Some feminist empowerment! These women are fighting for the right to be imprisoned if they charge rape and can't prove it with four male Muslim witnesses, to be lashed or even executed for sex outside marriage, to be divorced at will by a husband they can't divorce at will, to share their marriage with other wives, not chosen by them etc etc. In return, they'll be the prison guards of other women less "virtuous' than themselves.
Every totalitarian and repressive movement has lots of women in it. Such movements need women, to keep the other women in line, to go where men can't go, to bring the ideology into the family. That's not feminism.

This is a good article on that.

http://www.stophonourkillings.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1222

Don't know why the link didn't show, but here it is again.

I agree with some cat; this may be a moment of empowerment, but not all women's activism is feminist, and this empowerment does not strike me as particularly feminist empowerment. Women are a huge segment of the population, and no social/political/religious movement would succeed without any support from women. But that doesn't make the movement inherently feminist.

I mean, yes, they're fighting for what they believe in, but that only goes so far. If what they believe in is anti-feminist (not to mention a host of other things I object to), then I can't get too excited.

It's not directly related, but somecat's comment

Every totalitarian and repressive movement has lots of women in it. Such movements need women, to keep the other women in line, to go where men can't go, to bring the ideology into the family. That's not feminism.

Reminded me absolutley of the Dukhtaran-e-Millat.
who spent this Valentine's day harassing youngsters on dates.

Not all oppressed people know they are oppressed or feel that way for instance. If you grow up in a cage, you may not be very happy, but if no one tells you your in a cage then how would you know to feel otherwise? Perhaps these particular women were not treated badly by the men in their life. Perhaps they really believe that they are correctly worshipping their creator. This issue is more-so to do with the power religion has over people..

From our perspective it may seem that these women are fighting for their own oppression, to live under strict Muslim rule.

This assumes the alternative to strict Muslim rule is a secular, liberal legal system. In many cases, women are indeed at the forefront of fighting for strict Muslim rule, but they are certainly not fighting for their own oppression: what they are fighting for is at least some form of equality under the law.

Islamic law, being "moral" and "religious" is acceptable to people for whom liberal, secular law is not. And Islamic law, even the backward (mis-)interpretation of it that gets implimented in these places, is much better, e.g. in granting some form of equality under the law, to women than is the alternative of tribal "law".

To us, it may look like these women are pushing for their own oppression, but for many of them, even a sexist law such as provided by fundamentalist religion is infinitely better than having no legal system at all.

E.g., Some Cat points out that

These women are fighting for the right to be imprisoned if they charge rape and can't prove it with four male Muslim witnesses, to be lashed or even executed for sex outside marriage

... but perhaps they are fighting for the right to at least have a trial at which they have a chance to prove the rape, rather than the potential alternative in which they have a 100% chance of being passed around their community and serially raped and then murdered in a more viscious fashion than Islam would allow for executions.

This could be a history-making movement -- except that the men who write the history of this period won't mention these women.

This is a reply to some cat:

Some feminist empowerment! These women are fighting for the right to be imprisoned if they charge rape and can't prove it with four male Muslim witnesses, to be lashed or even executed for sex outside marriage, to be divorced at will by a husband they can't divorce at will, to share their marriage with other wives, not chosen by them etc etc. In return, they'll be the prison guards of other women less "virtuous' than themselves.

Or maybe they're just fighting for what they believe in? They're fighting for a place where they can go practice their religion. If Islam really made women inferior to men, you think they'd follow that religion? I don't think so.

A man can't marry another woman without the permission of his first wife. If he does, then the marriage is invalid and therefore haraam. It's haraam for anyone (man or woman) to have sex outside of marriage.

If Islam really made women inferior to men, you think they'd follow that religion? I don't think so.

Unaiza, as a reformed Evangelical Fundamentalist, I promise you your assessment is incorrect. The fundamentalist church has a lesser place for women and I bought into it for YEARS before finally seeing the light. Women (and men) can be tricked into thinking oppression is good for them, or can be frightened into submitting to it and even pretending to embrace its ideals -- indeed, this is how totalitarian governments like Nazi Germany prospered until they were conquered by an outside force.

Oh, and to clarify my last comment: I don't think Islam makes women inferior to men. I do think Islamic Fundamentalism does, however, and my understanding is that's what we're discussing here.

Patriarchal religions are not compatible with Feminism. Any belief system that has an all powerful male god controlling your life should be put in the same box as the tooth fairy. Not even..At least when our children get older they become smart enough to figure out the truth all for themselves. Although the woman fighting for their mosques are empowered and certainly worthy of our admiration, we should try to be aware that the next step for them is to find out who and what is actually oppressing them.

