Board index
Login
Register
Search
But what is actually happening is this:
-would they be a cash crop shipped from Thailand in containers into New York's brothels?
-Would they have their genitals sliced out to purify them (of what?) and to bid and define our cultures?
-Would they be used as breeders, made to work without pay their whole lives, burned when their dowry money wasn't enough or when men tired of them?
-Starved as widows when their husbands died if they survived his funeral pyre.
-Forced to sell themselves sexually because men won't value them for anything else?
-Would they be sold into marriage to priests to atone for their family's sins or to improve their family's earthly prospects?
-Would they be sexually and reproductively enslaved?
-Would they, when allowed to work for pay, be made to work at the most menial jobs and exploited at barely starvation level?
-Would they be trafficked for sexual use and entertainment worldwide in whatever form current technology makes possible?
-Would they be kept from learning to read and write?
-Would they have little to no voice in public deliberations and in government?
-Would they be hidden behind veils and imprisoned in houses and stoned and shot for refusing?
-Would they be beaten nearly to death, and to death, by men with whom they are close? ---Would they be sexually molested in their families?
-Would they be raped in genocides to terrorize and destroy our ethnic communities, and raped again in that undeclared war that goes on every day in every country in the world in what is called peacetime?
-If women were human, would their violation be enjoyed by their violators? And, if they were human, when these things happened, would virtually nothing be done about it?
It takes a lot of imagination -- and a determinedly blinkered focus on exceptions at the privileged margins -- to envision a real woman in the Universal Declaration's majestic guarantees of what 'everyone is entitled to'. After so many years, just what part of 'everyone' doesn't mean THEM?
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/mackinnon/mackin1.html
Board index ‹ LADIES FORUM ‹ Are Women Human?
Fri Aug 10, 2012 7:02 pm
Sat Aug 11, 2012 1:40 am
Sat Aug 11, 2012 9:47 am
Sat Aug 11, 2012 1:06 pm
Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:01 pm
Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:07 pm
Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:17 pm
Sat Aug 11, 2012 7:38 pm
Sun Aug 12, 2012 2:09 pm
Mon Aug 13, 2012 12:32 am
Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:39 pm
Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:51 pm
Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:38 pm
Tue Aug 14, 2012 7:24 pm
Tue Aug 14, 2012 7:38 pm
Wed Aug 15, 2012 1:22 am
Wed Aug 15, 2012 12:33 pm
Wed Aug 15, 2012 5:26 pm
Are Women Human?
First unread post • 20 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Fri Aug 10, 2012 7:02 pm
Bravo, Mirza Sahib, An excellent topic you've chosen there to start off this new Forum. Now before we start shedding tears of the condition of the woman in our world today, a quick look at days bygone might be useful. There was a time, indeed there was when the matriachy was the preferred model for mankind. Here's a start of an introduction to the subject:
"A matriarchy is a society in which females, especially mothers, have the central roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property. It is also sometimes called a gynocracy, a gynecocracy or a gynocentric society. The male equivalent is a patriarchy.
Most anthropologists hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal,[1][2][3][4][5][6] but possible exceptions include the Iroquois, in whose society mothers exercise central moral and political roles.[7] However, this reluctance to accept the existence of matriarchies might be based on a specific, culturally biased notion of how to define 'matriarchy': because in a patriarchy 'men rule over women', a matriarchy has frequently been conceptualized as 'women ruling over men', whereas in reality women-centered societies are - apparently without exception - egalitarian
There are also matrilinear, matrilocal, and avunculocal societies, especially among indigenous peoples of Asia and Africa,[10] such as those of the Minangkabau, E De (Rhade), Mosuo, Berbers and Tuareg and, in Europe, e.g., Sardinian people.[
Strongly matrilocal societies sometimes are referred to as matrifocal, and there is some debate concerning the terminological delineation between matrifocality and matriarchy. Even in patriarchical systems of male-preference primogeniture, there may occasionally be queens regnant.
In 19th century Western scholarship, the hypothesis of matriarchy representing an early stage of human development—now mostly lost in prehistory, with the exception of some so-called primitive societies—enjoyed popularity. The hypothesis survived into the 20th century and was notably advanced in the context of feminism and especially second wave feminism, but this hypothesis of matriarchy as having been an early stage of human development is mostly discredited today, most experts saying that it never existed.[13]
Barbara Love and Elizabeth Shanklin respond to this criticism in "The Answer is Matriarchy":
When we hear the word 'matriarchy', we are conditioned to a number of responses: that matriarchy refers to the past and that matriarchies have never existed; that matriarchy is a hopeless fantasy of female domination, of mothers dominating children, of women being cruel to men. Conditioning us negatively to matriarchy is, of course, in the interests of patriarchs. We are made to feel that patriarchy is natural; we are less likely to question it, and less likely to direct our energies to ending it."
