Women forced to marry men who rape them

[Manoir]

The grips of the Catholic and Islamic faiths as well as cultural tradition on the choices and fates of women need a critical and informed look. In Peru and Morocco, among other places, women are forced to marry their rapists, with the incentive for the man being he's exonerated for his crime. Along with the obvious pattern for abusive marriages this practice establishes, it also places women, both before and after marriage, in the often hysterical protective custody of their male relatives and profoundly limits their autonomy and opportunities.

[Kirce]

My first reaction...

"WHAT THE FUCK?!!!?!!"

Ok, I guess it's another reason on why multiculturalism is a stupid chimera, some cultures are just incompatible with others because they're still at their "asshole" phase.

[Iniquitous]

First, let me say that in the Islamic faith a woman is the property of her father/brothers until marriage, and then once married she is the property of her husband. She is at their whim. So, it is not new news that women are in the protective custody of their male relatives or that their lives are very limited.

Should also be noted, as far as Islam is concerned, this little bit is inflammatory. A little research into the Islamic belief on rape would have cleared the air on this. Islam prohibits all expression of sexuality outside of marriage, including flirting, kissing and even hand holding. Therefore, rape of anyone of any age, nationality, or religion by anyone of any age, nationality, or religion is considered to be one of the most serious crimes, punishable, most often, by the death of the rapist. This is true no matter what the marital status of the victim and of the rapist. There is no rule in Islam requiring a rape victim to forgive the rapist, but in some jurisdictions, if the victim forgives the rapist, the rapist’s punishment might be reduced from execution to, say, flogging and incarceration.

It should also be noted that a woman who is being forced to commit an unlawful sexual activity is obliged to defend herself and should not give in, even if she kills the one who wants to do that to her. This self defense is obligatory and she is not at fault if she kills the one who wants to force her into sex.

With that said, I am sure there are those incidents where humans have ruled in such a manner as to blame the woman (this happens far too much to be remotely comfortable and is a sickening display of the mentality of the people on this planet) and force her to suffer more for the actions of the rapist. However, it is not a sanctioned belief of Islam to force a woman to marry her rapist. And while I am not familiar with the tenets of Catholicism, I dare say it is not something that is preached by the Church.

You cannot blame all the wrongs of this world on religion and you must keep in mind that religion becomes a twisted mess when imperfect humans get a hold of it.

[Shjade]

You cannot blame all the wrongs of this world on religion and you must keep in mind that religion becomes a twisted mess when imperfect humans get a hold of it.

Except humans don't get a hold of it, humans create it, which is the foundational problem with 100% of religious systems: people.

[Iniquitous]

Ahh, now see that is your belief. To those of the many different religions on this planet, it was created by the deity they follow and handed down to humans to document the tenets and pass on to others.

Going with that - the religion itself is perfect when it leaves the mouth of the deity and only becomes a tangled mess when humans begin trying to interpret and preach what the deity has said.

**Using deity in place of God/Allah/Odin/Zeus/Osiris/what have you for simplicities sake**

[Manoir]

Worth taking a look at Sharia on proving rape, too. Quite a burden...

[kylie]

     I've always found the language "her rapist" to be very unsettling.  Granted, it's not any old rapist.  But it sounds too much like "her husband" to me, to begin with.  We don't say "her thief" when someone breaks into the house.  We say the thief, etc. who stole whatever.  It's done, and what is to come of it is another matter and we don't imply that she will meet this guy again and we simply must have an ongoing and very social trial of some sort for her.  But when the body's violated, suddenly our language picks a way that implies an endless, intimate relationship between them -- and something that from the sound of it,  might naturally lead to more?  I don't like it.

... I am sure there are those incidents where humans have ruled in such a manner as to blame the woman (this happens far too much to be remotely comfortable and is a sickening display of the mentality of the people on this planet) and force her to suffer more for the actions of the rapist. However, it is not a sanctioned belief of Islam to force a woman to marry her rapist.

I don't see that this gets us around the problem of officials and adherents of various faiths, using religious affiliation as some sort of rationale or institution for (when the question does arise) going through with such arrangements.  It's not a question of which religion to have, but what to make of certain people and how they apparently often find this particular rationale/support structure around those particular religions. 

Ok, I guess it's another reason on why multiculturalism is a stupid chimera, some cultures are just incompatible with others because they're still at their "asshole" phase.

Well, I agree there are some communities whose values on particular issues, I probably would prefer not to live with.  I'd avoid this language though, because it appears to brand the entire community as backward -- as if there were some tried and true path of "development" that guarantees progress on all issues, for everyone. 

     Just for example, the Western way of progress (as seen in the US, and to a considerable extent I believe in Western Europe also) has generally transferred many of the models for sex discrimination straight into excuses for discrimination on the basis of race, gender, and orientation.  While still underpaying, and generally mocking and scrutinizing women (and other feminine types).  It's also pushed parts of the world out of pastoral and agrarian modes, only to rush them many through mass labor abuse and forced migration (industry) on to unemployment with meager quality of life and massive debt (the "service" present). 

    So I don't deny that I'd like to see some change on the forced marriage issue -- but I wouldn't take it as an excuse to swagger too much about oh how thoroughly failed "they" must be and thus how broadly superior "we" are, either.  That may or may not be what you intended, but the dismissive language you used gives me much that impression.
   

[OldSchoolGamer]

First, let me say that in the Islamic faith a woman is the property of her father/brothers until marriage, and then once married she is the property of her husband. She is at their whim. So, it is not new news that women are in the protective custody of their male relatives or that their lives are very limited.

Should also be noted, as far as Islam is concerned, this little bit is inflammatory. A little research into the Islamic belief on rape would have cleared the air on this. Islam prohibits all expression of sexuality outside of marriage, including flirting, kissing and even hand holding. Therefore, rape of anyone of any age, nationality, or religion by anyone of any age, nationality, or religion is considered to be one of the most serious crimes, punishable, most often, by the death of the rapist. This is true no matter what the marital status of the victim and of the rapist. There is no rule in Islam requiring a rape victim to forgive the rapist, but in some jurisdictions, if the victim forgives the rapist, the rapist’s punishment might be reduced from execution to, say, flogging and incarceration.

It should also be noted that a woman who is being forced to commit an unlawful sexual activity is obliged to defend herself and should not give in, even if she kills the one who wants to do that to her. This self defense is obligatory and she is not at fault if she kills the one who wants to force her into sex.

With that said, I am sure there are those incidents where humans have ruled in such a manner as to blame the woman (this happens far too much to be remotely comfortable and is a sickening display of the mentality of the people on this planet) and force her to suffer more for the actions of the rapist. However, it is not a sanctioned belief of Islam to force a woman to marry her rapist. And while I am not familiar with the tenets of Catholicism, I dare say it is not something that is preached by the Church.

You cannot blame all the wrongs of this world on religion and you must keep in mind that religion becomes a twisted mess when imperfect humans get a hold of it.

I judge religions on their outcomes when applied in the real world, not on their holy books.

If I went solely by what religions and ideologies said and promised, I'd be a communist.  Equality of wealth, no one lording it over anyone else, the fruits of our labors going to support the common weal, the State withering away, no more war, no more poverty...