"It's haraam for anyone (man or woman) to have sex outside of marriage."

...except when the local tribal judge orders a bunch of guys to rape some woman or girl who is not married to any of them in order to punish one of her relatives.

Actually, of the three Abrahamic religions, Islam is the least patriarchal (textually). There is no basis in the Quran or Hadiths for discrimination against women. That's a remnant of the tribal cultures that Islam was put on top of. The Quran is fairly explicit about the fact that women are equal to men, and Muhammad was well known for the fact that his closest friend and adviser was his wife Fatima. As well, towards the beginning of Islam, some of the most influential jurists were women.

Even when it comes to dress, the Quran doesn't distinguish between men and women. Both are supposed to dress modestly and cover their hair, hence the long robes and head covers that the Saudi Princes wear. It's just that men have enforced this selectively.

I think the problem is most Americans don't have a very sophisticated understanding of the variations of Islam that are practiced in the world. Not all Islamic societies are "tribal," as Mina says. Islam, as with Christianity, has been adapted to mesh with local practices (many of them violently patriarchal) everywhere it's taken root, and thus there's a wide diversity of Islamic practice. Where there is misogyny, it's not safe to assume that it is the product of Islam, rather than other social/historical/political/economic factors.

It's not clear from this post what these women envision. We just don't know enough about them from this. That said, I will add that it is possible for women to act politically and gain power without that empowerment being feminist. See the excellent work of Nancy MacLean, "Beyond the Mask of Chivalry," on that point.

A man can't marry another woman without the permission of his first wife.

In general, students at an Islamic seminary are likely to have had no exposure to any other ideas at all. You only have to read about life in Pakistan's islamic madrassas to realize this. In such an atmosphere, it's easy to imagine an autocratic teacher whipping up fervor. (Mind you, I'm not asserting that this happened. I've no idea, really.)

This sort of thing has happened before. Algerians elected a muslim fundamentalist party to power in their first free elections. The problem is, secular democracy isn't a natural born human instinct, it needs education to foster it. Witness republican authoritarianism in the US!

And, in any case, feminism itself is hardly a universally held ideal, even amongst women. Just look at Phyllis Schlafly!

So no, I do NOT see how this represents empowerment for women in any way!

"Muhammad was well known for the fact that his closest friend and adviser was his wife Fatima"

Wasn't his first wife Khadija (who died before he married Fatima, right?) his employer (owner of the caravan company he worked for) when she proposed to him?

"Both are supposed to dress modestly and cover their hair, hence the long robes and head covers that the Saudi Princes wear."

...and hence some Muslim women and girls in the West dressing in relatively-modest Western clothes instead of also covering their elbows and ankles on hot summer days while they're at it.

"Not all Islamic societies are 'tribal,' as Mina says."

My bad. I should have been clearer that I was thinking of some denominations (and some ulema?) of Islam, not of all the other non-tribal denominations and ulema too.

Sorry, transposed names. Fatima was Muhammad's daughter, and the wife of Ali (according to Shi'a Muslims). Khadijah bint Khuwaylid (whom I was thinking of) was Muhammad's first wife, and a very successful businesswoman.

The only problem is Islam hasn't gone through a secular enlightenment period like Christianity did hence the horrible, literal interpretations. The horribly misogyny comes from local patriarchs and social, political and economic factors.

Wow. The lack of knowledge about Islam is truely shining through in these comments. I suggest you all pick up any (or all) of the following books before you go passing judgement on Muslim women and making claims about who gets to be the arbiter of Muslim women's oppression. I hear a lot of racist and imperialist arguments from those above.

Living Islam Out Loud - Saleemah Abdul-Ghafur (ed)

Reading Lolita in Tehran - Azar Nafisi

Shattering The Stereotypes: Muslim Women Speak Out - Nawal El Saadawi & Fawzia Afzal-Khan

Voices of Resistance: Muslim Women on War, Faith and Sexuality - Sarah Husain

and for those of you who prefer film:

Nazrah: A Muslim Woman's Perspective - Farah Nousheen (which I will publish a review of this week)

Feminist Review, without seeing more details, I can't help it but dismiss your argument the way I dismiss the arguments of people who tell me that women really do have rights under Dominionism.

Can I have a thumbnail sketch of each of the five works?

I'm very curious and don't have time at this moment to read or see these works.

I second...er third...Feminist Review and Bearcat. Many sexist and repressive cultures often have some of the most progressive and beautifully written scriptures. Social and cultural circumstances are not a direct result of religion, and there are some appalling generalizations of Islam regarding that.

