Of Feminism and Feminist Movements

[Waziri]

I am puting up another topic 4 discussion again though ppl like Dave Hill may conclude that Waziri is another expert in bringing up diversionary topics. ;)

I feel this is another topic that will bring up another series of fights among the forumnites if it got the previledge of your attentions, because of what I simply see as clash of civilisations.

No My dear Forumnites, do not think I will just succumb like that. No. I will have to be convinced first.

My dear forumnites no name calling pls. We are all humanbeings not fundamentalists or Klan's men. So let us do it if we are doing it: dispassionately.

Okay, the ground is cleared..... Abumujahid, Lionger, Amin, Mr. Fulcher, Mr David, al-Hamza, Ummita.... let you cast the first stone.  

[Waziri]

What comes below is another opinion from American friend. i think it can serve as an anchor to this debate. Happy reading.

Burka Vs Bikini - The Debauchery Of American Womanhood
Uploaded 27 Sep 2002

On my wall, I have a picture of a Muslim woman shrouded in a burka. Beside it is a picture of an American beauty contestant, wearing nothing but a bikini. One woman is totally hidden from the public; the other is totally exposed. These two extremes say a great deal about the clash of so-called "civilizations."

The role of woman is at the heart of any culture. Apart from stealing Arab oil, the impending war in the Middle East is about stripping Arabs of their religion and culture, exchanging the burka for a bikini.

I am not an expert on the condition of Muslim women and I love feminine beauty too much to advocate the burka here. But I am defending some of the values that the burka represents for me. For me, the burka represents a woman's consecration to her husband and family. Only they see her. It affirms the privacy, exclusivity and importance of the domestic sphere.

The Muslim woman's focus is her home, the "nest" where her children are born and reared. She is the "home" maker, the taproot that sustains the spiritual life of the family, nurturing and training her children, providing refuge and support to her husband.

In contrast, the bikinied American beauty queen struts practically naked in front of millions on TV. A feminist, she belongs to herself. In practice, paradoxically, she is public property. She belongs to no one and everyone. She shops her body to the highest bidder. She is auctioning herself all of the time. In America, the cultural measure of a woman's value is her sex appeal. (As this asset depreciates quickly, she is neurotically obsessed with appearance and plagued by weight problems.)

As an adolescent, her role model is Britney Spears, a singer whose act approximates a strip tease. From Britney, she learns that she will be loved only if she gives sex. Thus, she learns to "hook up" rather than to demand patient courtship and true love. As a result, dozens of males know her before her husband does. She loses her innocence, which is a part of her charm. She becomes hardened and calculating. Unable to love, she is unfit to receive her husband's seed.

The feminine personality is founded on the emotional relationship between mother and baby. It is based on nurturing and self-sacrifice. Masculine nature is founded on the relationship between hunter and prey. It is based on aggression and reason.

Feminism teaches woman that feminine nature has resulted in "oppression" and that she should convert to male behavior instead. The result: a confused and aggressive woman with a large chip on her shoulder, unfit to become a wife or mother.

This, of course, is the goal of the social engineers at the NWO: undermine sexual identity and destroy the family, create social and personal dysfunction, and reduce population. (See http://www.inoohr.org/worldpopulationcontrolpromote.htm) In the "brave new world," women are not supposed to be nest makers, or progenitors of the race. They are meant to be neutered autonomous creatures that indulge in sex for physical pleasure, not for love or procreation.

At his press conference on Sunday, Donald Rumsfeld said that Iranian women and youth were restive under the rule of the Mullahs. He implied that the US would soon liberate them. To Britney Spears? To low-rise "see-my-thong" pants? To the mutual masturbation that passes for sexuality in America?

Parenthood is the pinnacle of human development. It is the stage when we finally graduate from self-indulgence and become God's surrogates: creating and nurturing new life. The New World Order does not want us to reach this level of maturity. Pornography is the replacement for marriage. We are to remain stunted: single, sex-starved and self-obsessed. We are not meant to have a permanent "private" life. We are to remain lonely and isolated, dependent on consumer products for our identity, in a state of perpetual courtship.

This is especially destructive for woman. Her sexual attraction is a function of her fertility. As fertility declines, so does her sex appeal. If a woman devotes her prime years to becoming "independent," she is not likely to find a permanent mate.

Her long-term personal fulfillment and happiness lies in making marriage and family her first priority. Feminism is another cruel New World Order hoax that has debauched American women and despoiled Western civilization. It has ruined millions of lives and represents a lethal threat to Islam.

I am not advocating the burka but rather some of the values that it represents, specifically a woman's consecration to her future husband and family, and the modesty and dignity this entails. The burka and the bikini represent two extremes. The answer lies somewhere in the middle.

Source:   Freelance

[Bashir]

marriage n kids r overrated.

[Waziri]

marriage n kids r overrated.

Lol Bash, why not elaborate...? though I got the essense of the comment but I think you should go ahead and elaborate more. You know you are communicating a message and ppl are learning. You run the risk of being misrepresented or misinterpered. Elaborate, pls, even if it is for the sake of our brotherhood.

