Religion’s role in gender discrimination?

[quisquose]

Nine years ago a 13-year-old boy was falsely accused of having sex with a woman from another village in Pakistan. To punish the boy, the village "elders", using the "eye for an eye" principles of Sharia Law decided that his sister, Mukhtaran Mai, should be gang-raped, and so she was.

 

14 men were accused of carrying out the “sentence.” Only one has been found guilty.

 

Mukhtaran Mai has won international acclaim for her bravery in a deeply chauvinistic society, but now she fears for her safety.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/21/pakistan-gang-rape-mukhtaran-mai

 

This sort of misogynistic travesty of human rights can only happen in societies where women are viewed as property. Religion helps promote that view.

[Grahame]

Nine years ago a 13-year-old boy was falsely accused of having sex with a woman from another village in Pakistan. To punish the boy, the village "elders", using the "eye for an eye" principles of Sharia Law decided that his sister, Mukhtaran Mai, should be gang-raped, and so she was.

 

14 men were accused of carrying out the “sentence.” Only one has been found guilty.

 

Mukhtaran Mai has won international acclaim for her bravery in a deeply chauvinistic society, but now she fears for her safety.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/21/pakistan-gang-rape-mukhtaran-mai

 

This sort of misogynistic travesty of human rights can only happen in societies where women are viewed as property. Religion helps promote that view.

 

A boy commits a crime so they rape his sister. It sounds like an excuse for gang rape to me.

 

[sccsux]

Religion helps promote that view.

 

I doubt whether Buddhists would agree, or most pagans. But it is 100% true of any (and all) of the Abrahamic flavours of religion.

[sccsux]

A boy commits a crime so they rape his sister. It sounds like an excuse for gang rape to me.

 

That was a sneaky edit there (for someone who has made such grand claims as "I never edit my posts").

[Gormenghast]

See #270

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last edited by Grahame; Yesterday at 22:14.

 

[quisquose]

Just thought I'd mention this here.

 

Anyway, just been listening to some Pakistani government person on the radio, trying to explain why Osama Bin Laden's mansion went unnoticed despite the 18ft walls and barbed wire. His reply ... drum roll ...

 

"Well high walls are not unusual in Pakistan, because of our faith we like to keep our women hidden from view".

 

[quisquose]

I was listening to R4 this morning, and there was an article about some guidelines issued by the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board (MINAB) calling for women to have a greater role in the running of UK mosques, and the inevitable criticisms these guidelines had received.

 

Quite frankly, some of the opinions I heard from the men in that report about the role of women, and why they shouldn't be allowed in a mosque, disgusted me.

 

Let me lay some cards on the table here. Although I might be a "new" a'theist, I'm not anti'theist or even anti'religious. If there's anything that unites most a'theists I know, it's the individual rights of people to do what they want as long as they don't cause harm to others.

 

Most a'theists I know will stand in unity alongside those that want practice their religion, and from the evidence of non-secular countries probably with even more passion than people of other religions. But if religions want to exempt themselves from secular values, if they want to discriminate against women, gays, infidel, then we will argue back with anti'religious comments. If religions want political power, then we will be anti'religious.

 

If a'theists have become too "shrill" recently, then it's only a response to the increasing efforts of religious people to tell other people what they can do, from birth to death.

 

Anyway, back to this story:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13519186

 

Salim Mulla (male) said: "Muslim women are supposed to cover themselves and practically it's not possible and women themselves don't want to be part of management committees."

 

Mohammed Nadeem (male) said: "I don't think women should be allowed when they're not even allowed to enter mosques. They should be at home."

 

Meanwhile, back in the real world ...

 

Raeesa (female) said: "Women should have more power, they should be entitled to do what men do. Also sermons should be translated into English so that young people can understand them."

 

Riz (female) said: "Women should have a say, they don't have to necessarily sit next to men but they should be heard."

 

Look guys, if you're going to continue to claim that your god gives you special permission to treat women as 2nd class citizens, then you are going to have to put up with the rest of us that have dragged ourselves into the 21st Century informing you that your magic man does not exist and your views are intolerant.

 

[andikay]

I was listening to R4 this morning, and there was an article about some guidelines issued by the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board (MINAB) calling for women to have a greater role in the running of UK mosques, and the inevitable criticisms these guidelines had received.

 

Quite frankly, some of the opinions I heard from the men in that report about the role of women, and why they shouldn't be allowed in a mosque, disgusted me.

 

Let me lay some cards on the table here. Although I might be a "new" a'theist, I'm not anti'theist or even anti'religious. If there's anything that unites most a'theists I know, it's the individual rights of people to do what they want as long as they don't cause harm to others.

 

Most a'theists I know will stand in unity alongside those that want practice their religion, and from the evidence of non-secular countries probably with even more passion than people of other religions. But if religions want to exempt themselves from secular values, if they want to discriminate against women, gays, infidel, then we will argue back with anti'religious comments. If religions want political power, then we will be anti'religious.

