You gotta love the colonial feminists in this thread. These are people who, in any other context, behave as the noted male chauvinists and misogynists that they are. But when the topic turns to the Middle East or Islam, all of a sudden they're champions of the feminist cause, advocating a worldwide campaign of waging wars for the liberation of women (on behalf of the White Man, of course).
That's not to say there aren't any valid critiques of womens' status in different Muslim societies, each with their own colonial history. But the type of reductionism many of my fellow atheists engage in, wherein it's all inherently religion's fault.. "The oppresion of women in ___ country is all ___ religion's fault" is just obdurate, willful ignorance. I don't believe you can view religion in a vacuum, as an isolated force removed from any broader political context. The predominant factor determining the role Islam plays and character it takes from Afghanistan to Bosnia to Indonesia is going to reflect the material conditions of that country. This is as opposed to it being a reflection of the inherent character of the religion. Religion is rooted in specific socio-economic conditions and until those are transformed simply dealing with the superstructure means nothing. Base determines superstructure. These issues are linked to culture, misogyny, poverty and above all: the male fear of female advancement.
Then again, that type of dialogue is way above the heads of most people here. Carry on.
|