Except it never actually works that way now, does it? 

Ditto with organized religion, including Islam.  These days, especially Islam.  Whatever the Koran promises or preaches, the result is violence and misogyny on a scale most of the rest of the world left behind centuries ago.  And the history of Christianity is none too pretty either...the Inquisition, the conquistadors, the witch-burnings.

And no, I'm not trying to put Christians on the spot here.  I'm not asserting all Christians, or even most or many, are evil.  What I am saying is that we need to judge outcomes and results in the real world, not just theory and preaching, when we judge religions and other ideologies.  If a rocket ship looks shiny and beautiful, but the design explodes on the launch pad, it's a failure.

[Oniya]

     I've always found the language "her rapist" to be very unsettling.  Granted, it's not any old rapist.  But it sounds too much like "her husband" to me, to begin with.  We don't say "her thief" when someone breaks into the house.  We say the thief, etc. who stole whatever.  It's done, and what is to come of it is another matter and we don't imply that she will meet this guy again and we simply must have an ongoing and very social trial of some sort for her.  But when the body's violated, suddenly our language picks a way that implies an endless, intimate relationship between them -- and something that from the sound of it,  might naturally lead to more?  I don't like it.

We do, however, say 'her assailant', 'her murderer', and for that matter, 'his assailant', and 'his murderer'.  Assault and murder are incredibly intimate in most cases - not in any sort of good way, but intimate, nonetheless.  I've heard manual strangulation described by legal analysts, medical examiners, and law enforcement as 'the most intimate of homicides'.  The 'more' that it might naturally lead to, however, isn't love - but death.

[Sabre]

The articles explain it well: the cultural stigma of being a rape victim is very high.  They aren't forced to marry their rapists, but often times feel themselves or are coerced into believing that hiding the crime through marriage is preferable for both the victim and her family whose social position is severely threatened should the truth come to light.  Many times it is the family itself that forces their daughters into these forced marriages (while negotiating with the criminal's family to force him as well) while the priests and imams present are merely the arbiters between the two families.

The grips of the Catholic and Islamic faiths as well as cultural tradition on the choices and fates of women need a critical and informed look.

When this sort of behavior is present on different continents with different religious and ethnic backgrounds, and certainly present among non-Abrahamic cultures in Africa and Asia, what needs a critical and informed look is the society itself making the assumptions and rules that promote this sort of behind-the-scenes dealing to avoid public scandal.  The religious parties are tangential to this in that, the moment they no longer agree to oversee, condone or at least ignore these injustices they are no longer considered religious authorities to their society and new, more permissive figures are sought out.  They are only being used by the real movers behind such tragedies - the tribal heads of families.

This is why Article 475 was part of a law that was not actually written by priests but secular politicians, and why in all of this controversy I still can't find the name of the actual rapist in Morocco, or his family.  It is the local prosecutors, lawyers and the family of the rapist - whom I suspect are locally influential - who coerced her into marrying and not the judge himself who can only agree to the proposal if both sides are agreed themselves (which happens outside the court).

First, let me say that in the Islamic faith a woman is the property of her father/brothers until marriage, and then once married she is the property of her husband.

Actually she is the responsibility of her father alone, even after marriage.  It's why in honor killing incidents it is her family that ends up killing her and not the husband or his family.

Worth taking a look at Sharia on proving rape, too. Quite a burden...

The article is manipulative, but so is the entire website.

The 4-witnesses-needed clause only applies to people who are accusing someone else of the crime of zina.  It does not apply to the testimonial weight of either the criminal or the victim.  The sad tragedy of rape victims being also charged with 'adultery' is not because of the above at all, but because they are usually placed in a position where they are outside the protection and oversight of her male guardians, and on that assumption alone prosecutors usually try and prove mutual guilt for the purpose of lessening their client's sentence (which would be death without it).

And again, the families get involved as always.

[Iniquitous]

I judge religions on their outcomes when applied in the real world, not on their holy books.

If I went solely by what religions and ideologies said and promised, I'd be a communist.  Equality of wealth, no one lording it over anyone else, the fruits of our labors going to support the common weal, the State withering away, no more war, no more poverty...

Except it never actually works that way now, does it? 

Ditto with organized religion, including Islam.  These days, especially Islam.  Whatever the Koran promises or preaches, the result is violence and misogyny on a scale most of the rest of the world left behind centuries ago.  And the history of Christianity is none too pretty either...the Inquisition, the conquistadors, the witch-burnings.

And no, I'm not trying to put Christians on the spot here.  I'm not asserting all Christians, or even most or many, are evil.  What I am saying is that we need to judge outcomes and results in the real world, not just theory and preaching, when we judge religions and other ideologies.  If a rocket ship looks shiny and beautiful, but the design explodes on the launch pad, it's a failure.

Again, I point out that it is not the fault of religion that it fails. It is the fault of humans. We cannot live up to the perfection that is laid out in religion. We are incapable of living up to the standards laid out in religion. What is laid out in religion is utopia - it is the perfect world, the perfect way of living our lives which we can never do.

Fact is, the ills of religion come from man. It is the fanatics that sour religion. It is those that try to force those around them to believe as they believe. It is those that read the religious words and use them as a weapon against those who are different. And every religion has it's fanatics - it's militant believers who are willing to shed blood.

[Samnell]

Again, I point out that it is not the fault of religion that it fails. It is the fault of humans. We cannot live up to the perfection that is laid out in religion. We are incapable of living up to the standards laid out in religion. What is laid out in religion is utopia - it is the perfect world, the perfect way of living our lives which we can never do.

Perfection as imagined by ancient priests vastly more ignorant than a child entering high school, for the most part. I've yet to find a religion that offered a vision anything short of horrific, and I doubt I ever shall.

[Iniquitous]

Explain what you mean by vision. Because I can tell you this, most every religion I have ever read about offers the way for humans to live that, should humans ever reach the ability to follow perfectly, would make this planet a utopia. Love your neighbor as you love yourself, do not kill, do not steal, help those around you, do not hold grudges, etc, etc. Those are not horrific visions in my view.

Now, if by visions you mean what happens if you do not follow the beliefs of that religion (aka burning in hell for all eternity) then I do have to suggest that you study more religions.

[Manoir]

Trouble with religion is as we get further and further from the inceptional revelation we run up against more and more revisionisms that, borrowing from one historian's paradigm for social evolution, tend to be driven by laziness, cowardice and greed.  If Gnosticism, with its direct experience of godhead, was true Christianity then the corporate hierarchy -- also excluding women, though Magdalene was a disciple in every imaginable way -- that came out of the Pentecost was a cynical perversion that needed only the Roman military machine of Constantine and his successors to bring on a millennium of intellectual blackout. More modernly, the British Rescue Movement of the 19th century, meant to save prostitutes from a sex trade arguably even more brutal than today's, got picked up by the Irish Catholic clergy and developed into the Magdalene Asylums, where the church enjoyed a very profitable century (up to the 1990s, in fact) enslaving women for the crimes of pregnancy, getting raped, and even flirting, in a scandal that rivals child sex abuse in everything but notoriety.