So whatever the ifs and buts which come up when matriarchy is discussed, the model of female domination over society is most definitely a viable model and might once again come back to the fore, who can tell. If it ever did, though, the montheistic religions would have a terribly hard time coping with the phenomenon.
As for the way things are today: the age of equal opportunities for men and women, the problem there is that what it mostly leads to is women competing to be more manly than men and therefore it isn't a solution to the problem either. So to answer your question: are women human, my response would tend to be: Yes, I expect they are, but only just about. and I'd counter with a question of my own: Are men human or simply power-mad robots?
"A matriarchy is a society in which females, especially mothers, have the central roles of political leadership, moral authority, and control of property. It is also sometimes called a gynocracy, a gynecocracy or a gynocentric society. The male equivalent is a patriarchy.
Most anthropologists hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal,[1][2][3][4][5][6] but possible exceptions include the Iroquois, in whose society mothers exercise central moral and political roles.[7] However, this reluctance to accept the existence of matriarchies might be based on a specific, culturally biased notion of how to define 'matriarchy': because in a patriarchy 'men rule over women', a matriarchy has frequently been conceptualized as 'women ruling over men', whereas in reality women-centered societies are - apparently without exception - egalitarian
There are also matrilinear, matrilocal, and avunculocal societies, especially among indigenous peoples of Asia and Africa,[10] such as those of the Minangkabau, E De (Rhade), Mosuo, Berbers and Tuareg and, in Europe, e.g., Sardinian people.[
Strongly matrilocal societies sometimes are referred to as matrifocal, and there is some debate concerning the terminological delineation between matrifocality and matriarchy. Even in patriarchical systems of male-preference primogeniture, there may occasionally be queens regnant.
In 19th century Western scholarship, the hypothesis of matriarchy representing an early stage of human development—now mostly lost in prehistory, with the exception of some so-called primitive societies—enjoyed popularity. The hypothesis survived into the 20th century and was notably advanced in the context of feminism and especially second wave feminism, but this hypothesis of matriarchy as having been an early stage of human development is mostly discredited today, most experts saying that it never existed.[13]
Barbara Love and Elizabeth Shanklin respond to this criticism in "The Answer is Matriarchy":
When we hear the word 'matriarchy', we are conditioned to a number of responses: that matriarchy refers to the past and that matriarchies have never existed; that matriarchy is a hopeless fantasy of female domination, of mothers dominating children, of women being cruel to men. Conditioning us negatively to matriarchy is, of course, in the interests of patriarchs. We are made to feel that patriarchy is natural; we are less likely to question it, and less likely to direct our energies to ending it."
So whatever the ifs and buts which come up when matriarchy is discussed, the model of female domination over society is most definitely a viable model and might once again come back to the fore, who can tell. If it ever did, though, the montheistic religions would have a terribly hard time coping with the phenomenon.
As for the way things are today: the age of equal opportunities for men and women, the problem there is that what it mostly leads to is women competing to be more manly than men and therefore it isn't a solution to the problem either. So to answer your question: are women human, my response would tend to be: Yes, I expect they are, but only just about. and I'd counter with a question of my own: Are men human or simply power-mad robots?
Sat Aug 11, 2012 1:40 am
A very hard but vital question; are women human? The answer to this question has to be an emphatic yes every time and hence, with your permission if I could rephrase the question; do we treat women as humans? The answer to this question will depend on where you live and what social, cultural and religious attributes define your mind-set. I am not interested in starting the debate about women’s freedom (or East vs. West) but I am interested more in how people relate to women.
To be able to relate to a woman as a human, the first thought you need to perish from your head is that somehow she needs to be patronised, felt sorry for and unfairly praised. No human likes to be lied to so let us first understand the importance of sincerity and honesty when dealing with all humans, men or women. It is no secret that girls are outperforming boys in academia in high schools and this is increasing translating into success in tertiary education. So in terms of ability, women are able to hold their own in any competitive situation.
The kind of versatility that nature demands of a woman is at times well beyond the reach many men. What defines a woman is not just her womb but her intelligence, her love and very importantly her scorn. In my view if you want to learn anything about a society or a country, you just have to look at how it treats its women and girls. Undernourished, undereducated and under-represented women are all indicative of a society that has a long way to go before it can appreciate the greatest treasure it possesses. A society that turns a woman into a mere symbol will be locked in a vicious cycle of self-affirming fallacies.
A society that turns its women into competitors and consumers only will confuse material comfort with development and progress. A woman’s natural disposition to form and sustain relationships is critical for the survival of the human race. It is not about us and them; it is about tackling life together by pooling resources and strengths to improve the way we live our lives. If a man cannot relate to a woman in a multi-dimensional way, with dignity and respect, then he will only grow old and never grow up.