"Reading Lolita in Tehran" I can thumbnail for you, Donna. It's a beautifully written piece my (very) Hindu mother and I enjoyed thoroughly that depicted a Western reading club among many devout Muslim students of the authoress in private meetings after the revolution in Iran in the 1970s. It depicts some terrible scenes of rape and inequality, but through it all, these women keep a very strong, proud Islamic identity with admirable taste and analysis of risque and often "scandalous" pieces of work such as Nabokov's "Lolita". They aren't the result of stringent scripture nor do they define themselves by the way men treat them--they are only as "repressed" as they let themselves be.

I'm glad these women want to keep a place of worship open, not to continue repression, but to practice and embrace their beliefs by the true word of the Qu'aran--not its "selective enforcers".

Ewww re-reading that, I realize my grammar deteriorates as the night progresses. Please translate that summary into something more coherent in your head. Thanks!

Well, I don't know a lot about Islam, but I find it extremely difficult to believe the Quran could be any more sexist than the bible.

And what is wrong with women protesting the destruction of their mosques? The issues of inequality and abuse are related to culture, not religion.

Who here thinks the Christian fundamentalists accurately represent most Christians? I bloody hope not

I typed a post, and I lost it. Sigh.

This is basically what I wanted to say:

It seems like a lot of posters here are confusing "tribal" villages in poor, rural areas of Pakistan with Islamabad, the capital city, located in the richest, most educated, and most liberal part of Pakistan.

Islam has a lot of problems pertaining to women; that's why I'm not religious. There's also a group of men (and some women) who co-opt the language of Islam to terrorize everyone who doesn't agree with them.

However, in cities like Islamabad and Lahore, women aren't regularly stoned in the streets. Women go to college and work, and get degrees in fields like Engineering and Medicine. Even my mother, from a family that wasn't at wealthy, went to college in the 70s, and many of her classmates are practicing doctors. It's not fabulous by any means, but we aren't close to achieving equal rights anywhere in the world.

Just like FeministReview urged people to learn more about Islam before commenting, I urge people to learn more about Pakistan before commenting.

Look at it this way: South Carolina voted to ban gay marriage. That doesn't speak for the voters of Arizona, who rejected a similar ban, or Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal. While things aren't exactly great for gay people overall, there are places where things aren't quite as appalling.

Basically, women protesting something like this in Islamabad isn't the same thing as women protesting something like this in a rural village where tribal law and tradition (I want to stress this; it's not Islamic law) prevent them from moving around freely, and where a rape can be ordered against them.

"Islam has a lot of problems pertaining to women; that's why I'm not religious."

Aren't those more problems some denominations and ulema of Islam have pertaining to women?

This whole situation reminds me of the way neither "it's not religion, it's culture" nor "it's inherently Christian" exactly applies when people do things in the name of one denomination of Christianity that another denomination of Christianity disapproves of.

I realize that this is a feminist website, but I'm surprised not to find at least a bit more weight given to ideas of cultural relativism. We each come from societies and groups from which we derive our values. We of course believe our values to be right; otherwise they wouldn't be our values. It's important to realize that there are many such value systems out there, which may operate on very different core assumptions. For example, I think it's fair to say that most of this site's readership tends to place emphasis on the importance of the individual and personal satisfaction/freedom. There are other belief systems which place more emphasis on service to the family, society as a whole, or god(s). I think it's natural for one group to apply its values to others, for example for feminists to judge the actions of Muslim women in Pakistan.

I also think that it’s wrong to say that these women are supporting their own oppression. They’re supporting their roles in a society which agrees with their system of beliefs; conversely, to force them to live in roles they might not support could be seen as a sort of oppression, even if their newly-assigned roles would allow them greater personal choice. While it’s possible that this may be “anti-feminist,� is it ok to condemn their choice as wrong because we feel they’re violating our system of values? Are our values (personal liberty, for example) universally right, or are they right within our groups? What makes these values more right than those in fundamentalist Islamic states? Is it the idea of the disenfranchisement of large portions of the population? Simple majority rule is obviously a dangerous path, but to assign universal unrestrained liberty is just as destabilizing. Who gets to decide which values/societies get to be in charge?

Donna Darko: "The only problem is Islam hasn't gone through a secular enlightenment period like Christianity did hence the horrible, literal interpretations."

Wha? Christianity doesn't have problems with horrible interpretations. We have problems with interpreting secular documents (2nd amendment, rape laws) in the US.

