woman rights in Islam

[Violet]

Ah I see Sae you're talking theoretically/ outside cultural reference. Well of course that's where your rules apply. I was talking about the real world over there >>

Primarily as a detriment yet primarily not I'd wager. I'm with you then.

Indeed, as culture varies: it seems like a poor basis for laws to be built off of See, basing laws off of wether or not people wear hats is just completely ridiculous Quite frankly, so is arresting people because they opted to not give the box artwork. I am talking about the real world (As far as I can see)... and in the real world: it is ridiculous to ban a box of cereal from hitting the shelves simply because you disagree with the box art (or lack of it). I admit that I cannot fathom how a society could even begin to think of the body as something to be covered up... I am of the mind that it should be exhibited in artistic fashion (Except in the face of environmental effects, which environmental suits are also artwork [despite there being a practical use in wearing them]).

Well, I personally see it as a technological detriment (among a few others)... But I can see how it is often benign... and even occasionally good My most violent disagreement with it is its influence upon society... if it was just something that most people didn't care about (and if people didn't base their lives off of it): then I would easily live with it. A shame religion usually isn't like that

(Edit: I read and responded in less than a minute earlier [I only got on a bank's wifi for the time it took them to go through the drive through], so now that I had time to say something more, I have )

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

"Indeed, as culture varies: it seems like a poor basis for laws to be built off of'


Hold the phone there Jillaroo*. Seeing as you're so big on definitions,perhaps you might like to begin by defining what you mean by 'culture'.

Then perhaps provide a broad outline of non cultural agents for the creation of custom,common law and statute law.


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


*

In the Australian lexicon, stockman is the traditional name given to a person who looks after the livestock on a large property known as a station, which is owned by a grazier or a grazing company. They may also be the persons employed at abattoirs, feedlots, on livestock export ships or with stock and station agencies.

Station employees, including stockmen, who work at a number of different occupations within their work, are known as station hands. Trainee station managers are known as jackaroos (female trainee managers are known as jillaroos). Girls are now popular for stock work on many properties as they have been acknowledged as having a natural affinity for the handling of livestock.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jillaroo

[Violet]

culture |ˈkəl ch ər|
noun
1 the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively : 20th century popular culture.
• a refined understanding or appreciation of this : men of culture.
• the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group : Caribbean culture | people from many different cultures.
• [with adj. ] the attitudes and behavior characteristic of a particular social group : the emerging drug culture.

That's how I was using the word.

I think that laws should be based on just morals, logical values, and should always be very open to possible exception or reinterpretation. Of course, I also disagree with many currently (and past) established court systems... and I strongly disagree with laws based off of culture (Like those you see directed at women in Islamic countries?).

And a hat law like: we must all wear tall aluminum foil hats in public!
Is no less ridiculous than
A clothes law like: we must all wear clothes in public!

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

That's how I was using the word.

Too narrow. One of my Anthropology professors defined 'culture' as "that which is taken for granted"

-Begin with say language and numerals,language determines what thoughts may be expressed,numerals determine the pace and direction of mathematics; EG compare Roman numerals with the Indian numerals we use today.-compare both with the binary language use by computers.

I think that laws should be based on just morals.

Morality is a cultural construct as is the concept of justice, and both always reflect the society which invents them.

and should always be very open to possible exception or reinterpretation

We have two broad kinds of law: Common law (precedent.set by the judiciary) and statute law(passed by the legislature. In a free society,[technically] all laws are subject to constant scrutiny and reinterpretation.(The US Constitution is an excellent example)

The short answer is law/justice are already culture based,as indeed are all voluntary human actions. consistent objectivity is absent in human behaviour. Science is of course objective,but Scientists are not always.


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

Common law is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals (called case law), rather than through legislative statutes or executive action, and to corresponding legal systems that rely on precedential case law.

The body of precedent is called "common law" and it binds future decisions. In future cases, when parties disagree on what the law is, an idealized common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (this principle is known as stare decisis). If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases (called a "matter of first impression"), judges have the authority and duty to make law by creating precedent.[1] Thereafter, the new decision becomes precedent, and will bind future courts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

Statutory law or statute law is written law (as opposed to oral or customary law) set down by a legislature (as opposed to regulatory law promulgated by the executive branch or common law of the judiciary). Statutes are enacted in response to a perceived need to clarify the functioning of government, improve civil order, to codify existing law, or for an individual or company to obtain special treatment. Examples of statutory law comprehend traditional civil law and modern civil code systems in contrast to common law.

Statutes may originate with national, state legislatures or local municipalities. Statutes of lower jurisdictions are subordinate to the law of higher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_law

[The Revivor]

i just hate it when Women in Islam try to defend themselves and say they are not oppressed and say that the WEST is oppressing them! i do believe the govt should piss off and let the muslim women wear whatever, but its a fact they MAY be happy wearing the Niqab because they THINK they are pleasing some god but other than that they are not truly happy!

[fr0d0]

@Sae: To call religion on its prudishness is to be ignorant and ill informed. So you object to a societies rules. You won't be the first. We aren't talking rulings on cosmetic adornment, but on commonly agreed decency... be that complete nudity or covering the sexual organs. Popular culture makes a business of teasing those rules. Pushing the boundaries of societal defined decency. What a relief it would be to be rid of that particular gravy train. But then what would teenagers have then to rebel against? Better to have something so harmless I guess.