Starting with the issues of translation and going through the entire catalogue of scared, greedy and lazy human rationalizations, what we see of the more ancient religions today tends to have little to do with what its prophets hallucinated or received from on high. Islam is arguably a special case here, emanating from a single, richly documented source as it does, but the question of interpretation still injects enough uncertainty to encourage heartfelt questioning why women-as-property survives in so many -- but far from all! -- versions as such a central and oppressive tenet, if not in part for the prejudices and insecurities it serves.

[Sabre]

Religion is the reflection of the culture most times, not the other way around.  A culture will point to its religion at times to find higher justification for some practice, but it is not the engine that runs it.

What I am saying is that we need to judge outcomes and results in the real world, not just theory and preaching, when we judge religions and other ideologies.

That is why this will keep happening.  By focusing on the religion itself regardless of whether this is theoretical or practical criticism, the driving social forces behind it all will continue even further entrenched than before.

[Samnell]

Explain what you mean by vision. Because I can tell you this, most every religion I have ever read about offers the way for humans to live that, should humans ever reach the ability to follow perfectly, would make this planet a utopia. Love your neighbor as you love yourself, do not kill, do not steal, help those around you, do not hold grudges, etc, etc. Those are not horrific visions in my view.

Now, if by visions you mean what happens if you do not follow the beliefs of that religion (aka burning in hell for all eternity) then I do have to suggest that you study more religions.

What do I mean by vision? Let's take Greek polytheism as an example:

The universe is ruled by a bunch of nigh-omnipotent, sadistic maniacs. These bloodthirsty brutes demand that they receive endless streams of flattery and sacrifices from mortals or they will mete out absurdly vindictive punishment for the non-crime of being insufficiently pious. But that's not the only way to get on their bad side! Be better than them at something and they'll punish you. Be around them and you stand a fair chance of being raped. They're fine with slavery and treating women as chattel. They've rarely met a war they didn't like. They have nothing to say about science except you ought to stop it. They're so disinterested in an open, tolerant society that they couldn't raise a finger or lift an Olympian voice in objection when their faithful started killing religious dissenters. Humanity is nothing more than a plaything to them.

And that's one of the better examples. Generally speaking monotheisms are far worse.

[Kirce]

    Well, I agree there are some communities whose values on particular issues, I probably would prefer not to live with.  I'd avoid this language though, because it appears to brand the entire community as backward -- as if there were some tried and true path of "development" that guarantees progress on all issues, for everyone. 

     Just for example, the Western way of progress (as seen in the US, and to a considerable extent I believe in Western Europe also) has generally transferred many of the models for sex discrimination straight into excuses for discrimination on the basis of race, gender, and orientation.  While still underpaying, and generally mocking and scrutinizing women (and other feminine types).  It's also pushed parts of the world out of pastoral and agrarian modes, only to rush them many through mass labor abuse and forced migration (industry) on to unemployment with meager quality of life and massive debt (the "service" present). 

    So I don't deny that I'd like to see some change on the forced marriage issue -- but I wouldn't take it as an excuse to swagger too much about oh how thoroughly failed "they" must be and thus how broadly superior "we" are, either.  That may or may not be what you intended, but the dismissive language you used gives me much that impression.

Hey Kylie, I cut the quote short but I hope you don't mind ;)

I was trying to point out that right now, in the present some cultures should not be forced to mix with others because it will rise stupid tensions or repugnant scenes like the last incident in France where a "person" of Islamic background and black skin declared on camera "all your white women belong to us" before slapping and hitting a young french woman. Then again this could also be blamed to Sarzoky's own ignorance as far as immigration policies go.

I'm not saying that Islam cultures can't evolve into something better in terms of equality and freedom, but it could actually get worse, although I hope not! An example of utter stupidity in multiculturalism is the United Nations program "Alliance of civilizations" promoted by the last ex-prime minister of Spain.

[Iniquitous]

What do I mean by vision? Let's take Greek polytheism as an example:

The universe is ruled by a bunch of nigh-omnipotent, sadistic maniacs. These bloodthirsty brutes demand that they receive endless streams of flattery and sacrifices from mortals or they will mete out absurdly vindictive punishment for the non-crime of being insufficiently pious. But that's not the only way to get on their bad side! Be better than them at something and they'll punish you. Be around them and you stand a fair chance of being raped. They're fine with slavery and treating women as chattel. They've rarely met a war they didn't like. They have nothing to say about science except you ought to stop it. They're so disinterested in an open, tolerant society that they couldn't raise a finger or lift an Olympian voice in objection when their faithful started killing religious dissenters. Humanity is nothing more than a plaything to them.

And that's one of the better examples. Generally speaking monotheisms are far worse.

Ok, I am not going to argue with you on this, and you are right that monotheism is just as bad as the Greek polytheism. However, I can tell you for a fact that not every religion is like this. One simple reply here: Do not judge a whole bushel by one or two bad apples.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Perfection as imagined by ancient priests vastly more ignorant than a child entering high school, for the most part. I've yet to find a religion that offered a vision anything short of horrific, and I doubt I ever shall.

"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.”

-- Robert A. Heinlein

[kylie]

We do, however, say 'her assailant', 'her murderer', and for that matter, 'his assailant', and 'his murderer'.  Assault and murder are incredibly intimate in most cases - not in any sort of good way, but intimate, nonetheless.  I've heard manual strangulation described by legal analysts, medical examiners, and law enforcement as 'the most intimate of homicides'.  The 'more' that it might naturally lead to, however, isn't love - but death.

     Yes, I'm not denying it's intimate.  I just really don't like the way the language seems to neatly conflate with how a society also considers it primarily her problem, alone, to face/solve/explain/perhaps be unable to ever overcome.  I suppose in some ways it's useful because it could be interpreted to give the victim's testimony and opinions a "special" weight.  I'm mixed on that honestly, because victims don't necessarily always make the most effective choices.  Plus:  Elevation of a particular type of crime to a special language, can come with such myopia that multiple factors often involved in rape generally, can be rendered taboo for the community to discuss -- all "for her sake!" 

    Then in other ways...  The special possessive language is easily turned around, so that the victim is held up to more scrutiny than anyone else and has to do more work too.  Yes, it's work to share and to prosecute or to keep on living.  But using much the same possessive, the gender-trap questions fly back: "What did she do to provoke this?  What did she wear?  What is her reputation in the community and will she actually be heard as a witness? [Blah, blah.]"  So...  There's just something about the sound of the words "her rapist" that comes out wrong to me...  Just like it would be wrong to say that 'well, her rapist, her body = candidate for her husband.'  It makes the issue too local, too private, too cozy.  I feel like the possessive detaches the case from the rest of society.  Or reflects the fact that the society is in the business of doing just that.
 

[NatalieB]

Kylie,

This is an excellent point.  I think its a fluke of arabic though.  "The" in arabic is "al-" and is used in a slightly different way than in English.  One of the primary differences is that "al-" is used to indicate a class noun or a group.  So al-muktasib doesn't just mean "the rapist" as it does in English.  It also means "all rapists" and "rapists as a type of human".  Obviously in a legal code that sort of distinction is important so you need "her rapist" to identify the specific person you're talking about.