Besides, the Islamic World did go through an enlightenment during the European Dark Ages. While it wasn't entirely secular (neither was the European enlightenment), it was amazingly tolerant of other religions, and focused on equality within the ummah, or Islamic community. What we see now with repression of women and intolerance of other religions is similar to the massive increase in conservative Catholicism in Poland in response to the oppression of the USSR.

Bearcat,

I'm not so sure about Christianity not having problems with horrible interpretations ... those problems with interpreting secular documents often spring from horrible interpretations within Christianity.

And to expand upon your response to Donna regarding the Enlightenment: much of what we today identify as fundamentalist, evangelical Christianity sprang forth from the Enlightenment and was justified using Enlightenment era thinking. Much of for what we liberals often credit the Enlightenment also is actually a product of the previous "Age of Reason" (which was certainly not secular) and the Humanistic/Romantic (and also not necessarily secular, but justifying much of secular society) idealogies that arose post-Enlightenment.

Regarding also, equality within the Ummah, in thinking about why women might be supporting Islam, we'd do well to remember P.J. O'Rourke's (perhaps not a popular person to cite around here) explanation of the conversion of Bengalis to Islam about 1000 years ago (quote is approximate from memory): "Islam provided equality before the law and a set of laws worth being equal before". Certainly fundamentalist Islamic law is not as worth being equal before (nor does it provide as much equality before the law) as our liberal, secular laws are. But in a tribal society, Islamic law, even if it is tainted by the sexism of the society, is often much better than the only alternative which is tribal law, which, in the cases at hand, does not provide for any sort of equality before the law, etc.

Sorry, that's supposed to be a question mark at the end of the first sentence. The point was that we're not that different.

As to legal equality, there's an awesome fatwa out by the Grand Mufti of Egypt. It would take a long time to explain, so instead, go to my blog (http://thesoggyliberal.wordpress.com/2007/02/22/a-huge-step-forward/)
or Eteraz.org

The problem with invoking cultural relativism is that all cultures that I know of are hostile to feminism. Islamic cultures, tribal cultures, Middle Eastern cultures, Western cultures, Christian cultures--feminism has been perceived as a serious threat by all of them. So, no, I do not think that all aspects of all cultures are equally valid or good; too many cultures include the subjugation of women as one of their cherished tenets. Samhita asked about women's participation in the move to more fundamentalist forms of Islam; it seems to me to be on a par with Quiverfull women. It may be something they believe in deeply; it may be something that they're willing to fight for; it may be connected to their cultural and religious heritage. That doesn't make it feminist.

"Islam has a lot of problems pertaining to women; that's why I'm not religious."

Aren't those more problems some denominations and ulema of Islam have pertaining to women?

Actually, Mina, no. Some of my current issues with religion pertain to things like how men can marry non-Muslims but women can't, and how two female witnesses are equivalent to one male witness.

I think I'm just going through a transitory stage, really. I'm only 22, so I need to reconcile my very liberal, feminist beliefs, with a fairly conservative religion. I don't know if I will become more or less religious later in life, but I do know that I would never gravitate towards a religion other than Islam.

That was all very off-topic, though.

Didn't sound off-topic to me, prairielily. Though I may be biased, as I find your posts interesting as a rule!

I have a friend who has gone/is going through a similar process in reconciling their draw to Catholicism with their feminism; it may be easier for her because liberal Catholics are a more highly visible group in the US. (Now that's off-topic, I guess!)

EG: Regarding relativism, have you ever heard of the desert/forest culture hypothesis? I haven't heard it referenced in a while, but it seems applicable here.

I haven't. What is it?

Cultural relativism is the principle that an individual human's beliefs and activities should be interpreted in terms of his or her own culture. (Thanks Wikipedia!)

Therefore, it doesn't matter if you think your own culture is sexist if you're positioning your culture as 'less sexist' than another, which is certainly up for debate... and in the eye of the beholder.

An issue here is in the interpretation of "mov[ing] to more fundamentalist forms of Islam." Is wearing hajib moving in that direction? Is praying 5 times a day? Is adhering to the role of a wife/mother? What actually constitutes fundamentalism? And what right does a non-Muslim have to make that determination? These are all very complex questions that I think need to be raised here. Did anyone notice that these are female students from an Islamic seminary? I think they've probably got a better handle on what Islam is all about than most of the people posting here.

Also, I agree with prairielily that there is a need to take into consideration the history of Pakistan, particularly in its relationship with the U.S. and how that has affected its status in the region and how Pakistani officials are perceived by their own people. It's quite telling that an undelying reason behind this protest is to give a big F*** You to the U.S. 'puppet' government in Pakistan (as was reported in the article).