In life I was fortunate enough to have a few good teachers but one of the finest teachers I had was a woman, who truly inspired me to reach for the sky. She was the only female professor in a faculty completely dominated by men and it was plain to see that they were not going to make it easy for her. Her students respected her not because she was a woman but because she was remarkably intelligent, empathetic, erudite and inspirational human. This point was lost on her male colleagues who were plagued by a sense of insecurity. A few years after graduating I went to see her and was saddened to hear that she gave up teaching because of all the mindless prejudice she faced every day.
I wonder if you know what the Nicean monks did to Hypatia, perhaps the earliest known woman teacher, philosopher and Mathematician. Things may have improved but there is still a long way to go.
I will stop now.
To be able to relate to a woman as a human, the first thought you need to perish from your head is that somehow she needs to be patronised, felt sorry for and unfairly praised. No human likes to be lied to so let us first understand the importance of sincerity and honesty when dealing with all humans, men or women. It is no secret that girls are outperforming boys in academia in high schools and this is increasing translating into success in tertiary education. So in terms of ability, women are able to hold their own in any competitive situation.
The kind of versatility that nature demands of a woman is at times well beyond the reach many men. What defines a woman is not just her womb but her intelligence, her love and very importantly her scorn. In my view if you want to learn anything about a society or a country, you just have to look at how it treats its women and girls. Undernourished, undereducated and under-represented women are all indicative of a society that has a long way to go before it can appreciate the greatest treasure it possesses. A society that turns a woman into a mere symbol will be locked in a vicious cycle of self-affirming fallacies.
A society that turns its women into competitors and consumers only will confuse material comfort with development and progress. A woman’s natural disposition to form and sustain relationships is critical for the survival of the human race. It is not about us and them; it is about tackling life together by pooling resources and strengths to improve the way we live our lives. If a man cannot relate to a woman in a multi-dimensional way, with dignity and respect, then he will only grow old and never grow up.
In life I was fortunate enough to have a few good teachers but one of the finest teachers I had was a woman, who truly inspired me to reach for the sky. She was the only female professor in a faculty completely dominated by men and it was plain to see that they were not going to make it easy for her. Her students respected her not because she was a woman but because she was remarkably intelligent, empathetic, erudite and inspirational human. This point was lost on her male colleagues who were plagued by a sense of insecurity. A few years after graduating I went to see her and was saddened to hear that she gave up teaching because of all the mindless prejudice she faced every day.
I wonder if you know what the Nicean monks did to Hypatia, perhaps the earliest known woman teacher, philosopher and Mathematician. Things may have improved but there is still a long way to go.
I will stop now.
@stingingnettle1
stingingnettle1@gmail.com
stingingnettle1@gmail.com
Sat Aug 11, 2012 9:47 am
Sting
You wrote "do we treat women as humans?"
My answer is NO!
A woman has no respect in Pakistani (or even a Muslim) society whatsoever. It is true that Pakistani society has a sense of respect for a mother but it's just that. Being woman itself gets you no respect. Every man is very well aware of this fact. Just check out, all our slang words starts from woman. If you are a bad woman you are called a B!tch and if you are a bad man you Son of B!tch. See it's a woman in all cases. Similarly in Urdu, Pashto, Punjabi or any language if you want to abuse someone, You have all abuses revolving around their women. Some super heroes would go a step forward and will perform this abuse practically as we see everyday in our newspapers. So woman is just a tool that is used to insult one's enemy.
Those who'll say that we do respect women should take a deep breath and musk ask themselves Do they respect ANY woman or just the ones they are related to. Again here, let me say it that men don't respect women but they respect the very 'relationship' these men would have with these women. They might love their daughters because it's related to them or in other words men(most of them) just love themselves.
One more thing that is very common in our society that "It is a woman who hurts another woman". All those women who go through abusive relationships have a bigger chance to become abusive while they would be in power. A woman grown up in positive atmosphere will never end up in abusing other women.
There are people who would say that Islam has given many rights to women. That is the most annoying and absurd thing I could here from anywhere. I'm not sure that how many rights that how many rights have given by Islam but I am very sure about the practice women go through under the name of Islam. If God were that sympathetic, He would not have given the MEN the right to beat women as He is very well aware of the physical power Men do have over women.
Rest later...
You wrote "do we treat women as humans?"
My answer is NO!
A woman has no respect in Pakistani (or even a Muslim) society whatsoever. It is true that Pakistani society has a sense of respect for a mother but it's just that. Being woman itself gets you no respect. Every man is very well aware of this fact. Just check out, all our slang words starts from woman. If you are a bad woman you are called a B!tch and if you are a bad man you Son of B!tch. See it's a woman in all cases. Similarly in Urdu, Pashto, Punjabi or any language if you want to abuse someone, You have all abuses revolving around their women. Some super heroes would go a step forward and will perform this abuse practically as we see everyday in our newspapers. So woman is just a tool that is used to insult one's enemy.