[Manoir]

Kylie, your point is well-taken, and hadn't occurred to me, though I am usually a big bug on grammar and nowhere more than where it touches on gender issues, but that one totally got away from me, so thanks!

Therefore, I've changed the header of this thread in response to your astute observation. I think it looks better, though unfortunately it doesn't change on posts made before the edit...

Along those gender lines, it's always struck me that there are certain telling vacancies in the language, like a particularly telling one based on Greek roots, of which there's a set meaning "men," "women" and "people:" andros, gynos and anthropos, respectively.

However, in words readily formed from these roots which denote dislike or aversion, there's one for hating women, "misogyny," and another for hating people in general "misanthropy" but the third element in the frame, which just as readily forms as "misandropy" or "misandry" is just not there. It's as if the male perspective's entitled to all the hating....

[NatalieB]

Misandry

[Manoir]

Right NatalieB! I do find it in the Webster's Third though not much elsewhere. Therefore I'd modify the point to how rarely it's used or seen, compared to its lexical siblings.

Thanks!

[kylie]

I was trying to point out that right now, in the present some cultures should not be forced to mix with others because it will rise stupid tensions or repugnant scenes like the last incident in France where a "person" of Islamic background and black skin declared on camera "all your white women belong to us" before slapping and hitting a young french woman. Then again this could also be blamed to Sarzoky's own ignorance as far as immigration policies go.

Wait a minute.  It helps if you say more precisely what you mean by "forced to mix."  Are you saying this is why -- what exactly, all Muslims?  Muslims from a certain country or sect? -- should be kept out of France?  Or, out of certain schools or neighborhoods in France, perhaps? 

     As for the US...  We have plenty of cases where Black men go on about how White women are "naturally" destined for them on whichever physical or moral grounds -- and we also have our share of moral panics about Black men as a generalized "threat."  We have a good few radical religious figures demanding women stay in certain boxes, or making wild claims about what they should do lifestyle-wise.  Some of these people have a considerable, vocal, occasionally violent following. 

    However, again in the US:  Apart from some de facto private, police, and bureaucratic discrimination against Blacks...  If the issue comes up to a legal test, we cannot segregate for "no excuse," or on the basis of some generalized "cultural difference."  (Although some of the excuses we do have are pretty silly.)  Considering how many of the misogynist radicals are apparently White and Christian of some stripe, I'm skeptical that we do very much to forcibly segregate them either.   As to immigration:  We can go on about terrorism or economic benefits, but we cannot block immigration on the basis of religion per se. 

    I don't know about France and Sarkozy and what rules they operate under -- which persons exactly are entitled to "Liberty" and "Equality" under the law there (can we put "Fraternity" aside for now?)...  I'm also not sure if your view amounts to a critical look at how the situation of interest to the OP happened.  (Maybe this thread needs a particular case to unify what's going on?)  But it sounds to me, more like a scattergun prescription for what to do in response.  I'm also dubious about whether it's a practical prescription: I would expect those Muslims are in France for some pressing economic or political reason. 

I'm not saying that Islam cultures can't evolve into something better in terms of equality and freedom, but it could actually get worse...

Well, thank you.  That's a bit clearer than firing curses in the general direction of any and all. 

     The US could get better or worse, too.  For instance, we have Tennessee attempting to explicitly deny orientation, gender and even any other group not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution through legislation.  Which would make discriminating against women just fine if it passes as "gender" and not "sex" discrimination, and the founding fathers never mentioned protection for disabled persons...  Let alone the question of gay or trans rights. 

[Manoir]

As for the US...  We have plenty of cases where Black men go on about how White women are "naturally" destined for them on whichever physical or moral grounds

Mind citing a source for this assertion? Haven't run across it.

[NatalieB]

 

Right NatalieB! I do find it in the Webster's Third though not much elsewhere. Therefore I'd modify the point to how rarely it's used or seen, compared to its lexical siblings.

Thanks!

Now that I can't argue with.

Ditto with polygamy and polyandry.  I'm not sure why it is, to be honest.  I don't believe (and this is pure belief, I have not a single stat to back this up.  Nor article, reference, etc.) that misogyny is so much more prevalent than misandry to account for the vast difference between the occurance of the words. 

If I had to guess (which, as mentioned above, I am) I'd say its a reflection of societal views on the misandrous and the misogynous respectively.  If a man hates women he's misogynous because thats a nice technical term that sounds vaguely like a medical condition - not entirely his fault.  If a woman hates men, though, she's a skinheaded dyke.

[kylie]

Kylie,

This is an excellent point.  I think its a fluke of arabic though.  "The" in arabic is "al-" and is used in a slightly different way than in English.  One of the primary differences is that "al-" is used to indicate a class noun or a group.  So al-muktasib doesn't just mean "the rapist" as it does in English.  It also means "all rapists" and "rapists as a type of human".  Obviously in a legal code that sort of distinction is important so you need "her rapist" to identify the specific person you're talking about.

     Argh.  I realized, I am very bad about finding links that hide under one or two words in flowing text.  I honestly tend to read right over them and never notice.  So even with the little underlines, I didn't actually realize there were some links in the OP.  I was commenting more on the general tendency for us to say "her rapist" in English...  Although I suppose to some extent, it could apply to any sort of stashing a possessive after the victim of whatever type.

     It seriously wasn't meant to pick at the thread title.  Rather, it was just to point out that there's a certain commonality in the way that responses tend to more or less isolate the victim and make it "their problem" (and sometimes by extension, "their family's choice" etc.) in more than one region. 

[NatalieB]

Ah, my apologies then, I had grabbed the wrong end of the stick.

[Kirce]

     Wait a minute.  It helps if you say more precisely what you mean by "forced to mix."  Are you saying this is why -- what exactly, all Muslims?  Muslims from a certain country or sect? -- should be kept out of France?  Or, out of certain schools or neighborhoods in France, perhaps? 

     As for the US...  We have plenty of cases where Black men go on about how White women are "naturally" destined for them on whichever physical or moral grounds -- and we also have our share of moral panics about Black men as a generalized "threat."  We have a good few radical religious figures demanding women stay in certain boxes, or making wild claims about what they should do lifestyle-wise.  Some of these people have a considerable, vocal, occasionally violent following. 

    However, again in the US:  Apart from some de facto private, police, and bureaucratic discrimination against Blacks...  If the issue comes up to a legal test, we cannot segregate for "no excuse," or on the basis of some generalized "cultural difference."  (Although some of the excuses we do have are pretty silly.)  Considering how many of the misogynist radicals are apparently White and Christian of some stripe, I'm skeptical that we do very much to forcibly segregate them either.   As to immigration:  We can go on about terrorism or economic benefits, but we cannot block immigration on the basis of religion per se. 

    I don't know about France and Sarkozy and what rules they operate under -- which persons exactly are entitled to "Liberty" and "Equality" under the law there (can we put "Fraternity" aside for now?)...  I'm also not sure if your view amounts to a critical look at how the situation of interest to the OP happened.  (Maybe this thread needs a particular case to unify what's going on?)  But it sounds to me, more like a scattergun prescription for what to do in response.  I'm also dubious about whether it's a practical prescription: I would expect those Muslims are in France for some pressing economic or political reason. 
     Well, thank you.  That's a bit clearer than firing curses in the general direction of any and all. 