Then onto Islamic dress codes. Isn't hiding and not fully revealing romantic? Women use this tactic, is doesn't have to be seen as oppressive. All intelligent & rational followers I've spoken to prescribe to this viewpoint. So they made it part of their societies rulings. Aren't they just different to us? Are we so perfect?

[Dotard]

I'm jumping in late to the conversation but I have to respond to the comments made here. .

Sae's response, immediately following your post, spoke my mind. To respond would be to repeat her points.

So I will;

First off, i agree with the fact that nobody is EVER asking to be raped... but that was not the point.

How a person dresses does not detract from their being a person, and if they have a sex: there is potential for sexual abuse. If a substance can be used, there arises the potential for abuse. Money :: Woman :: Rope :: Kangaroo :: Notebook :: Nuclear Bomb :: Road Signs :: Piano :: Rotting Fish Guts :: Knowledge --> All substances that can be used, and usually that means they can be abused.

It isn't so much 'asking to be raped'... as it is presenting oneself a likelier and easier to access target. It is the same with waving around your money... you are not asking for it to be stolen... but you are placing attention upon the money... and thus making a robbery more likely.

That is what I meant by "the way it is", and that it is sadly so. You are right that it isn't my fault my money was stolen because I was waving it around in people's faces... but doing so certainly could have contributed to the occurrence having happened. It is always the rapist's/murderer's/theif's/whatever's fault that a substance was abused or infringed upon... and that is precisely why we need to be able to protect that which we possess. In this particular 'letching' example if that means not wearing that super-low cut show-the-titties top then that's what you have to do.

You state 'it's fun to dress sexy', well, it's "fun" to wave my slag money around in poor people's faces. It (fun) doesn't remove your responsibility to protect what's yours including hiding it and not waving it around in the faces of those who desire it, cannot obtain it through legitimate means and have no problem forcefully removing it from your possesion.

Possession is the law And you are right to state that it is absurd that a person was asking for the removal or abuse of something simply by possessing it

[chatpilot]

What all of you are referring to is called machismo in Spanish countries and it's wrong. It's about how much dominance a man can have over a woman. In my opinion a man who feels that he needs to scare a woman into obeying him is nothing more than a coward and should be executed on sight. Regardless of what the bible teaches or the Koran women are equal to men in every way and should be treated as such.

My sister dated a man from Bangladesh and when she visited his country she had to wear the traditional dress and always look down. She went to the movies with him and was segregated until the start of the film. The men came into a separate room and nodded their heads at their women to come with them like they were animals. Any mistreatment of women in my view is disgusting and the men that do it should be shot on sight.

[Violet]

Haha! ^_^ I just got quoted (With a couple of pronoun changes and an added sentence or two )

Anyway, I used the word 'culture' with that 'narrow' meaning in mind, Padriac I essentially agree with all your points, I just used the 'wrong word' to describe what laws should not be based off of (And please remember that I typed up the initial bit (which included my using 'culture' in such a way) in less than a minute)

@Sae: To call religion on its prudishness is to be ignorant and ill informed. So you object to a societies rules. You won't be the first. We aren't talking rulings on cosmetic adornment, but on commonly agreed decency... be that complete nudity or covering the sexual organs. Popular culture makes a business of teasing those rules. Pushing the boundaries of societal defined decency. What a relief it would be to be rid of that particular gravy train. But then what would teenagers have then to rebel against? Better to have something so harmless I guess.

Commonly agreed 'decency?' about cosmetic adornment, you mean? I do not see how the sexual organs are any less distasteful than the face, and I don't think the skin of the body (nor its hair, nor its concaves and convexes) are really any more disgusting.

What do I care about popular culture teasing societal rules? The only rules I adhere to are my own, and those which I must temporarily follow (though not because I agree with them). If something is not right by me... I do not just live with it: I identify that which is not 'right', try to understand what makes it not right (if anything), and modify accordingly to make it 'right' (or even just more 'right'). Society is not something that formed before individual beliefs... individual beliefs got together, decided on a set of beliefs that were generally accepted, and that formed the societal belief. I deny many of these established rights, as I have formed my own beliefs from the ground up... and even the ground did I have to formulate.

A teenager wouldn't rebel if they didn't feel they had something that they needed to rebel against. Understand... that the parents are dealing with a being that will soon (or perhaps already has) reached the status of being an adult. The parent needs to understand that they should no longer be trying to protect and train the teenager to fight for their existence in the world... the parent needs to be equipping and outfitting them for life's 'battleground'. I enjoy psychology

i just hate it when Women in Islam try to defend themselves and say they are not oppressed and say that the WEST is oppressing them! i do believe the govt should piss off and let the muslim women wear whatever, but its a fact they MAY be happy wearing the Niqab because they THINK they are pleasing some god but other than that they are not truly happy!

Indeed... and all the more so indeed to what chatpilot said.

Then onto Islamic dress codes. Isn't hiding and not fully revealing romantic? Women use this tactic, is doesn't have to be seen as oppressive. All intelligent & rational followers I've spoken to prescribe to this viewpoint. So they made it part of their societies rulings. Aren't they just different to us? Are we so perfect?

No, it is not done for romance purposes... and even if it was: It is not something they change out of soon afterward (see the vile corset?). I take it that if a society stones a woman to death because she got raped... that you think they are 'right' simply because they are a society?

[chatpilot]

Stupid quote by chatpilot

Dressing like a ninja does not make you a ninja