Those who'll say that we do respect women should take a deep breath and musk ask themselves Do they respect ANY woman or just the ones they are related to. Again here, let me say it that men don't respect women but they respect the very 'relationship' these men would have with these women. They might love their daughters because it's related to them or in other words men(most of them) just love themselves.
One more thing that is very common in our society that "It is a woman who hurts another woman". All those women who go through abusive relationships have a bigger chance to become abusive while they would be in power. A woman grown up in positive atmosphere will never end up in abusing other women.
There are people who would say that Islam has given many rights to women. That is the most annoying and absurd thing I could here from anywhere. I'm not sure that how many rights that how many rights have given by Islam but I am very sure about the practice women go through under the name of Islam. If God were that sympathetic, He would not have given the MEN the right to beat women as He is very well aware of the physical power Men do have over women.
Rest later...
Sat Aug 11, 2012 1:06 pm
Dildar;
You make some highly perceptive points about the state of affairs as things stand today within Pakistan and within the Muslim world.
Yes, you are absolutely right that the lexicon of insult is replete with words and expressions that employ the degrading use of ‘woman’ in one form or another. When you put a woman on a pedestal and turn them into a symbol; you strip them of their humanity and then you make it possible for people to hurl insults at each other using feminine connotations and relationships. It is interesting to note that some of the insults in the Italian language revolve around Biblical figures (I can provide some examples but I am loathe to doing so lest I should offend readers) and that to me seems to be another example of what I am talking about. Turn religious figures into mere symbols and voilà you make it make it possible for those with anger and mal-intent to make additions to the lexicon of insult. Whilst I am not suggesting that this is a water-tight theory, it does explain some aspects of why a ‘woman’ figures in a lot of our insults. The two most commonly used relationships in insults are ‘mother’ and ‘sister’ and this is quite instructive because it shows that perhaps these are the only two most symbolised relationships we have. These are incidentally the two common reminders invoked when a man is showing disrespect towards a woman. Will be ever learn to respect a woman for the education, the kindness, the intellect and the capacity to do good she possesses and NOT merely because of the relationship she represents? I think not anywhere in the near future.
If your religious fear or favour is the only way for you to relate to a woman with or without respect then you have taken the first nine steps in a ten step walk towards arbitrary repression and injustice. It is like saying that you will only stop at a red traffic light if there a fear of being caught and punished or if there is a traffic police officer standing there nodding in appreciation at your lawful behaviour. Religious arguments, often given by the mullahs, are always intended to take seed in the non-thinking and highly compliant mind – a lazy mind. It is like a very stupid but hardworking person being appointed the CEO of a very large company. You can expect him or her to work extremely hard to talk nonsense to captive audiences.
You touched on another very important point; the cruelty of one woman towards another. I will to come back on this point (and the one about abusive relationships ) later as I have run out of time for now.
You make some highly perceptive points about the state of affairs as things stand today within Pakistan and within the Muslim world.
Yes, you are absolutely right that the lexicon of insult is replete with words and expressions that employ the degrading use of ‘woman’ in one form or another. When you put a woman on a pedestal and turn them into a symbol; you strip them of their humanity and then you make it possible for people to hurl insults at each other using feminine connotations and relationships. It is interesting to note that some of the insults in the Italian language revolve around Biblical figures (I can provide some examples but I am loathe to doing so lest I should offend readers) and that to me seems to be another example of what I am talking about. Turn religious figures into mere symbols and voilà you make it make it possible for those with anger and mal-intent to make additions to the lexicon of insult. Whilst I am not suggesting that this is a water-tight theory, it does explain some aspects of why a ‘woman’ figures in a lot of our insults. The two most commonly used relationships in insults are ‘mother’ and ‘sister’ and this is quite instructive because it shows that perhaps these are the only two most symbolised relationships we have. These are incidentally the two common reminders invoked when a man is showing disrespect towards a woman. Will be ever learn to respect a woman for the education, the kindness, the intellect and the capacity to do good she possesses and NOT merely because of the relationship she represents? I think not anywhere in the near future.
If your religious fear or favour is the only way for you to relate to a woman with or without respect then you have taken the first nine steps in a ten step walk towards arbitrary repression and injustice. It is like saying that you will only stop at a red traffic light if there a fear of being caught and punished or if there is a traffic police officer standing there nodding in appreciation at your lawful behaviour. Religious arguments, often given by the mullahs, are always intended to take seed in the non-thinking and highly compliant mind – a lazy mind. It is like a very stupid but hardworking person being appointed the CEO of a very large company. You can expect him or her to work extremely hard to talk nonsense to captive audiences.
