Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
2 pointsMany feminist thinkers have been against the traditional gender roles, because they limit women to the domestic sphere, thereby having less economic and political influence and independence in society. Gilman and Goldman are key thinkers that argued for the economic emancipation of women, breaking out of the private sphere of unpaid childcare and housework. Gayle Rubin has also encouraged female economic independence so that they would not need to rely on male domination in heterosexual marriages. So yes, practically speaking, second wave feminists encouraged women to finish their education and attain economic independence before thinking about marrying. The problem today is that economic independence takes a long time to attain (a bachelor of arts won't get you far), and even then, most households cannot subsist on one income alone. Again, I can understand the reasons for female economic independence, but it comes with several costs: delaying marriage, higher chance of fornication and casual relationships, having less family time during marriage, etc. In Islamic fiqh, you can come to a middle ground. Women can pursue a career, or be paid for their housework and rearing, but marriage and having children remains an early priority. Many third wave feminists are against the institution of marriage altogether, or large aspects of it. Even a movement like Black Lives Matter, which was founded by feminists and LGBT activists, does not mention "fathers" on their website, and see heterosexual and nuclear families as an arm of white supremacy. More consumers, more bank accounts, more workers (including more competition for the same jobs, which lowers wages), longer open hours, more industries. It's a match made in heaven. And what is women's emancipation? First, second, and third wave feminists have different definitions and goals, but all three reek of utopianism. Well there were many second wave feminists that criticized the objectification of women in pornography, for example, but third wave feminism - which is pretty much feminism's logical conclusion - has promoted legalizing prostitution, sl.ut walks, naked protests, etc. The agenda to get women to wear less and absolve them of all shame and blame plays right into the hands of misogynists and players.
1 pointI'm not going to deal with " Islam and Feminism". King said a lot of what I would have anyway. I come from a perfectly good tribe whose traditional " gender roles" never depended on " western feminism" or " eastern Abrahamic religions" for anything anyway and few of our families, thank God, could be described as " nuclear". Multigenerational is the norm.. A lot of the work was done by both genders since much of the food supply was plant and fish based. Both genders can do that just fine. Women were /are leaders here,no problem. So were /are men. Who got the job ....who was/is the best at it according to the community. Still that way. Works fine. In some other tribes, the Chiefs are all male, but the women , the Clan Mothers, choose them...and can depose them. That works fine too. I will say the " neutral " articles ( those not associated with Muslim or conservative Christian websites...where one would expect only authors who agree with a certain position would post...kind of like the Salafi ones I am being directed to to show me why my daughter has made the mistake of her life) ,when you read them in full, do not seem to bear out the conclusions some folks seem to be making here. Just because a female or male brain are not the same size or the connections are different says nothing about abilities or intelligences and those articles are pretty clear on that. They are also clear as to the parts that societies play in men and women's " roles" ....which is not related to their brains or abilities. Here is a direct excerpt from the " truck" article: "Previous studies have reported differences between males and females in toy choice; that is, girls generally favor toys such as soft dolls, whereas boys generally favor construction and transportation toys (e.g., Connor and Serbin, 1977; Liss, 1981; Pasterski et al., 2005; Roopnarine, 1986). We believe that this description of the findings fails to highlight another important and intriguing “within-sex” difference in toy preference, which is wonderfully illustrated in Hassett et al. (2008). As shown in their Fig. 1, when play time with toys is examined in human children (Berenbaum and Hines,1992) and rhesus macaques of all ages, males spend significantly more of their play time with the “male” toy(s) than with the female toy(s), while females spend about equal times with “male” and “female” toys. This is true both for frequency of interactions and in time spent playing (Hassett et al., 2008). " (It appears females can swing both ways. Perhaps it is only the males who are "deficient"?.) As well, PISA has found women's abilities in math, science, etc. to be closely related to gender-parity. The reason for this is probably obvious. Whether it has anything to do with " Islam" is up to you. In any " patriarchal" society where a woman's ability to get an education is ruled by a male who may or may not wish it, it is probably due to access,not her intelligence or ability. Findings: • Boys do better in only about ½ of the OECD nations. For nearly all the other countries, there were no significant sex differences. In Iceland, girls outshine boys significantly. They also state that , in all nations taking the test globally,although boys on average are better in math, girls are better in reading and both genders do about the same on science. programme for International Student Assessment. There is an interesting article in Forbes on the STEM issue: http://www.forbes.com/sites/work-in-progress/2012/06/20/stem-fields-and-the-gender-gap-where-are-the-women/#32232e8f33a9 IMHO, There is no scientific reason to limit either gender in anything from toys to studies or to presume abilities. I have never found it to be true in teaching. In fact, the honor students in the upper grades tended towards the females. The math and science requirements were the same for both genders. If you want to say to your daughter that a good woman stays in the house and tends to her kids....do that. If you want to say to your daughter, as I do, that she must be prepared to lead an entire tribe of people into a future that may include multiple legal and possibly physical conflicts with the dominant culture...do that. Just admit it has nothing to do with her brain. Whether the problem is Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, culture, society, unfair gender roles ,or bad parenting...women are not being held back by brain formation, lack of ability ,or temperament in relation to males. (To remove the gender issue: My own ethnicity ( and others as well) is underrepresented proportionally in the sciences to this day. Do you folks think this the result of some inborn racial inability or do you think it could be due to the fact that up until my own high school career native kids were routinely tracked off into non-college prep courses because they were considered fit only for manual labor or domestic work? )
1 pointI am a bit confused, did you write this? Since when does feminism (whatever your definition is) promote climbing the corporate ladder? And since when does capitalism promote feminism? You can make a much stronger argument that capitalism is by definition against women's emancipation and promotes involuntary servitude. Again, feminism has become a loaded term, the women's movement has a rich and complex history. In general, it is about women's emancipation, and in general you should stick to this general definition. When you decide to offer criticism you should be more specific, not just in your criticisms but the specific aspects of the highly varied feminist movement you are addressing. I am assuming this is the least of what you would expect from those who criticize patriarchal systems or organized religion. Unfortunately like it is with Islam these days, only the loud and obnoxious characters tend to hog the spotlight. There have been and are countless prominent feminist intellectuals that would be dead set against half the things you say feminism strives to achieve.