh your mellow or anything, but this person and these others have been seriously damaging real progressive Muslim efforts for the past 2 years. Now most traditionals tar us all with that brush and won’t listen to us at all. It is really really frustrating. Thanks for letting me vent and I will try not to misuse your blog this way in future.
Richard never said that being free to wear what one likes is a form of oppression. He never even implied that. If you think he said that, then you really need to wipe the antifeminist dogma out of your eyes, because it’s impeding your reading comprehension.
Daran, you’ve claimed not to be an antifeminist. Yet like antifeminists, you seemingly feel an obligation to derail discussions of violence against women with a plaintive cry of “what about the meeeeeennnnnn?” Well, here’s what about the men: Violence against men, including intimate violence, is horrible. It’s a legitimate topic for discussion. But it’s not a topic that everyone in the world is obliged to be talking about, and it’s not the topic of this thread.
In particular, trying to guilt us for talking about violence against women in a discussion of 34:4 – which is specifically focused on intimate violence against women – is inappropriate. The topic here is not male victims of intimate violence, and if your focus is so narrow that you can’t stand any discussion that isn’t about male victims of intimate violence, then you have nothing to contribute to the discussion beyond derailment.
You’re often far smarter and thankfully less doctrinare than most anti-feminists, which is the reason I like that you’re posting comments on “Alas.” This thread, alas, is not one of those moments.
Thanks for the URLs, Anna!
And I don’t think what you’ve been posting here is a misuse of “Alas” at all. On the contrary, I appreciate that you’ve given us a different view to think about, and links, while remaining polite.
I hope you’ll post here again. I don’t promise to agree with you after reading your links, but I do promise that I will read them carefully.
Daran:
Amp has already pointed out (thanks!) that you (perhaps wilfully?) misread what I wrote, but I would add this: My point had less to do with what women do or do not wear, are or are not forced to wear than with men’s position vis-a-vis what women wear. The fact that women in the US are, more or less, free to wear what they like not only does not mean that men’s position in relation to what women wear is value neutral, i.e., void of patriarchal/male dominant values; it also does not mean that women’s choices about what they wear are not shaped by the male gaze and what it means. (Indeed, I would argue that it is worth talking about the connections between, for example, the pressure some women feel in some Muslim communities to wear a hejab or veil, even where it is not legally required, and the pressure some women feel in the US to dress in ways that are revealing.)
I also stand by my original assertion: that one of the reasons people in the US tend to obsess over the hejab/veil in Islam is that it disrupts the male gaze in ways that we find unacceptable; and it is ironic that this disruption, albeit in the interests of male power, is precisely one of the purposes that the veil is supposed to serve. This is, I feel obliged to point out again, a point not about women and what they wear, but about men and how men look at what women wear.
Ampersand:
No he didn’t, and neither did I. If you think I said that, then you really need… You get the point.
Me:
Amp:
(Emphasis in original.)
Then why raise it?
Because it was you, not I, who raised the subject of how horrible violence against men is. All I did, indirectly and almost parenthetically, was acknowledge DV against men as an exception to what was in any case my secondary point: That domestic violence is not generally ignored contrary to your assertion. That’s the (secondary) issue here. To the contrary, it gets an inordinate degree of attention. An (unscientific) demonstration of this point is that ten of the first twenty Google returns on the word “violence” pertain to domestic violence.
My primary objection was to the prejudicial collectivist framing.
So why all this attention to a subordinate clause of a secondary point? Why a further two paragraphs of personal criticism? Could it be to obscure that fact that you’ve not addressed the substance of my comment at all?
I’m not trying to guilt anyone, and I’ve no objection to you or anyone discussing 34:4. (which you’d already gone very peripheral to, when you made the remarks to which I responded). I’m challenging your prejudicial framing and contrafactual statement. If it is your position that you or feminists should be free to make statements contrary to fact, and to frame issues prejudicially, without challenge, then please say so clearly.
Daran, when I wrote this sentence:
My intention wasn’t to claim that wife-beating in general is ignored, which appears to be how you interpreted that sentence. My intention was to say that when Westerners have criticized misogyny in Muslim culture, Westerners have focused a lot on clothing issues among Muslims, while not talking very much about intimate violence among Muslims.
I don’t think that statement is “contrary to fact.” This is anecdotal, but I believe that I’ve read at least twenty articles by Western writers about the hijab for every one article by Western writers about intimate violence among Muslims.
Did you understand that was my intention? Does knowing that was my intention change your criticism at all? I think I need to know the answers to these questions before I can respond to your most recent comment.
Daran, you wrote:
You also wrote
It’s hard for me to see how your first comment does not mean what Amp (and I) read it to mean, no matter what your intention was when you wrote it. As well, I do not think that critiquing the male gaze (which I would point out has a lot more to do with how men pay attention to women’s physical appearance than the fact that we do pay attention in the first place) at all suggests that women want or ought to have control over men’s eyes. Suggesting that it does belies an unwillingness to examine critically male heterosexual behavior and the social context that constructs, encourgaes and legitimizes it; ultimately, it is men who have control over our eyes and it is men who are responsible and accountable for the way we use them. (The male gaze is something far larger and more complex than just what individual men do with our eyes, but the two are nonetheless related.)