You touched on another very important point; the cruelty of one woman towards another. I will to come back on this point (and the one about abusive relationships ) later as I have run out of time for now.
@stingingnettle1
stingingnettle1@gmail.com
stingingnettle1@gmail.com
Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:01 pm
Sting
You wrote "If your religious fear or favour is the only way for you to relate to a woman with or without respect then you have taken the first nine steps in a ten step walk towards arbitrary repression and injustice."
I'm afraid this is not the case rather it is other way around. Muslim are programed in such a way that whatever has been told to them within a rapper of Islam, logic disappears right away. It is natural that for each and every action we do need some legitimacy and religion is our source. Ask any man who is abusive to his wife/family, he would always say that i do nothing unislamic. Even women will tell you that we'll go to hell for not being submissive.
You wrote "If your religious fear or favour is the only way for you to relate to a woman with or without respect then you have taken the first nine steps in a ten step walk towards arbitrary repression and injustice."
I'm afraid this is not the case rather it is other way around. Muslim are programed in such a way that whatever has been told to them within a rapper of Islam, logic disappears right away. It is natural that for each and every action we do need some legitimacy and religion is our source. Ask any man who is abusive to his wife/family, he would always say that i do nothing unislamic. Even women will tell you that we'll go to hell for not being submissive.
Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:07 pm
SEMirza
with all due respect..........I am going to accuse you of using my Headline-( without permission)- from a thread I had posted on PKP sometimes ago.-( 2 years ago if I am correct)
Credit must be given as to who started it in the first place.
http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/are-women-human
Before anyone gets bent out of shape that I am trying to change the topic......rest assured that I fully intend to spill my black bile and vitriol on this very HOT topic soon.
with all due respect..........I am going to accuse you of using my Headline-( without permission)- from a thread I had posted on PKP sometimes ago.-( 2 years ago if I am correct)
Credit must be given as to who started it in the first place.
http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/are-women-human
Before anyone gets bent out of shape that I am trying to change the topic......rest assured that I fully intend to spill my black bile and vitriol on this very HOT topic soon.
Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:17 pm
Sorry Shimatoree Sahab, in the begining of this thread I have acknowledged you as the author for the same since this topic was initiated by you two years ago.
I was unable to post a link (from the source) and I don't have it on a saved copy (with me in word format minus the link)....
Thanks for posting the link to the source.
I was unable to post a link (from the source) and I don't have it on a saved copy (with me in word format minus the link)....
Thanks for posting the link to the source.
Sat Aug 11, 2012 7:38 pm
SEM.........no problem.........it was more of a TWEAK.
But on the very serious issue, my contention at the time I wrote about it 2 years ago and now is still the same.....................based on the record of human history.........women are NOT Human at all.
They are mere incubation chmabers imported long ago from Saturn to help nurture the SEED of MEN!.....
........If anyone has any doubts..............then RE-write the history of this humanity.....which has by DESIGN and on PURPOSE castigated women to the proverbial DUSTBIN of history. And they have done this by using religion, logic and contrived pseudo-rationality arrived at by as many ways as is possible for those who have been incharge.
Women have lived-( and died) as though they did not exist and they live as though they still do not exist.
If someone wanted to-( or wants to now a days)-hurt a man....they would dishonour the women around him.
If a man wants to take revenge from another man.......they will dishonour his women.
And there is no esacpe from this indictment for anyone.
And I must add that women have added to and potentiated in this de humanization and de nigration of women.
But just imagine...............as religious people we agree that God made both emn and women.
So it goes without saying that the uterus of women was also made by God..........and he made it so that it bleeds once a month during her PRODUCTIVE years.
So how is it that in all religions.....................it is said that a woman is dirty and UN CLEAN during this time period............she cannot go to the mosque and she cannot pray and she cannot fast.
And of course all kinds of supersititions and magics etc are assoicated with this one perfectly normal physiological function of the human female.
Or the one function for which Man cannot do without women...........that is to re produce sons for him.....even during that life threatening dangerous and difficult time for every woman...she is considered UN CLEAN and her genital tract is considered DIRTY................but the one things that comes out of that DIRTY tract is cute, lovable and everything hunky doree.
Just think about this one small part of women's lives........leave aside all the torture of intellectual and spiritual strangulation that has and is taking place every moment of every day in Pakistan and the world of Islam-( apologies to Mg).
For 9 months she carries the burden, bloated stomach, nausea, back ache, bladder infection.....the she geos through the severe excriciating pains of labour which might last for 48 hours..............and what recognition does she get for this creative job.......................well the same recognition that a Saturnian Helot will get..................nothing more than being allowed to continue to live and to be permitted to care for the SON OF MAN!.
More later
But on the very serious issue, my contention at the time I wrote about it 2 years ago and now is still the same.....................based on the record of human history.........women are NOT Human at all.