The desert/culture hypothesis (as I remember it) says that cultures that originated in the desert (such as the Abrahamic religions) are necessarily more oppressive than cultures that originated in forests (Native Americans from the Pacific Northwest, Celts) because of the harshness of the climate. When you are constantly struggling to preserve your genetic lineage (as we all do, though not consciously), you will treat women like prisoners/property to keep them out of the hands of rivals, and you will attack rivals more readily to get more resources or to protect your resources. I think Islam and Christianity are exceptions (somewhat), since both originated in desert areas that were prosperous because of trade and oases. But, of course, both carry baggage from the cultures they sprang from, and the cultures they were grafted onto.

Yes, thank you, I know what cultural relativism is; what I've said is that it doesn't trump feminism when it comes to my values. Every action has already been judged in the context of its own culture, and especially misogynist actions are almost always condoned by their own cultures. I see no reason to condone them.

I don't think I said that my culture is less sexist; I would certainly argue that it's sexist in different ways; and when it comes to it, I would argue that the culture I spend my time in--leftist, feminist, urban intelligentisia culture--is less sexist than fundamentalist cultures of any stripe (though I've never met any fundamentalist Wiccans, so I could be wrong).

I did notice that the students are from an Islamic seminary, but seeing as Islam is a huge, worldwide religion, I'm not convinced that that means that they have a handle on what Islam is "all about." That would be like saying that students at a Catholic seminary have a handle on what Christianity is all about--really? A handle on Protestantism and Russian Orthodoxy as well?

As to how to judge fundamentalism--isn't it a label that's usually claimed by its adherents?

It's interesting, but I'm not sure I buy it, Bearcat, because it seems to presuppose patriarchy, in the idea that in an effort to control your lineage, "you" will treat women like prisoners/property. How do men gain the upper hand or ability to treat women badly? Why wouldn't the women, in an effort to control their well-being, round up the men and treat them like property (with the help of some big sticks, I guess)?

Also, it seems like the idea of a "harsh" climate is being limited to deserts, but aren't the Alaskan Inuit also living in a harsh climate? And the Norse? And even the Celts? (prior to central heating, I can't imagine that Ireland was a cakewalk, climate-wise.) What about the distinctions between the ways the Ancient Greeks and the Ancient Romans treated women, despite being in very similar climates.

Can an argument really be made about the Abrahamic religions if exceptions than have to made for Christianity and Islam?

It's a personality thing, really--I'm almost always wary of large generalizations.

I never said it explained everything. Ireland is much more hospitable to agriculture than, say, Arabia, though. And most of the Greek Peninsula is marginal farmland, while Latium is very good for agriculture. The Norse were also relatively patriarchal and violent, as were the Inuit, if I remember correctly.

As for why women wouldn't beat up men, there's the obvious size advantage men have on average. As well, in the desert, food depends largely on big game hunting which men have an advantage in (again because of size). It may well have been in women's advantage to "submit" to patriarchal systems when the alternative was starvation. In a forest climate, though, gathering and small game make up a very large portion of the diet, which women (on average) are equally capable of obtaining.

Finally, there's the fact that a woman can have at most one child per year, while a man is restricted only by the number of available partners. From the standpoint of numbers of offspring (which is what the survival of cultures is based on) women have an incentive to mate with the best (in a desert, the best providers) and men to mate with the most. When women are more dependent on men, like in a desert, they are also worse off.

I don't know--it depends on when cultures evolve. Humans are fairly unique among apes in having such dimorphic bodies between gender. Are we talking about a cultural dynamic that comes into play after that difference is evolved? And if so, how do we know? There's also the issue of whether or not that difference is as pronounced when life is hard and nobody's getting enough to eat. Nobody's developing well, so are men really becoming that much bigger and more muscular? Add that to the fact that humans in general are not physically prepossessing species, and the fact is that success in hunting would seem to depend more on stealth, cunning, teamwork and aim than anything else--surely it's not impossible for women to fashion bows or slingshots or spears that they can use. Compared to the strength of big game, is the difference between male and female human beings really that pronounced?

The whole mate-number-incentive thing is posited on the idea that mating=successful breeding. Does a man who sleeps around but doesn't spend any time taking care of his offspring really have a better chance of perpetuating his genes than a man who pair-bonds with a woman, and spends time assuring that their offspring thrive? And what does it mean to mate with the "best"? The best at what?

Another issue is that having a kid every one or two years, while little compared to the animal kingdom, is not actually that few. If a woman can have ten kids over twenty years, why wouldn't she want to have an enslaved pool of breeding stock?