What exactly is this even supposed to mean?
Anna, I too thank you for the links.
This bothered me:
It trivializes the suppression of opinions that are deemed to be too critical of Islam, murders of critics, and is quite victim-blaming “result of the aforementioned provocative statements”.
Gosh, how about blaming that on the ones of the traditionals who are conflating you with these?
It sounds like every demand that, say, moderate democrats say to more leftist liberals: “Hey guys, shut up, the conservatives are tarring us with your statements!”
But still, I find these progressive Islamic efforts interesting, but I still think you’re barking at the wrong trees.
Tuomas:
In the context of the discussion, meaning my original comment about the male gaze and Daran’s comment about women not being free “until they control men’s eyes too,” what don’t you understand about my comment about men being responsible and accountable for how we use our eyes?
Are women responsible and accountable for the way they use their ears?
What does “accountability about using eyes” mean? Or ears?
Tuomas in #26: The #5 thing goes back to the Rushdie issue. See, a lot of Muslims have also had to put up with a lot of anonymous nasty threats but they don’t make themselves into TV martyrs proclaiming it because it just plays into the hands of imperialism etc. (Also, the more you publicize yourself the more of a target you become; and the more of a target you become the more publicity you get; till it seems that a lot of people actively court extremist ire to get press.)
(like everyone else who has been on these Muslim discussion lists since the mid-90s, I have received hate e-mails. I don’t pass them to the FBI. They are not a serious threat. Conversely, when you are talking about the Muslim community, the FBI is a greater threat than anonymous fundies. Come on now.)
It’s hard to explain here but there is an interesting take on it at Ihsan http://ihsan-net.blogspot.com by a pretty middle of the road liberal Australian Muslim guy named Irfan who writes an article discussing this “help help I am being repressed” syndrome on the part of one of these type of people, Tarek Fateh, who is a very old acquaintance of mine who lives in Toronto.
URL: http://ihsan-net.blogspot.com/2006/10/tarek-for-gods-sake-stop-whingeing.html
Like other leftists, Muslim progressives, or whatever you want to call them, tend to have splits and mini splits and argue amongst themselves and it is very detrimental and frustrating; but when there’s a war in Iraq and Muslims being killed in the service of imperialism it can get pretty frustrating when people like Irshad Manji (and I don’t think Asra Nomani is quite as awful as her but she has a similar effect) sort of serve the purpose of the “good Muslim” that the empire can use to its own benefit.
I am very tired of it and frankly the Aqoul people’s metaphor of the Muslim soccer moms is always there; the majority of Muslims – myself included and I am a pretty radical leftist feminist – are not going to react well to reformists who seem primarily interested in demonizing the entire religion and its fundamentals while serving the interests of an imperialist state.
Regarding the male gaze, there is a Quranic verse or a Prophetic saying (forget which – I believe it’s a verse) counseling both male and female (particularly male) to serve modesty through “lowering the gaze” – this advice is supposed to be practiced regardless of what the object of your gaze is wearing. So there is a lot of hypocrisy in the Muslim world where women are constantly being told to dress modestly as if there is no onus on men to behave decently.
It’s in the Bible too.
Matt: 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
I suppose I can understand that.
Me:
Ampersand:
Richard Jeffrey Newman:
What if I wrote “Even though they’re free to wear more or less what they like, they’re still being oppressed by men”? That’s consistent with what I wrote, isn’t it? And as far as I can see, consistent with what you wrote. But it’s quite different from Amp’s (and your) interpretation of what I wrote.
Let’s swap that around a bit.
I’m not trolling. I genuinely do regard feminist arguments about the “male gaze” to be more or less functionally equivalent to similar arguments about female dress. Both looking and dressing are functional acts. Both are also social expressions. Both are the responsibility of their respective agents. To the extent that one set of arguments is valid, so is the other. To the extent that one set of arguments is oppressive or objectionable, so is the other.
Let’s do a similar reversal of some of your other remarks in this thread.
Comment #20:
And Comment #5:
A perfect reversal isn’t always possible given that there is no true reversal of “patriarchy” as it is (prejudicially) constructed by feminists. What strikes me about these reversals, however imperfect, is how similar they are to the actual arguments put forward by the “she’s a slut; just look at what she’s wearing” brigade – arguments which you (and I) would reject as oppressive.
In the same post, you went on to say:
I can’t reverse this as I did the others, because there’s no equivalent ‘solution’ that men who don’t want to see women can implement for themselves without intruding upon women’s freedom, but the point is that in rejecting the problematisation of women’s dress, you problematise (quite explicitly) the way men look. I agree that the problematisation of women’s clothing is oppressive and controlling. I regard the feminist response to be also oppressive and controlling. The alternative is to problematise neither of them.