They are mere incubation chmabers imported long ago from Saturn to help nurture the SEED of MEN!.....
........If anyone has any doubts..............then RE-write the history of this humanity.....which has by DESIGN and on PURPOSE castigated women to the proverbial DUSTBIN of history. And they have done this by using religion, logic and contrived pseudo-rationality arrived at by as many ways as is possible for those who have been incharge.Women have lived-( and died) as though they did not exist and they live as though they still do not exist.
If someone wanted to-( or wants to now a days)-hurt a man....they would dishonour the women around him.
If a man wants to take revenge from another man.......they will dishonour his women.
And there is no esacpe from this indictment for anyone.
And I must add that women have added to and potentiated in this de humanization and de nigration of women.
But just imagine...............as religious people we agree that God made both emn and women.
So it goes without saying that the uterus of women was also made by God..........and he made it so that it bleeds once a month during her PRODUCTIVE years.
So how is it that in all religions.....................it is said that a woman is dirty and UN CLEAN during this time period............she cannot go to the mosque and she cannot pray and she cannot fast.
And of course all kinds of supersititions and magics etc are assoicated with this one perfectly normal physiological function of the human female.
Or the one function for which Man cannot do without women...........that is to re produce sons for him.....even during that life threatening dangerous and difficult time for every woman...she is considered UN CLEAN and her genital tract is considered DIRTY................but the one things that comes out of that DIRTY tract is cute, lovable and everything hunky doree.
Just think about this one small part of women's lives........leave aside all the torture of intellectual and spiritual strangulation that has and is taking place every moment of every day in Pakistan and the world of Islam-( apologies to Mg).
For 9 months she carries the burden, bloated stomach, nausea, back ache, bladder infection.....the she geos through the severe excriciating pains of labour which might last for 48 hours..............and what recognition does she get for this creative job.......................well the same recognition that a Saturnian Helot will get..................nothing more than being allowed to continue to live and to be permitted to care for the SON OF MAN!.
More later
Sun Aug 12, 2012 2:09 pm
@stingingnettle1
stingingnettle1@gmail.com
stingingnettle1@gmail.com
Mon Aug 13, 2012 12:32 am
بھائیو اور بہنو
مجھے بھی بتا دیجئے گا جب اس بات کا پتہ چال جائے گا کہہ خواتین انسان ہوتی ہیں یا نہیں
ویسے میرا تو یہی ماننا ہے کہ
وجود زن سے ہے تصویر کائنات میں رنگ
مجھے بھی بتا دیجئے گا جب اس بات کا پتہ چال جائے گا کہہ خواتین انسان ہوتی ہیں یا نہیں
ویسے میرا تو یہی ماننا ہے کہ
وجود زن سے ہے تصویر کائنات میں رنگ
Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:39 pm
Poets can describe things very precisely and comprehensively. Here is English Translation of Allama Iqbal 's views about woman.
That the continuance of the species derives from motherhood, and that the preservation and honouring of motherhood is the foundation of Islam
The instrument of man sings melodies
When struck by woman’s plectrum; his soul’s pride
Swells of her deference. The woman clothes
The nakedness of man; the loveliness
Of the beloved a garment weaves for love.
The love of God is nourished at her breast,
A lovely air struck from her silent hand;
And he in whom all beings make their boast
Declared he loved three things – sweet perfume, prayer,
And womankind. What Muslim reckons her
A servant, nothing more, no part has won
Of the Book’s wisdom. If thou lookest well,
Motherhood is a mercy, being linked
By close affinity to prophethood,
And her compassion is the prophet’s own.
For mothers shape the way that men shall go;
Maturer, by the grace of Motherhood,
The character of nations is, the lines
That score that brow determine our estate.
If thou art learned to attain the truth
Behind the form, our word community
Hath, in the Persian, many subtleties.
He, for whose sake God said Let there be life,
Declared that Paradise lies at the feet
Of mothers. In the honouring of the womb
The life communal is alone secured,
Else is life raw and brutish. Motherhood
Quickens the pace of life, the mysteries
Of life revealing; tortuously twists
The current of our stream, so that it flows
Bubbling and whirling on its rapid course.
Take any peasant woman, ignorant,
Squat‐figured, fat, uncomely, unrefined,
Unlettered, dim of vision, simple, dumb;
The pangs of motherhood have torn her heart,
Dark, tragic rings have underscored her eyes;
If from her bosom the community
Receive one Muslim zealous for the Faith,
God’s faithful servant, all the pains she bore
Have fortified our being, and our dawn
Glows radiant in the lustre of her dusk.