"humans in general are not physically prepossessing species, and the fact is that success in hunting would seem to depend more on stealth, cunning, teamwork and aim than anything else--surely it's not impossible for women to fashion bows or slingshots or spears that they can use."

One of the main ways to catch big game was to spear an animal, then hold on to the spear, keeping it in the animal until it died. That requires a lot of strength, beyond what most women are capable of easily obtaining. Also, stealth attacks in the desert are almost impossible (no cover, and animals with sight as their primary sense).

As for the mate-number incentive, even if a man reduces the amount he puts into each child, the increase in number will make up for it, especially when child survival rates are already low. If a man has 21 children (pretty much only possible with multiple partners) with a 20% chance of survival each, he is better off (as far as spreading his genes goes) than 8 children with a 50% chance of survival each (one partner).

I meant to put quotation marks around "the best." I'm forgetting punctuation a lot lately. "the best" depends on culture, often the best provider, but some cultures value art, eloquence, personality, or combinations.

And women may want an "enslaved pool of breeding stock" (some girls I knew in high school come to mind) but that won't increase the number of offspring they can have, and therefore won't spread their genes or their culture.

You may well be right, and I may well just be being a pain in the ass. It's a theory that strikes me as a just-so story, though, which is why I'm being a pain in the ass about it. Theories like that tend to rub me the wrong way.

I'm still not convinced that human beings couldn't come up with another way of killing big game, though. Surely two women could have hung onto a spear--does hunting have to be a one-man/one-animal proposition?

The thing I like about this particular theory, just-so story, which I forgot to mention as I got caught up in being a pain in the ass, is that it directly situates culture as a result of material circumstance, demystifying the idea of culture. As material circumstances change, then, culture can, and usually does change.

Culture is (in my not-so-humble opinion) a mixture of material circumstances, chance (what was the likelihood that Christianity would find as strong a supporter as Paul, or that Siddhartha Gautama would abandon his material belongings to become the Buddha), direct manipulations by people (the feminist movement has changed the culture in the US and Europe significantly), and biology (you will never find a culture without an incest taboo, or without religion, or that smile at funerals, because such traits are innate).

And just so stories can be true. Evolution is a just so story, but every scientific discovery confirms it. This is certainly a just so story, and I'm not sure if other cultures confirm it (I'm not familiar enough with India, the Aborigines of Australia, etc.), but it's falsifiable, and so a legitimate theory of anthropology (assuming it hasn't been discredited since I last heard about it).

Also, as far as two women hunting an single animal, wouldn't it be better (in terms of economics) to have a single man doing that, and the two women doing "women's work" that needs to be done. That way you get twice as much "womens work" (whatever that is), and the same amount of hunting done.

Depends on how you look at it--if the alternative is depending on a large, bossy man for meat, it might make better sense for the women to pair up to go hunting, at least for the women themselves. It comes back to the question of whether this system is supposed to originate patriarchy or come up after it's already in place.

Evolution isn't a just-so story, though. Not everything that evolves has a function. Lots of things evolve simply because they aren't detrimental, such as the crimson color of lots of deep sea creatures. The red doesn't show up in the kind of light given out by bioluminscent predators, so there's not reason not to evolve red--but that doesn't make red functional.

Really, never smiling at funerals? I know I and lots of other people have an immediate smiling reaction to really bad news--something to do with anxiety and discomfort. What about Irish wakes?

Evolution also depends on a bunch of contingent events, like mass extinctions due to asteroid strike, that really have little to do with any kind of predictable fitness.

Actually, if I remember correctly, red is adaptive since it absorbs blue light, thus making them darker than they would be if they were a similar shade of gray. In fact, almost nothing can evolve if it's not adaptive, since waste is maladaptive.

And ignore the point about funerals. That was ill-thought out. The rest stands, though.

I stand corrected on the red. But what I was really thinking of was Stephen Jay Gould's spandrel theories--have those been rejected at this point?

I don't think they have. But spandrels are the non-adaptive
"side effects" of adaptive mutations, so I'm not sure how that applies to the desert/forest hypothesis. What were you thinking of?

Oh, jeez, nothing specific! I just went into off-topic theorizing-for-theorizing's sake because I was interested in what you were saying.

bearcat, I said Christianity doesn't have horrible, literal interpretations compared to Islam. We have Christian fundamentalists but even they don't go by the letter with carrying out stonings, etc.

Alot to read on this thread! but someone mentioned cultural relativism. Feminism and human rights organizations should always criticize human rights violations that arise from culture, religion, politics, economics, social factors or whatever. There's nothing relative in criticizing stonings, honor killings, rape, murder, pyre burnings, dowry deaths, female genital mutilation, forced marriage, etc. etc. etc.