     The US could get better or worse, too.  For instance, we have Tennessee attempting to explicitly deny orientation, gender and even any other group not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution through legislation.  Which would make discriminating against women just fine if it passes as "gender" and not "sex" discrimination, and the founding fathers never mentioned protection for disabled persons...  Let alone the question of gay or trans rights.

I will try to explain it with an example. When some muslims come to Spain to stay, they don't even bother in trying to meld with the new culture. Nop! Some will ramble and complain and call everyone racist and worse things due to why their daughters are "forced" to not cover their faces when they go to school. However if you go to their country? Hah! Good luck if you're a woman and refuse to cover yourself. Double moral? Yeah but then again it's proof that the two cultures are not very compatible at this point.

[Samnell]

Ok, I am not going to argue with you on this, and you are right that monotheism is just as bad as the Greek polytheism. However, I can tell you for a fact that not every religion is like this. One simple reply here: Do not judge a whole bushel by one or two bad apples.

I am prepared to revise my position in light of new evidence, as any rational, responsible person must be. This might not be the thread for it, but if you have some good apples you're welcome to present them.

[kylie]

Mind citing a source for this assertion? Haven't run across it.

Black guys claiming natural attraction or superiority for White women?  The point was more that we can't segregate or deport a group from the US -- at least not explicitly -- on the basis of a perceived generalized sexual threat or vaguely imagined cultural difference, to the best of my knowledge. 

      To be fair, it would have been academically cleaner to simply say claims of "big" and virile Black men -- and the use of that for sexual dialogue of one flavor or another -- are in broad circulation among many communities.  However, this is consistent with what I have read academically about Black men in certain hip-hop festivals approaching women in general.  It's been a couple years or more and I don't remember the author.  Edit: Did come across a couple examples of racial-sexual bravado in Lester (2007), Racialized Politics of Desire in Personal Ads (p. 24)./edit This is not to say that most or all Black guys would do this, of course -- but there are situations and groups where I seem to recall, it flies.  Show me that hardly any Black men ever come onto White women with claims of say cock size or some other "intrinsic" racial advantage, and I'll be very surprised.  But the point is more that a few Black guys do it vocally (quite as some White guys point to their family or European ancestry or American region as a cue to their supposed virtue, I would add) and here, it fits/feeds a threatening stereotype of the racial group.

     I think it's often reported that Black men playing up an image of tough, somewhat dismissive of women, and prone to violence is common in hip-hop circles doing "gangster" masculinity.  Even if you didn't find some explicit claims of sexual prowess or entitlement (and I think we would), I'd be very surprised if we couldn't build a case about images of aggression.  Who sponsors this stuff I'm not sure, but there are Black men there on the camera.

     Finally, if weaker:  I have run into several people online in the past with ghetto handles, claiming to be Black guys, going on about their size and appeal to White women to me.  Several of them talked to me in ways that are pretty distinctive -- either an actual Black dialect, or something passable as a slang that I would never bother to learn.

Overall:  I would be pretty surprised if we went out and researched a larger number of people (tell me where you finally get the grant for this one!) and didn't find any groupings where Black men actively take advantage of the "Once you've gone black, you can't go back" sales pitch.  But you're welcome to research the people or the secondary sources and online commentaries, too.

     One curious sidenote:  For some reason, I'm actually finding it easier to locate studies on stereotypes of Black women as sexually threatening, off the bat......  But we can't deport them for that, either!

[Sabre]

I will try to explain it with an example. When some muslims come to Spain to stay, they don't even bother in trying to meld with the new culture. Nop! Some will ramble and complain and call everyone racist and worse things due to why their daughters are "forced" to not cover their faces when they go to school. However if you go to their country? Hah! Good luck if you're a woman and refuse to cover yourself. Double moral? Yeah but then again it's proof that the two cultures are not very compatible at this point.

They feel there is no incentive to integrate.  It's a common problem among Muslim immigrants throughout Europe but not in America.  In America, a Muslim family and their children will more readily integrate and proclaim themselves a part of the same American society as their white, black or Hispanic neighbors because they believe such behavior will result in acceptance, social and financial opportunities, and among youths acceptance as just another peer with his or her own peculiarities that everyone has.

Muslim youth in Europe, however, have begun to feel they will not receive either acceptance, respect or job opportunities from their native European neighbors.  There's no real drive for them to be more Spanish, or German or Swedish.  Perhaps this is because of the lack of nationalism, so that compared to a boring 'normal' lifestyle with poor job opportunities they prefer a more interesting and proud lifestyle with poor job opportunities (which unfortunately tends to be destructive and inclusive).

[Iniquitous]

I am prepared to revise my position in light of new evidence, as any rational, responsible person must be. This might not be the thread for it, but if you have some good apples you're welcome to present them.

I could, if I were so inclined, send you a pm with several different religions that do not show a jealous deity (deities), deities that did not interfere with the affairs of humans. Discussing religion and explaining my own faith is something I have done on numerous occasions since I am an ordained High Priestess. However, I am a firm believer in people researching things on their own instead of taking the word of someone else. If you refuse to do the actual work on your own then you have already closed your mind to anything anyone else can say. That is your right.

[Maiz]

     Black guys claiming natural attraction or superiority for White women?  The point was more that we can't segregate or deport a group from the US -- at least not explicitly -- on the basis of a perceived generalized sexual threat or vaguely imagined cultural difference, to the best of my knowledge. 

      To be fair, it would have been academically cleaner to simply say claims of "big" and virile Black men -- and the use of that for sexual dialogue of one flavor or another -- are in broad circulation among many communities.  However, this is consistent with what I have read academically about Black men in certain hip-hop festivals approaching women in general.  It's been a couple years or more and I don't remember the author.  Edit: Did come across a couple examples of racial-sexual bravado in Lester (2007), Racialized Politics of Desire in Personal Ads (p. 24)./edit This is not to say that most or all Black guys would do this, of course -- but there are situations and groups where I seem to recall, it flies.  Show me that hardly any Black men ever come onto White women with claims of say cock size or some other "intrinsic" racial advantage, and I'll be very surprised.  But the point is more that a few Black guys do it vocally (quite as some White guys point to their family or European ancestry or American region as a cue to their supposed virtue, I would add) and here, it fits/feeds a threatening stereotype of the racial group.

     I think it's often reported that Black men playing up an image of tough, somewhat dismissive of women, and prone to violence is common in hip-hop circles doing "gangster" masculinity.  Even if you didn't find some explicit claims of sexual prowess or entitlement (and I think we would), I'd be very surprised if we couldn't build a case about images of aggression.  Who sponsors this stuff I'm not sure, but there are Black men there on the camera.

     Finally, if weaker:  I have run into several people online in the past with ghetto handles, claiming to be Black guys, going on about their size and appeal to White women to me.  Several of them talked to me in ways that are pretty distinctive -- either an actual Black dialect, or something passable as a slang that I would never bother to learn.