 

If a'theists have become too "shrill" recently, then it's only a response to the increasing efforts of religious people to tell other people what they can do, from birth to death.

 

Anyway, back to this story:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13519186

 

Salim Mulla (male) said: "Muslim women are supposed to cover themselves and practically it's not possible and women themselves don't want to be part of management committees."

 

Mohammed Nadeem (male) said: "I don't think women should be allowed when they're not even allowed to enter mosques. They should be at home."

 

Meanwhile, back in the real world ...

 

Raeesa (female) said: "Women should have more power, they should be entitled to do what men do. Also sermons should be translated into English so that young people can understand them."

 

Riz (female) said: "Women should have a say, they don't have to necessarily sit next to men but they should be heard."

 

Look guys, if you're going to continue to claim that your god gives you special permission to treat women as 2nd class citizens, then you are going to have to put up with the rest of us that have dragged ourselves into the 21st Century informing you that your magic man does not exist and your views are intolerant.

 

 

 

The problem with religions changing the way they do things to fit in with modern times, (woman’s rights, guy rights, ect) implies the laws of the religions were mans invention and not Gods.

If God did exist would it say women can’t be priests and then 2000 years later say now they can be priests, would God say it’s wrong to be guy and then 2000 years later say now it’s OK?

I don’t see how a religion can adapt to modern times without further proving that God doesn’t exist.

[Suffragette1]

I was listening to R4 this morning, and there was an article about some guidelines issued by the Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board (MINAB) calling for women to have a greater role in the running of UK mosques, and the inevitable criticisms these guidelines had received.

 

Quite frankly, some of the opinions I heard from the men in that report about the role of women, and why they shouldn't be allowed in a mosque, disgusted me.

 

Let me lay some cards on the table here. Although I might be a "new" a'theist, I'm not anti'theist or even anti'religious. If there's anything that unites most a'theists I know, it's the individual rights of people to do what they want as long as they don't cause harm to others.

 

Most a'theists I know will stand in unity alongside those that want practice their religion, and from the evidence of non-secular countries probably with even more passion than people of other religions. But if religions want to exempt themselves from secular values, if they want to discriminate against women, gays, infidel, then we will argue back with anti'religious comments. If religions want political power, then we will be anti'religious.

 

If a'theists have become too "shrill" recently, then it's only a response to the increasing efforts of religious people to tell other people what they can do, from birth to death.

 

Anyway, back to this story:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13519186

 

Salim Mulla (male) said: "Muslim women are supposed to cover themselves and practically it's not possible and women themselves don't want to be part of management committees."

 

Mohammed Nadeem (male) said: "I don't think women should be allowed when they're not even allowed to enter mosques. They should be at home."

 

Meanwhile, back in the real world ...

 

Raeesa (female) said: "Women should have more power, they should be entitled to do what men do. Also sermons should be translated into English so that young people can understand them."

 

Riz (female) said: "Women should have a say, they don't have to necessarily sit next to men but they should be heard."

 

Look guys, if you're going to continue to claim that your god gives you special permission to treat women as 2nd class citizens, then you are going to have to put up with the rest of us that have dragged ourselves into the 21st Century informing you that your magic man does not exist and your views are intolerant.

 

 

I share your views and find this abhorrent. Why is it do often denied by certain quarters, that women are treated as inferior beings in many Islamic communities when there is so much evidence to support the view that not only are women infantalised but they do not have equality?

 

The Catholic Church and its continuing rejection of the ordination of women is almost as bad, although at least women are allowed in church alonsgide their male counterparts and can worship in the same space.

 

If there's anything that unites most a'theists I know, it's the individual rights of people to do what they want as long as they don't cause harm to others.

 

Absolutely, as a general rule, I follow the John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle.

[quisquose]

Absolutely, as a general rule, I follow the John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle.

 

Yep.

 

Anyway, hello Suffragette1, not chatted in a while. You might be interested in this article by Rebecca Watson (who I've met) on the secular movement's position on women's rights, and how the religious right in the US is determined to restrict them:

 

http://skepchick.org/2011/05/the-secular-movements-position-on-womens-rights/

 

Right now, the well-funded Religious Right lobby is working hard to convince our politicians to take away women’s rights based on nothing more than Biblical doctrine. Their agenda includes three major points:

 

Instituting abstinence-only education

Preventing all access to contraception

Making abortion illegal

 

<snip>

 

And the crazy thing is, they're succeeding. In the first quarter of this year, 49 state legislatures introduced 916 bills that restricted reproductive rights. Here are a few that have passed, like in Texas, where women must have an invasive ultrasound that they either have to look at or have described to them in detail by a doctor before getting their abortion. Or South Dakota, where there’s now a 72-hour waiting period, and women must get counseling at an anti-choice pregnancy crisis center before obtaining an abortion. No centers applied to be on the official list, so that women would have no way to fulfill the requirements to have an abortion.

 

Applying John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle; If you're a woman, and you want to wear a sack-cloth, if you want to stay at home and be subservient to men, then you absolutely can. However, if you're a man, or another woman, you don't get to demand that women act in this way.