Do you now understand my point?
Ampersand:
No and yes.
There’s been a lot of Media attention given to Islamic dress, recently, because of the Aisha Azmi, and Jack Straw affairs, but I think that’s very much the news du jour.
Feminist and human rights attention has focussed on the twin prongs of social restriction (employment, education, mobility, dress, for example) and violence (honour killings, widow burning, dowry murder, FGM, for example). The dress issue is in many respects the most highly visible symbol of social restriction, while murder, regardless of motivation, is the most obvious expression of violence. While these murders intersect DV to a greater or lesser degree, the specific issue of Koran-sanctioned violent “disciplining” of women by their husbands, doesn’t seem to have had much attention.
War-mongers sometimes denounce how women are treated under the regime-to-be-overthrown-today, but I think this is just bandwaggoning.
Have I missed anyone? Does that answer your question?
One of my posts – replying to Amp’s last questions addressed to me – has disappeared. Did the moderation fairy take it or has it gone AWOL?
Darren:
I think you and I will have to agree to disagree. You see the feminist framing of patriarchy as “prejudicial.” In your posts, on this thread and others, I see a wilfull refusal to see the ways in which patriarchy is, indeed, systemically, precisely what feminism says it is, and, for me, the reversals you perform on my comments demonstrate this wilfullness because they create equivalences between men and women–between men’s and women’s various social/cultural/political positions in relation to each other–that I think simply don’t exist. I say this not to try to change your mind; you have obviously thought long and hard about your position, as have I; and so I think it is better if we just agree to disagree.
For the record, however, I am not opposed to problematising the way women dress, either in terms of the hejab/veil or the relative freedom that women have in the west; nor do I disagree with you that women are, ultimately, responsible and accountable, for the choices they make in terms of the way they dress. What I disagree with is the assertion that this problematizing can take place outside the context of male heterosexual privilege as it is defined and promulgated within patriarchy. I am making this point not because I want to prolong this discussion; as I said, I think it is better that we agree to disagree. I wanted simply to respond to your assertion that I “reject[] the problematisation of women’s dress,” and that it is through this rejection that I problematise the male gaze.
May I clarify a couple of points in the hope of achieving a better understanding of our respective positions, even if agreement is not reachable?
Firstly by “problematising women’s dress”, I was referring specifically to such discourses as “dressed like a slut”, “she’s asking for it, dressed like that”, Althouse’s memorable coinage: “breastblogging”, and similar, which I reject, and presume that you do so too. Of course there are other ways to problematise dress.
Secondly I do not suggest that it is through rejecting these discourses that you problematise the male gaze. That you problematise it is independent of your rejection of these discourses.
I think it is sad that such a discussion or changes even need to be made. I mean equality of all people should be a given. unfortunantly you have selfishness in the world and there are always some who want to have no rules for themselves but have rules for others as if they are superior in all aspects of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
As for disobedience to the korans laws or disobedience to the bible by those who claim to be following them is nothing new. The bible in so called christian nations has always been misused to give an air of god ordained behavior when in fact it doesn’t do that at all.
We have god’s backing so whatever we do is okay type mentality. Well we know how stupid that is. Jesus himself said they disregard the scriptures for tradition, they made the word of God invalid due to their traditions.
of course traditions is whatever the ruling parties wanted. right or wrong. So naturally too, let’s not forget there was a time where people were so afraid of black people that they made all kinds of laws and social stigmas to keep them in check which included ideas that they were incapable of being socialized or civilised or whatever They were not allowed to educate them. What they really meant is what we need these cheap easy to control slaves so we can stay on top, stay rich and so we deny they are even humans so we can sleep at night. By using the bible they ease their conscions. Otherwise they would feel guilty and not enjoy their power and wealth as much.
Same with woman, especially in other cultures that are more of a dictatorship, They have to invent ways to keep them down so they can control them, so they can keep their slaves so don’t educated them, don’t allow them to go outside unattended by the husband or other family male member. don’t allow them to own property, and don’t allow them to make their own money. if you do make sure you get the check every week.
I think another fear is that men can’t trust themselves, they don’t feel they can control their urges, but rather than train themselves to do so, they put it on the woman to help them control themselves by getting rid of any temptation to want sex with someone they are not married too.
Like the one guy said if you throw a piece of meat out there the wolves will take it. I think he also said that if a man raped a woman who wasn’t totally covered he would get a tongue lashing her jail time.
sounds unfair to me. he should get jail time and her some sympthy as the last time I looked most men are usually physically stronger and even if a woman fights back it is usually not enough to stop the attack.
Oppression or unequal laws and customs tells me they are afraid, not strong. strong people are not afraid of competitons or temptations. they know themselves well enough not to put themselves into bad situation (Men or woman). A strong man or woman doesn’t not have to prove anything or to have to hold someone down to avoid any challenges to his confidence.
They don’t have to put others down, deny them the same rights they have to show how strong they are.
RR