Overall:  I would be pretty surprised if we went out and researched a larger number of people (tell me where you finally get the grant for this one!) and didn't find any groupings where Black men actively take advantage of the "Once you've gone black, you can't go back" sales pitch.  But you're welcome to research the people or the secondary sources and online commentaries, too.

     One curious sidenote:  For some reason, I'm actually finding it easier to locate studies on stereotypes of Black women as sexually threatening, off the bat......  But we can't deport them for that, either!

What you're talking about is the "brute" stereotype. In American/Western culture it's one of the only ways that black men are viewed in media. It came up post civil war as a kind of black peril against ex-slaves.

As for the US...  We have plenty of cases where Black men go on about how White women are "naturally" destined for them on whichever physical or moral grounds

What cases are you talking about? Because I have never heard this in my life, and it seems to play on the fear of the "brute" caricature, that black men will steal/rape white women. See Birth of A nation and other media like that. Some black men might use this stereotype to their "advantage" but lbr it's a small minority and it's also blaming black men for the stereotypes placed on them.

[Oniya]

What cases are you talking about? Because I have never heard this in my life, and it seems to play on the fear of the "brute" caricature, that black men will steal/rape white women. See Birth of A nation and other media like that. Some black men might use this stereotype to their "advantage" but lbr it's a small minority and it's also blaming black men for the stereotypes placed on them.

lbr?

I do have to agree - in my entire life, I've known precisely two black men who used the 'black is better' line.  One was a complete ass, and probably would have been waving his dick-size around like a flag, even if he had been Caucasian.  (And reports were that he was severely exaggerating.  His numerous 'bed-post notches' were mostly because he couldn't keep a girl for longer than it took to get to know him.)  The other was actually a very partner-oriented man, who probably would have had the success he had regardless of race.  It's hard to express tone through the Internet, but he always voiced the line in a joking manner (as opposed to the jerk, who was always dead-serious about it.)

[Maiz]

lbr?

I do have to agree - in my entire life, I've known precisely two black men who used the 'black is better' line.  One was a complete ass, and probably would have been waving his dick-size around like a flag, even if he had been Caucasian.  (And reports were that he was severely exaggerating.  His numerous 'bed-post notches' were mostly because he couldn't keep a girl for longer than it took to get to know him.)  The other was actually a very partner-oriented man, who probably would have had the success he had regardless of race.  It's hard to express tone through the Internet, but he always voiced the line in a joking manner (as opposed to the jerk, who was always dead-serious about it.)

'let's be real'. slipped by.

But anyway, I think that it's a totally overstated thing, and is used to show/prove the stereotype and shut down discussions on race, as well as perpetuate racial myths.

[kylie]

Some black men might use this stereotype to their "advantage" but lbr it's a small minority and it's also blaming black men for the stereotypes placed on them.

The point that was relevant to the thread is not precisely how many do or don't.  It's enough for purposes of present discussion that a few do, and the society is set up so that a moral panic often results. 

     Do you actually think I was trying to argue that most or all Black guys do that in some way, or that Blacks should be punished more than anyone else for doing so??  If so, then you missed part of what I wrote.  (Fine, it happens.) 

     I was replying to Kirce.  By analogy:  She says a few Muslims are spotted claiming ownership of local women generally.  Presumably not every Muslim in France does so or even demands that women wear face covering, either.  Yet some people feel that immigration from Muslim areas to France should be curtailed partly because of the gender or sex approaches that certain Muslims adopt.  On the American side, some Black guys do bluster about their endowment or some supposed superiority linked to racial experience, whatever.  Some people feel that Black men must present a particular sexual threat, and deserve the high rate of policing they get, or maybe deserve to be segregated/somehow removed from the scene. 

     My response is:  Okay so...  Then would that really make excluding large numbers of Muslims, or Blacks (purportedly in order to avoid these situations ever happening), reasonable or practical?

     Perhaps Kirce was actually wishing more to rollback the clock, although I took her as almost arguing for deportation of a whole group.  In any event:  I was saying that it may not be so simple to break contact with a substantial group of people -- or what we typically call a "culture," which was her wording -- over such a claim about general, more or less "religious" incompatibility. 

[Oniya]

'let's be real'. slipped by.

'Sokay - Just hadn't run across that one before.  ;)

[kylie]

I do have to agree - in my entire life, I've known precisely two black men who used the 'black is better' line.  One was a complete ass, and probably would have been waving his dick-size around like a flag, even if he had been Caucasian.  (And reports were that he was severely exaggerating.  His numerous 'bed-post notches' were mostly because he couldn't keep a girl for longer than it took to get to know him.)  The other was actually a very partner-oriented man, who probably would have had the success he had regardless of race.  It's hard to express tone through the Internet, but he always voiced the line in a joking manner (as opposed to the jerk, who was always dead-serious about it.)

That's totally fine.  But this is the thing:  Where people are on a tripwire about the expected views of a given group to begin with, it only takes a few visible cases for someone -- often someone equally uncivil or equally flippant, as the case may be -- to start another moral panic.  I don't believe it's most of the Muslims in France claiming they own every woman in sight, either!  Still:  I would say there's fuel for panics about race in the US similar, in some ways, to the fuel for panics about "religion" or "ethnicity" (as French politics tend to label race/immigration issues - from reading Wacquant) in France. 

     I believe we could find a few vocal people in America saying more or less seriously (depending which talking head you pick), much as Kirce did:  Oh, we never should have mixed in these Blacks to begin with.  Wasn't that the start of all the trouble?  Or perhaps it's to imply, Oh if only we could isolate or deport them, this stuff could stop happening?  I may be jumping the gun on that last one; something about her cussing out a whole population really fired me up back there. 

     I really don't expect the broader American society will ultimately treat those suggestions as practical to act on -- no matter how confused or panicked many of us are generally.  In the US at least, at least those responses are often recognized as not changing much (for wishing to turn back the clock) or (for the others) ethically dangerous and probably illegal -- not to mention, the economic damage could be massive. 

[Kirce]

I was pointing out that the two cultures are not very compatible. It would be easier if the two shared the same values of democracy, women's rights, freedom of expression, religious freedom or sexual tolerance. I don't think that they do right now... which may explain why those tensions are appearing and the current reappearance of ultra-right parties on a few European governments.

[NatalieB]

I think what Kylie's saying, Kirce (and forgive me if I'm wrong Kylie) is that culture can be overstated in these cases as its a highly visible facet of a person.

You and I might not share the same values of democracy, women's rights, etc etc etc.  And that we are happy to chalk up to personal differences.  You either think I'm a facsist or a hippy depending on where my views fall in relation to yours.  However, as soon as its someone of a different culture then their difference in views becomes a "cultural" thing, and a problem that must be overcome.

Of course, Im not arguing that some cultures aren't more left wing/right wing/tolerant/intolerant than others.  But I doubt you'll find a muslim (to use your chosen grouping) male with views meaningfully more extreme than can be found amongst non-muslim males.  It's well within the deviation of the "native" population.

