Womens Rights -- Are they for all women or just some women?

Oh hell, I hate this shit, but here we go again. I've been biting my lip and my fingernails until the blood is dripping on the keyboard here, trying soooo hard not to get involved in this crass, rascist and goddamn, fucking stup¡d thread.

It started off with an interesting question and some great input and has degenerated into this name-calling, juvenile, protectionist bullshit. I am sorry but you guys that state it is all right to rape women in muslim countries - or blame Islam for crimes against women are talking out your arse.

Have you ever met a true Muslim family? Do you have any idea of the esteem in which they hold their women? Yes, there is abhorrent, localised, corruption of this but are you really saying that in every Muslim family and in every predominantly Muslim country it is okay to violate women because someone else violated them first? Are you serious?

Grow up and get out in the world.

There are clutches of bad minded, domineering men who beat their women to death because they have the temerity to have a personality, sexuality or individuality. But guess what... those sick and sorry guys are not all Muslim.

In answer to Will's original question, no man (or woman) should have the right to inflict physical or mental pain on any other, regardless of sex, culture, age, colour or religion.

 

Sure, other than my wife, I have Muslim friends.

My Muslim friends conveniently ignore the parts of Islam which teach things which they personally disagree with. For example, if a Muslim leaves the Islamic faith, they are to be executed.

Somehow, I just can't see my buddy Ahmet stoning someone for changing religions.

But that's not the point. That's not even close to the point.

The point is that it is well documented that a significant portion of the earth's population lives in societies where what we consider to be basic human rights are purposefully and systematically destroyed by organized theocratic government. We're not talking about a psycho who lives in his mothers basement and cuts people up for fun. We're talking about systems where a woman can be sentenced to be gang-raped by a court of law. We're talking about a system where a woman cannot report being raped to the police, because she will be executed for being raped.

But that wasn't the question.

The question was: What is a morally acceptable response to bad people who do those things to defenseless people?

Do we sit back and say "that's not the way it should be", have another beer, and wallow in our moral superiority?

Or, do we act? Do we do bad things to bad people so that they cannot do other bad things to defenseless people? Do we get our hands dirty in an attempt to clean up the world?

 

The USA sanctions capital punishment. That is something I find both hypocritical and barbaric. Yet, I can't seem to bring myself to condemn all of you for it. I guess you and I are cut from a different cloth, Will. Grasp that.

Words of wisdom, indeed. While you're at it, try and look at the bigger picture.

Just because YOU can not see things the way someone else sees them, does NOT mean THE OTHER PERSON is mindless or ignorant.

I would argue that it is much more intellectually dishonest to represent yourself as someone who is better than everyone else. You are the one who bears the shame for that. One of the problems that factions of the muslim world have with the west is our apparent lack of morality. Morality is a matter of perspective, Will. I would expect someone like you to know that.

 

How often do you hide behind childish insults when you have no counter point, Will?

 

This whole thread is nothing but B.S.

Morality, religion etc - they're all subjective. They're only concepts that exist in your mind.

 

Source it?

I read that story and it was no "court of law" it was in a small village tribe outside of civilization. You're generalising the entire government from one tribe.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4314153.stm

 

Not yours, yet you keep posting it here as if it were straight from your mouth.

Post it repeatedly, then distance yourself from it???
(OK, man. Whatever floats your boat!)

Time to pay the piper. Where is the post where I justified their actions or claimed to find any moral equivalence for them?

 

Playing the "medication card" Will? I would never have expected that from YOU.

 

I did some work for UNIFEM some time ago. In a certain, mostly Muslim country, it was said that a woman was worth less then a dirty dish cloth. A boy child was a pearl.

With an amazingly small amount of foreign input - support of the women's corporal and intellectual rights - women's groups formed collectives for farming, handicraft and market goods. Once they became earners in their own right, they became more than chattels and more valuable in the eyes of their men.

I would spit in the eye of anyone - man or woman - who valued me because of the amount of money I could earn, but to answer your well worn question 'do we do bad things to bad people...'

No, we don't. That is sowing dragon's teeth. We educate and liberate. Trying delicately not to stamp over a culture that has been in place for thousands of years - remembering all the time that it is less than 100 years since human beings were sold like animals and women had no voice in many of our own countries.

 

Absolutely dead on target. Thank you for adding some sanity to this mess.

 

yo-yo:

You've sourced it yourself, and I commend you for actually reading the thread before responding.

The local court in Pakistan is similar to what we in the U.S. call lower courts.

The higher-court in Pakistan, due to international pressure, disagreed with the lower court ruling. At least once. The ruling has changed more than once.

If you can refer to that lower court as a "small village tribe outside of civilization", I can use the same terminology to the county court in Chandler, AZ.

Did you know that Canada was considering implementing the same system of Sharia law as is used in Pakistan?

For some reason, Canadians decided that was a bad idea.

 

When gworld post barely readable rants with absolutely no structure or logic, the question is a reasonable one.

Or have you not noticed that gworld's post most closely resemble the output of a simple content generator?

 

Any more question debunked?

 

OK, you've made a stand. Let's see if you mean it.

If I came over to your house and raped your eight year old daughter, would you:

1. Educate me.
2. Liberate me.
3. Bash me over the head with your golf clubs.

How willing are you to stand by your beliefs?

 

Actually there are an estimated 30 million slaves in the world currently. Mainly in third world countries, but their are also sex slaves and other forms of slavery in first world countries like the States and Australia.

There are women who are smuggled in to the US, Australia etc under the promise of good jobs, but then they are locked up and forced to work as sex slaves.

 

No, I wouldn't say that at all. Your original question was interesting but seems to me you had your own oven to stoke and you are pouncing on those who do not agree with you. Isn't that a part of the bigger picture - having the right as a male or female to disagree?

Denegrating another's intelligence only makes you look like you are losing the argument. Gworld seems pretty worldly and open to other cultures to me, whereas you are coming over like a bigot.

No religion or race has all the answers, Will, and if your wife had a hard time from her family, she had a hard time from her family. I had a hard time from mine because of choices I made. Didn't you?

 

I would tear your heart out and feed it to my dog, WTF has that got to do with religion?

 

Misleading for two reasons.

First, the "same system of Sharia law as is used in Pakistan" you refer to was nothing more than arbitration. Hell, I can go to a stranger on the street for that. When challenged, it would NOT be binding.

Second, take a look at a map sometime Will. "Canada", as you put it, is much larger than Ontario the province where this took place. It is grossly inacurate to say that Canada was considering it.

By the way, it was, ultimately, not allowed. We value the rights and freedoms of all.

 

Here is a link to description of Pakistan's Judicial system on the their official government web site.

The Judicial System of Pakistan

I can not fine any mention that tribal council is some kind of local court that is similar to lower courts in USA, can you?

Don't you ever get tired of making up lies?

 

I'm not stating this as fact in his case, since I know little about him. But, with most posts, I try to allow for things like heat of the moment typos, bad grammar and spelling (we all have to put up with a lot of that on the Internet) and english not being the primary language of many posters.

So, to answer your question, No. I hadn't really noticed.