Now take the slender figure, bosomless,
Close‐cosseted, a riot in her glance,
Her thoughts resplendent with the Western light;
In outward guise a woman, inwardly
No woman she; she hath destroyed the bonds
That hold our pure community secure;
Her sacred charms are all unloosed and spilled;
Bold‐eyed her freedom is, provocative,
And wholly ignorant of modesty;
Her learning is inadequate to bear
The charge of motherhood, and on the dusk
And evening of her days not one star shines;
Better it were this rose had never grown
Within our garden, better were her brand
Washed from the skirt of the community.
Stars without number whispering No god
But God, ungleaming in the dark of time
And not yet risen from nonentity,
Still wait without the bounded territories
Of quality and quantity, being hid
Within the shadows of our patent life,
These our epiphanies still unbeheld;
Dew not descended on the rose’s bloom,
Buds not yet torn by the lascivious breeze.
This garden of potentialities,
These unseen tulips blossom from the bower
Of fertile Motherhood. A people’s wealth
Rests not, my prudent friend, in linen fine
Or treasured hoards of silver and of gold;
Its riches are its sons, clean‐limbed and strong
Of body, supple‐brained, hard‐labouring,
Healthy and nimble to high enterprise.
Mothers preserve the clue of Brotherhood,
The strength of Scripture and Community.
http://iqbalurdu.blogspot.com/2011/05/r ... aynke.html
That the continuance of the species derives from motherhood, and that the preservation and honouring of motherhood is the foundation of Islam
The instrument of man sings melodies
When struck by woman’s plectrum; his soul’s pride
Swells of her deference. The woman clothes
The nakedness of man; the loveliness
Of the beloved a garment weaves for love.
The love of God is nourished at her breast,
A lovely air struck from her silent hand;
And he in whom all beings make their boast
Declared he loved three things – sweet perfume, prayer,
And womankind. What Muslim reckons her
A servant, nothing more, no part has won
Of the Book’s wisdom. If thou lookest well,
Motherhood is a mercy, being linked
By close affinity to prophethood,
And her compassion is the prophet’s own.
For mothers shape the way that men shall go;
Maturer, by the grace of Motherhood,
The character of nations is, the lines
That score that brow determine our estate.
If thou art learned to attain the truth
Behind the form, our word community
Hath, in the Persian, many subtleties.
He, for whose sake God said Let there be life,
Declared that Paradise lies at the feet
Of mothers. In the honouring of the womb
The life communal is alone secured,
Else is life raw and brutish. Motherhood
Quickens the pace of life, the mysteries
Of life revealing; tortuously twists
The current of our stream, so that it flows
Bubbling and whirling on its rapid course.
Take any peasant woman, ignorant,
Squat‐figured, fat, uncomely, unrefined,
Unlettered, dim of vision, simple, dumb;
The pangs of motherhood have torn her heart,
Dark, tragic rings have underscored her eyes;
If from her bosom the community
Receive one Muslim zealous for the Faith,
God’s faithful servant, all the pains she bore
Have fortified our being, and our dawn
Glows radiant in the lustre of her dusk.
Now take the slender figure, bosomless,
Close‐cosseted, a riot in her glance,
Her thoughts resplendent with the Western light;
In outward guise a woman, inwardly
No woman she; she hath destroyed the bonds
That hold our pure community secure;
Her sacred charms are all unloosed and spilled;
Bold‐eyed her freedom is, provocative,
And wholly ignorant of modesty;
Her learning is inadequate to bear
The charge of motherhood, and on the dusk
And evening of her days not one star shines;
Better it were this rose had never grown
Within our garden, better were her brand
Washed from the skirt of the community.
Stars without number whispering No god
But God, ungleaming in the dark of time
And not yet risen from nonentity,
Still wait without the bounded territories
Of quality and quantity, being hid
Within the shadows of our patent life,
These our epiphanies still unbeheld;
Dew not descended on the rose’s bloom,
Buds not yet torn by the lascivious breeze.
This garden of potentialities,
These unseen tulips blossom from the bower
Of fertile Motherhood. A people’s wealth
Rests not, my prudent friend, in linen fine
Or treasured hoards of silver and of gold;
Its riches are its sons, clean‐limbed and strong
Of body, supple‐brained, hard‐labouring,
Healthy and nimble to high enterprise.
Mothers preserve the clue of Brotherhood,
The strength of Scripture and Community.
http://iqbalurdu.blogspot.com/2011/05/r ... aynke.html
Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:51 pm
Pakistani 47, Thanks for the Iqbal poem above. It was interesting, though whether I really do agree with him remains to be seen. What bothers me about this woman question is we have the three types: the mother figure as per Iqbal, the sex-object figure as per several of the postings above and last but not least the woman as competitor the way I see the development of the feminine question in the west.
Where in all three versions do we get to see the woman in terms of the human being alone? For that is what she is first and foremost, a human being. But, no. We have to surround her with all kinds of aura and so her essential humanity drowns. It would be refreshing if someday someone started a thread entitled: Are Men Human?