[kylie]

     Kirce, it seems too simple to me. (or too messy, depending on which way you turn the question).  Maybe we just need a better word than "culture" to get at the problem here.  "Culture" to me implies a very large, unified group of people.  If you say a whole "culture" is incompatible but I suspect those people are there for good reasons, then it sounds like wishful thinking or frustration or bluster to me...  I feel like okay, you're obviously vehemently against someone...  But if it's really a whole nationality or wave of immigrants you're marking as carriers of the problem, what can we do?  You presumably aren't going to forcibly indoctrinate immigrants across a whole district of Marseilles or wherever they're presently concentrated, and I'm skeptical that you could afford to deport all of those recent immigrants just to push out the "bad apples."

    To predict and deal with it, or even to just be critical of it, I think first we need to pin down exactly what the issue is.  I don't think all of the Muslims in France are into forcing marriage in these situations?  I'd be more likely to agree that there is a broader shared, international "culture" of limiting and subjugating women throughout much of the Judeo-Christian world at large - and other faiths, too (though it certainly doesn't always take the forms of stoning or force-marrying them -- e.g. often, it doesn't pay them equal wages).

    So when you knock it down to being "incompatible," I guess I'm not sure exactly how you want to define that so it could be useful.  What makes some Muslims, some Catholics, some whatever committed to forced marriage?  (I'm thinking a little less religion and a little more economic structure, geography, reasons given for marriage generally and even immigration laws.)   And perhaps, is it somehow possible to reach them and affect some change of heart/direction... I would prefer to say, without adopting the old "Clash of Civilizations"-style rhetoric of 'natural' differences between whole peoples/regions?

[Sabre]

I was pointing out that the two cultures are not very compatible. It would be easier if the two shared the same values of democracy, women's rights, freedom of expression, religious freedom or sexual tolerance. I don't think that they do right now... which may explain why those tensions are appearing and the current reappearance of ultra-right parties on a few European governments.

I would say I agree with you, but also say that the two cultures here are not what they are claiming to be.  'Muslim' culture, as the kind flourishing in many ghettos and cities in Europe, is akin to 'African liberation' culture of some Black Americans.  Which is to say they have a shallow resemblance to Africa or the Middle East and at its core the true culture that is clashing is an image-obsessed machismo gangster sub-culture and not a case of a piece of Morocco or Turkey or Pakistan being airlifted and then dropped into the middle of Madrid.  It's almost entirely home grown in Spain, Germany, France and other countries.

Its closest parallels are not Muslim vs Western faultlines (because there's nothing in Islam about a clean shaven teenager in jeans and t-shirt walking up to a female white stranger, soliciting her in public, then striking her across the face) but American street-gang culture versus an ethnic majority (which affect Black, Hispanic, East Asian, Jewish and many other ethnic groups).  You don't find them in mosque on Friday, and it's doubtful they can even read Arabic, but 'Islam' for them is a rallying point to form an anti-establishment sub-culture around.  Thus the only Islam topics they care about are those that support a thug lifestyle.  And those they get angry and up in arms about are those that insult them either directly as immigrants or indirectly as 'Muslims.'

These are anti-social youths that will crowd a street corner and perhaps mug you with knives at night, but not one of them will be able to answer questions like which surah in the Quran does Muhammad preach about the Byzantine victory over the Persians, or how many Ruku can the entirety of Surah An-Nisa be completed in.

You are right they are not very compatible with a Western Liberal culture, but neither is a Western far-right culture that believes in many of the same things.  Nor is their culture compatible with the cultures in Morocco or Turkey. 

[kylie]

     Natalie:  Yes, more or less.  I'm not versed enough on Muslim sects and localities to say whether/where there may be some local pockets that are really hyper misogynistic/awful.  I suspect there are.  Afghanistan (speaking broadly, not of all Afghans but if we must finger point somewhere) did not become infamous for no reason whatsoever, to the best of my understanding.  Assuming my understanding isn't warped completely beyond empirical reality, by the ubiquitous media feed, yes. 

     But then, I also suspect there would be a little room for hope if we could even shake out differences and precedents for change inside those pockets -- large or small.  When it comes to Kirce's examples, I'm just not seeing a direct connection with immigration policies for all of France.  Are they somehow only importing fundamentalists from the most troubled places possible?  I'd be surprised -- but even if so, then is there no hope for most of these people, or all? 

Poking at this a little more with the proverbial mischief stick:  I wonder if actually, immigration policies aren't also actively encouraging people to immigrate/reside as married couples.  Who really needs to force marriage, where Immigration will do it for you -- or where separation means losing income/savings, or facing possible deportation?

     I even think that it may be a more pronounced problem about forced marriage per se in more fundamentalist Islamic circles...  But I agree that people (erm, not only men!) vary across a spectrum of gender ideas within many communities and faiths.  I don't think the underlying problems are usually all that different from one society to the next.  I would guess:  Just the symptoms are.   

[Kirce]

I honestly stopped understanding your replies kylie, you seemed to speculate about what I meant or not, or seemed to assume things. Maybe it's a problem in my reception but I think that you're being a little nitpicky about my exact words. My very first post in this thread was an obvious outburst of disappointment, I think that it was understandable due to the nature of the links, but that was all.

And Sabre, that's true too!

[kylie]

I honestly stopped understanding your replies kylie, you seemed to speculate about what I meant or not, or seemed to assume things. Maybe it's a problem in my reception but I think that you're being a little nitpicky about my exact words. My very first post in this thread was an obvious outburst of disappointment, I think that it was understandable due to the nature of the links, but that was all.

And Sabre, that's true too!

Fair enough.  I just hope you might understand that:

1) When you say "culture" here, it sounds like talking about countries, regions, or very large numbers of people to me.

2) When you say "asshole phase", I thought well, you must believe we're morally superior -- so much more "advanced" in soooo many ways. 

Perhaps you meant it to be more limited and more sarcastic.  It doesn't always come through in text, if so...  I have traveled in Muslim countries and studied a little colonial history.  I know from experience these aren't all clueless barbarians.  I don't think the West is as thoroughly superior as stories of "development" and "liberation" suggest.  Even on marriage: I'm not convinced that single women have easy lives in the present US.   

So that seemed mean and thoughtless to me.  That's all.

[Maiz]

I was pointing out that the two cultures are not very compatible. It would be easier if the two shared the same values of democracy, women's rights, freedom of expression, religious freedom or sexual tolerance. I don't think that they do right now... which may explain why those tensions are appearing and the current reappearance of ultra-right parties on a few European governments.

Your point of cultural incompatibility is not backed by anything. Women's rights are laughable in the "west". There's sexism and misogyny in all over the world. The tools of sexism and misogyny are different, but in the end women are still being killed and oppressed. Democracy in "eastern" countries is almost always thwarted by the "west" if they ever vote in someone who won't agree with "western" governments. See South America, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, etc. There is a lack of religious freedom and freedom of expression in the "west" as well (see the burqa ban in France), as well as sexual tolerance (see every victim of rape/sexual assault who was blamed for their assault). Not to mention many attitudes are leftovers from colonial rule, which didn't end that long ago.

The division between us and them is a social construct.

[Kirce]

Wow, I'm totally off this thread.