Do you remember when people said relativity died after 9-11? That there's nothing relative when you see planes hitting buildings? It's the same with human rights violations. There nothing relative about them.

Actually, I have heard some Christian fundamentalists call for a literal interpretation of adultery laws in the Bible, and there are still people who will kill gays because they think it's god's will.

I agree with you on cultural relativism, but with one caveat. We must know why these HR violations are prevalent in certain cultures, so that we can fight them effectively. Simply telling a Saudi Muslim that he shouldn't keep his wife in the house because it is against principles of human rights won't work. If you're interested in how liberal Muslims are working to change stuff like this from the inside, go to Eteraz.org.

Yes, but Christian fundamentalists aren't literally stoning adulterers, gays, etc. to death.

I'm all for ending human rights violations everywhere and awareness and putting more brains on the task will help.

I've noted before the best way to combat human rights violations is awareness, funding and supporting local organizations, NGOs, etc.

This story is fascinating. As much as I admire these women for their dedication to a cause they believe in, I'm afraid I can't interpret their efforts as feminist empowerment, or even support their actions.

I grew up in Islamabad, and I remember these tiny mosques proliferating on public land like mushrooms after a rain storm. A person with no claim over the property in question would erect a rudimentary shack, begin hold prayer congregations, and declare the building a "mosque".

Local superstition (I hesitate to call it Islamic law because I don't know if it is such) claims that a mosque building can never be demolished or used for another purpose. So what we have is urban parks and green zones littered with brick sheds that may or may not be used for prayer after some time has passed.

The winner in this scheme is the person who erected the "mosque" and gained nominal control over the land surrounding it. The losers, of course, are the tax-payers. Past governments have been reluctant to demolish the encroachments for fear of triggering a reaction similar to what is happening now.

As for the protest itself, as far as I can tell the women involved in it are being used as pawns by the reactionary clerics.

"The Pakistani government's inaction against the female students stems in part from religious and cultural taboos against physical contact between unrelated men and women. Authorities have said they do not have enough female officers to carry out arrests."

Hampered by cultural mores and limited resources, the government can't do much except, perhaps, turn off the water supply and electricity. Perhaps the "masked, club-wielding men who are on round-the-clock guard atop [the library] walls" have something to do with it too.

So what we have here is a government attempt at zoning regulations hijacked by reactionaries (male and female) who are using women to blackmail the government. This isn't women's empowerment. This is criminal behavior.

And to remind us that objectification is fashionable all over the world, the LA Times includes this delightful sentence in the article:

"That is the only way that this will end," said Amna Adeem, a 20-year-old protester wearing a black veil that left only her flashing brown eyes uncovered.

"I know what cultural relativism is; what I've said is that it doesn't trump feminism when it comes to my values."

You mis-used the term so I thought it was necessary to clarify. And I don't see this as an issue of one value trumping another value. It's an issue of how does one value influence another. Certainly you can admit that your identification with feminism shapes your cultural perspective.

"That would be like saying that students at a Catholic seminary have a handle on what Christianity is all about--really? A handle on Protestantism and Russian Orthodoxy as well?"

No, it would be like saying that someone who is at a Catholic seminary would have a pretty good bit of knowledge about Catholocism. Yes, Islam has many different interpretations, but the point is that these women have every right to their interpretation. You don't have to like it, but you can't claim to understand what value they get from it and how it motivates their actions. And you certainly can't claim to know the religion better than they do.

"As to how to judge fundamentalism--isn't it a label that's usually claimed by its adherents?"

Uh, NO! Most people who you or I may label as fundamentalist (Muslim, Christian, or otherwise) do not self-identify this way. Claims of fundamentalism are mostly judgements placed on those being labeled. This isn't to say that I don't judge people. Certainly I think James Dobbs and Jerry Falwell and Osama Bin Laden are fundamentalists, but that's a judgement, not a fact.

"There's nothing relative in criticizing stonings, honor killings, rape, murder, pyre burnings, dowry deaths, female genital mutilation, forced marriage, etc"

Absolutely there is! One person's forced marriage is another person's arranged marriage. One person's genital mutilation is another person's circumcision. We have forced circumcision in this country for damn near all men, but where's the outcry about that? Is it because we have a better medical system or because we don't see ourselves as barbaric? EVERYTHING is relative.

Thank you, heirbobolus. I've seen those buildings in Islamabad and I suspected that that is what was going on, but I ignored that in favour of commenting on how different parts of Pakistan have different traditions and values. I mean, I wasn't sure, and the thread had gone in a different direction.