[Jack_Fulcher]

Mr. Waziri,

I find this entire discussion right out of 19th century America.  The author pines for the days when women stayed at home, "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen."  The sole purpose of a woman was to bear children and feed the family.  The only goals for the woman had to do with family, not career.  Suppose the woman is not interested in raising a family?  Suppose the woman wants to cure cancer, go to the moon, or develop a new field of mathematics?  This author might say, well that's OK, but "the Muslim woman's focus is her home, the "nest...""  In other words, she can do what she wants as an avocation, but she isn't really fulfilled until she has children and a family.

I know that this stereotype is not true, from my own knowledge of Muslim friends.  The smart women want to do something with their lives, make a difference, contribute to the progress of the world.  They felt trapped in their homeland, and are glad to come to a country where they are valued for their intelligence, not their childrearing.  The author you quote keeps referring to the sexuality, which is one source of power for women.  However, their intelligence is another source, and they are happy to be able to exercise it.  I think that the author is strongly against the exercise of these powers by women, and wants the world dominated by men just like in "the good old days."  If the woman has to cover her body, minimizing her sexual power, and must stay at home and not exercise her intelligence in the business or academic worlds, and cannot leave the house without a male relative, and cannot drive (in some countries), her potential power is severely restricted.

It sounds to me like this guy is simply afraid of powerful women.  There is no better way to exercise power over someone than to impose arbitrary and restrictive rules on them.  Why is it that men are not similarly restricted in their dress in Muslim societies?  If women are attractive to men, then men can also be attractive to women.  If this is so, why is it that they are allowed to go out of the house with their handsome faces exposed?  Why are they not required to cover those strong, sexy arms?  I have even seen Muslim men without their shirts.  Especially if the man is married, is this immodesty not dangerous and does it not tempt women?

Of course this attitude is unheard of, and such restrictions on men are not seriously considered among Muslims.  This is because men have the power in Muslim society, and they impose this power on the women.

Of course feminism, like all movements for change in the world, has had some silly moments and absurd dogmas.  To suggest, for instance, as some have said, that all differences between men and women can be erased by the feminist movement is ridiculous.  Or the suggestion that all women must have careers, which is absurd.  The important thing is that women should have the freedom to choose.  If they want to have power through their sexuality, or through their brains, or through their families, it should be their choice.

Bye for now.  Jack

[Waziri]

Mr. Waziri,

I find this entire discussion right out of 19th century America. ?

Get the essence of his thesis Jack, at every level of objectivity the writer seems to know what he is doing: A complete 21st century man. Forget about whether he is from 19th century or not. Strike at the heart of his argument first and see if you could demolish his thesis.

Jack, this man did not say women should go back to their homes and stop being carrier women as you implied. If you thought he said it then we will conviniently ask you where?

Rationalise Jack, no emotions or sentiments. Develop the other aspect of your critique objectively.

my peace

[Bashir]

let me put on my flak jacket n get into my concrete bunker first.

i think d most succesful ppl r those who sove their problems msot efficiently. smart ppl r those who keep their worries at a minimum. it is ppl who cause problems. now, how can i in my right mind help increase d problems in d world. cos that is basically what childbearing is. a married person has to contend not only with his/her happiness but also that of his spouse n kids at d minimum. i have never seen a marriage i envied. whenever i see a wedding, i feel pity for the couple. there goes peace of mind n freedom i think.

[Waziri]

Bash,

as long as you stay in your bunker there is no problem, you can continue to be without a wife. But I hope you will not be doing a little bunkering down there.... Anyway AbuMujahid and others may have some "crufixion" to add for you.

Marriage in Islam is not neccessary but procreation must neccesarily come through legitimate relationships__Marriage in your words.

[Gimbiya]

Wow,
it's funny how this thread is about feminism but not one female have said anything. I think they just want to see how far you guys will take it to. I wanted to say something but I'm here trying to keep my fingers away from the keyboard

-- Gimbiya

[Eskimo]

?The important thing is that women should have the freedom to choose. ?If they want to have power through their sexuality, or through their brains, or through their families, it should be their choice.

Yes..but dont you think sexuality and families means the same thing unless you are like Bashir...ooph sorry you are an american.

[Bashir]

waziri, y is legitimate procreation necessary? if d aim is to perpetuate d species then even cloning wd serve.

[Waziri]

Bash,

cloning cannot serve, if you read Fukuyama recently you would have seen how he argued it out . cloned humanbeings are not truly humanbeings, they do not have very good relationship with nature, they do not have emotions like we have. they do not feel responsible to any thing or anybody. In short they are robots in human flesh.

Ah! Gimbiya! please say something now! the highest is for one to say you are wrong :-/

[Baruti M. Kamau]

I'm studying this thread for a lead article on Brutiwa News Service.  However I can't complete the article with a balance view unless there is some input from women lurkers and posters.

[Bashir]

Bash,

cloned humanbeings are not truly humanbeings, they do not have very good relationship with nature, they do not have emotions like we have.
:-/

1. how many clones does fukuyama know for him to say they have no emotions? dont emotions emanate from d brain n dont clones have brains?

2. if d way we treat nature now is considered good relations, then forgive me but i havent used a dictionary lately.

3. what makes humans human?

[Ummulhuda]

Feminism is totally against viewing or using women as sexual objects. Thus I disagree with the initial dissertation by 'freelance'. A woman who allows herself to be a sex symbol is DEFINITELY not in the feminist category.