[Samnell]

I could, if I were so inclined, send you a pm with several different religions that do not show a jealous deity (deities), deities that did not interfere with the affairs of humans. Discussing religion and explaining my own faith is something I have done on numerous occasions since I am an ordained High Priestess. However, I am a firm believer in people researching things on their own instead of taking the word of someone else. If you refuse to do the actual work on your own then you have already closed your mind to anything anyone else can say. That is your right.

Ah I see, I asked you to support your position so now I am a raving dogmatist. I really ought to have seen that one coming. Fair enough. It transpires I've done the research and every religion I've found is the same superstition and horrors in different wrappers. We'd be better off if they all closed up shop tomorrow.

[Manoir]

Apropos of comparative religion, has anyone watched The Zeitgeist Movie, advisably tempered by significant criticism of its historical scholarship?

It starts out with a fascinating comparative look at quite a large number of religions and unfortunately descends into some paranoid speculation, but certainly worth a look.
________________

Is it only me who wishes discussion threads more often actually achieved detached dialogue on their subjects, studded with good source citations -- i.e., fulfill the internet's function as species agora that Plato could only fantasize about -- rather than descend into prickly debates on exact language and exchanges of snarky self-justification? Or failing that, could we learn to disagree agreeably and admit we're wrong gracefully? Not that everybody here's off the rails, but enough are that focus is lost. And each know who you are!

[OldSchoolGamer]

I could, if I were so inclined, send you a pm with several different religions that do not show a jealous deity (deities), deities that did not interfere with the affairs of humans. Discussing religion and explaining my own faith is something I have done on numerous occasions since I am an ordained High Priestess. However, I am a firm believer in people researching things on their own instead of taking the word of someone else. If you refuse to do the actual work on your own then you have already closed your mind to anything anyone else can say. That is your right.

I can understand your point, and appreciate you not wanting to be perceived as pushing your religion on others.  An enviable trait, and one I wished certain other religions would follow.

Having said that, this is a debate, and when asked to provide evidence, "Google it" really isn't a rebuttal.  Methinks you could have provided some supporting evidence or links here.

Ah I see, I asked you to support your position so now I am a raving dogmatist. I really ought to have seen that one coming. Fair enough. It transpires I've done the research and every religion I've found is the same superstition and horrors in different wrappers. We'd be better off if they all closed up shop tomorrow.

I think this is painting with a rather broad brush, no?

EDIT: And perhaps you would like to provide some supporting evidence for your assertion that every religion is the same superstition and horrors?

[kylie]

Quote from: Iniquitous Opheliac on May 28, 2012, 11:06:16 PM

    I could, if I were so inclined, send you a pm with several different religions that do not show a jealous deity (deities), deities that did not interfere with the affairs of humans. Discussing religion and explaining my own faith is something I have done on numerous occasions since I am an ordained High Priestess. However, I am a firm believer in people researching things on their own instead of taking the word of someone else. If you refuse to do the actual work on your own then you have already closed your mind to anything anyone else can say. That is your right.

I can understand your point, and appreciate you not wanting to be perceived as pushing your religion on others.  An enviable trait, and one I wished certain other religions would follow.

Having said that, this is a debate, and when asked to provide evidence, "Google it" really isn't a rebuttal.  Methinks you could have provided some supporting evidence or links here.

I think this is painting with a rather broad brush, no?

EDIT: And perhaps you would like to provide some supporting evidence for your assertion that every religion is the same superstition and horrors?

    Myeh.  Demanding that others provide evidence again and again, is one easy way to derail an argument one just doesn't like.  In my opinion, Iniq could have done better without the "have already closed your mind to anything" part...  However, she did not spit out "Google it," either! 

    She did say she has some experience with the subject and it's possible to find more to it.  I can sympathize because it gets tiring from a minority point of view, to hear the same claims and then often enough, countless diversions to throw you off when you do respond, again and again. 

    Now whether her data is something various other people have means or skills to confirm, or a background to find any use for it if they did find such evidence...  Who knows.

[Dashenka]

I don't see how this is religion. Where in any religious book does it say a woman should marry the man who raped her? It's a LAW based on a mostly fictional book about religion, interpreted by some people to create insane laws in uncivilized parts of the world.

But insane laws are created not only over religion. The world is full with insane laws that are based on nothing more than personal motivations or beliefs of their creators. In a lot of countries it's forbidden for females to marry females and males to marry males because is supposed to be in the bible, but it just isn't. It's an old fashioned statement, hung onto by ancient regimes who are afraid to open their eyes. It's got NOTHING to do with religion although these old fashioned regimes claim it's the will of God.

Frankly, we should stop putting the blame for all bad things with religion because the ONLY thing we will achieve with that, is to empower religion even more. There's enough zealots out there and the best thing you can do about it is to ignore it.

Religion is a beautiful thing (all of them are) that inspires billions of people and gives them hope. It's the halfwitted and the politicians who ruin it and hang everything, good and bad, on religion.

[NatalieB]

Where in any religious book does it say a woman should marry the man who raped her?

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

But I agree, holding religion up as evil because it has some insane laws is not judging it by the same standards everything else is judged.

[Iniquitous]

I can understand your point, and appreciate you not wanting to be perceived as pushing your religion on others.  An enviable trait, and one I wished certain other religions would follow.

Having said that, this is a debate, and when asked to provide evidence, "Google it" really isn't a rebuttal.  Methinks you could have provided some supporting evidence or links here.

I think this is painting with a rather broad brush, no?

EDIT: And perhaps you would like to provide some supporting evidence for your assertion that every religion is the same superstition and horrors?

First, the path I follow encourages people to do their own soul searching and educating. I do not witness to people, I do not seek to convert people, I do not hand hold. If Samnell had actually been interested in learning about my religion I would have gladly sent him a PM explaining my religion. Considering his views about religion and his militant mindset against religion, I am not going to waste my time when I have every reason to believe that he will just nitpick and become most unpleasant because I am not 'rational' and agree with him.

[NatalieB]

If Samnell had actually been interested in learning about my religion I would have gladly sent him a PM explaining my religion.

Not to derail, but is that an open offer?  I did some googling when you first mentioned it but its always interesting to hear "from the horse's mouth"

[Iniquitous]

If you are interested then I will happily send you a PM explaining Asatru. I would ask that you bear with me, it will likely be Saturday evening before I have the time to write everything up and get it to you. The hours of training for my new job are kicking my rear end right now and I am usually collapsing into bed right about now.

[Sabre]

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Things to focus on in bold.  As mentioned earlier, these matters are not instances of a rapist, a victim, and a judge but all of the above plus (rather especially) the families of the rapist and the victim.  Religion is a reflection of society, and for societies where the tribe is still powerful concepts like this persist.  It does not occur in religious societies that have discarded the tribal unit for the immediate nuclear family or individual.

In the above, we have the situation where the head of the family, the patriarch, is the one who is deemed the wronged party.

[NatalieB]

@Sabre

Oh yes, I'm not arguing that.  The head of the family has lost a potentially valuable dowry (so runs the reasoning) and should be compensated.

I was just answering Dashenka's point by saying such attitudes are not quite the anti-biblical travesty that she (and frankly I) would prefer they were.

@Iniq

Thanks, I appreciate it.  Don't worry about timing - I can hardly be fussy when you're doing me a favour can I.