There's so many parts of Pakistan that still aren't properly registered, and things like this make it more difficult. It's a legal grey area, and anyone who tries to steal land by attaching religious signicance to it has no problem with using women for the same purposes.

“Absolutely there is! One person's forced marriage is another person's arranged marriage. One person's genital mutilation is another person's circumcision. We have forced circumcision in this country for damn near all men, but where's the outcry about that? Is it because we have a better medical system or because we don't see ourselves as barbaric? EVERYTHING is relative.�

Feminist Review, female genital mutilation and male circumcision are two very very different things in terms of the effects that they have on a person’s quality of life and the reasons for which they are done. Cutting a man’s foreskin does not cause him to be more susceptible to infestions, they don’t dperive him of sexual pleasure or make intercourse painful, cutting off a woman clitoris does as a matter of fact it decreases the chance of infection. Anyways recent studies have shown that male circumcision can play a large role in stopping the spread of aids in underdeveloped countries.
Re arranged versus forced marriage, where your dad’s aunt knows this guy’s cousin and she tells your mom. Families meet, etc. and you reserve a right to say know at any step of the process. Then there is forced marriage where you have no say in what happens. Your dad basically sells you to this guy who takes you to Afghanistan and pimps you out (very common story). Believe me, a fourteen year-old girl in some small village in eastern Iran knows the difference very well.

I couldn't agree more, sojourner. Equating male circumcision with female genital mutilation indicates a willful blindness to not only the health issues involved, but also to the disastrous consequences to women's sexual pleasure. It's like comparing the scar from a zit to smallpox.

I'm against male circumcision because it takes away sensitivity and because it's mostly cosmetic. People know more about it now and are speaking out against male circumcision. Women also orgasm more with the foreskin intact.

Forced marriages are not arranged marriages where relatives lackadaisically go about looking for mates. It often involve kidnapping, teenagers and rape.

Forced marriage is a term used to describe a marriage in which one or more of the parties (usually the woman) is married without his/her consent or against his/her will. It is different from an arranged marriage, in which both parties consent to the assistance of their parents or a third party in identifying a spouse. The practice of forced marriage was very common amongst the upper classes in Europe until the 1900s. It is still a common practice in South Asia, the Middle East and Africa and Eastern Europe. Forced marriage is being seen in Europe again within migrant communities.

Western society and the UN view forced marriage is a form of human rights abuse, since it violates the principle of the freedom and autonomy of individuals. Women of Asian origin are the most common victims, but men are also forced to marry in the name of family pride, wishes of the parents, or social obligation. Many forced marriages in Britain within the Asian community are aimed at providing British citizenship to a member of the family presently in the Indian subcontinent to whom the instigator of the forced marriage feels a sense of duty.

The Roman Catholic Church deems forced marriage grounds for granting an annulment — for a marriage to be valid both parties must give their consent freely. Most Catholics and other Christians consider forcing a person to marry someone is a grave sin.

See also
* Shotgun wedding
* Trafficking in human beings
* Rape

Ah! I just read over my own comment and saw that it’s fool of mistakes. I think I was really sleepy when I posted it last night.
It read:
Cutting a man’s foreskin does not cause him to be more susceptible to infections (as a matter of fact it decreases the chance of infection.), they don’t deprive him of sexual pleasure or make intercourse painful, and cutting off a woman clitoris does.

And:

Re arranged versus forced marriage: There is arranged marriage where your dad’s aunt knows this guy’s cousin and she tells your mom.

Donna, they don’t know for sure that it takes away sensitivity. At least Wikipedia says that ‘The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) states "The effect of circumcision on penile sensation or sexual satisfaction is unknown.�’. Also, there is this new research that says it can cut the rate of HIV infection by half in the third world (obviously there would be no need for it if people all used condoms).
I know that in Iran for example it is considered to be part of hygiene. But in Wikipedia it says that “there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimal penile hygiene.� But then one paragraph later it says “Studies have found that boys with foreskins tend to have higher rates of various infections and inflammations of the penis than those who are circumcised.� So I don’t know.
I agree that in the West it must be largely cosmetic ( and I have to admit I like the look and feel of it), but for example my boyfriend had to get circumcised at age three here in the US because of an infection, even though his religion didn’t required it. So yeah other than that I am not in favor of male circumcision; I think it should be left up to the boy when he grows up to deiced if he likes it cut or uncut. I just think it isn’t at all comparable to FGM.

Oh, I agree. If I have a baby boy, I probably will not have him circumcised, but FGM it ain't.

It doesn't compare to FGM at all and they do look nice. I've never seen uncircumcized penises except on the interwebs.