Where in all three versions do we get to see the woman in terms of the human being alone? For that is what she is first and foremost, a human being. But, no. We have to surround her with all kinds of aura and so her essential humanity drowns. It would be refreshing if someday someone started a thread entitled: Are Men Human?
Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:38 pm
Pakistan47; thank you for sharing Iqbal with us, I enjoyed reading it. Whilst there is no denying that motherhood may be a defining attribute of a woman but it is certainly not the only one or necessarily the most important one (at least not for all women). A woman is a human first and all other things later. So we must accord her the same humanity that we would like ourselves to be accorded. In your opinion, is it possible to respect and interact with a woman without a protective ring fence of a specific relationship?
MG Sahib; you have come up with a brilliant line;
"We have to surround her with all kinds of aura and so her essential humanity drowns."
This line you wrote has condensed a range of arguments very neatly. I wish I had come up with it.
MG Sahib; you have come up with a brilliant line;
"We have to surround her with all kinds of aura and so her essential humanity drowns."
This line you wrote has condensed a range of arguments very neatly. I wish I had come up with it.
@stingingnettle1
stingingnettle1@gmail.com
stingingnettle1@gmail.com
Tue Aug 14, 2012 7:24 pm
In ref: to Iqbal we must apply the scalpal of accountability to him ................
.......................so let us not forget that he left his first wife and her child who was not allowed to inherit his father's name and did not get any share in the property settlement.
So his poem to me rings a slight bit hollow if I might say so.
The diffusion of the Hindu culture of the sub continent has permeated rather strongly in Muslim Pakistan as we are bent on creating IKONS like Iqbal and Jinnah rather than treating them as simple fallible human beings which is the Islamic way.
.......................so let us not forget that he left his first wife and her child who was not allowed to inherit his father's name and did not get any share in the property settlement.
So his poem to me rings a slight bit hollow if I might say so.
The diffusion of the Hindu culture of the sub continent has permeated rather strongly in Muslim Pakistan as we are bent on creating IKONS like Iqbal and Jinnah rather than treating them as simple fallible human beings which is the Islamic way.
Tue Aug 14, 2012 7:38 pm
Shimatoree
How strange! The first thing came to my mind while reading this poem was exactly what you just said. Iqbal has not only one son but six children. Also he was trying to patch up an affair with Atia Faizi while he was already married. Later this lady who were never interested in him was harassed by his son Justice Javed Iqbal while she was a poor widow. Well that's how we had our heroes.
I know there are many who would say that that's his personal life but again if can't do justice with the women related to him, what else can you expect from him. He was just a poet, a good one. That's all.
How strange! The first thing came to my mind while reading this poem was exactly what you just said. Iqbal has not only one son but six children. Also he was trying to patch up an affair with Atia Faizi while he was already married. Later this lady who were never interested in him was harassed by his son Justice Javed Iqbal while she was a poor widow. Well that's how we had our heroes.
I know there are many who would say that that's his personal life but again if can't do justice with the women related to him, what else can you expect from him. He was just a poet, a good one. That's all.
Wed Aug 15, 2012 1:22 am
I have to agree with Shimatoree and Dildar that we should not elevate our national figures to sainthood because in doing so we create a huge gulf between the hero and the hero-worshippers.
For most humans, our actions and inactions are sorted into two boxes; public affairs and private affairs. I personally have little or no interest in what Iqbal or Jinnah or Habib Jalib or Faiz or Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan got up to in their spare time but one thing is certain for me; they were all incredibly talented humans. In all public affairs, it is quite proper that we subject people to serious scrutiny. The separation of the two is very important. Why the obsessive expectation that their public and private lives should match? Failings in personal life are not for us to punish or forgive but we must never forgive failings in the public life of any person who is supposed to act on our behalf.
For most humans, our actions and inactions are sorted into two boxes; public affairs and private affairs. I personally have little or no interest in what Iqbal or Jinnah or Habib Jalib or Faiz or Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan got up to in their spare time but one thing is certain for me; they were all incredibly talented humans. In all public affairs, it is quite proper that we subject people to serious scrutiny. The separation of the two is very important. Why the obsessive expectation that their public and private lives should match? Failings in personal life are not for us to punish or forgive but we must never forgive failings in the public life of any person who is supposed to act on our behalf.
@stingingnettle1
stingingnettle1@gmail.com
stingingnettle1@gmail.com
Wed Aug 15, 2012 12:33 pm
From a past master of the one-liner like yourself SN, your remark above addressed to me is to be duly cherished. Thanks a lot. And now if I may: what exactly was Nusrat Fateh Ali accused of by the world at large: womanising, alcoholism, cheating, theiving, cruelty or hypocrisy? I'm a great fan of his and have heard very little against the man himself so far, hence my interest.
Wed Aug 15, 2012 5:26 pm
Sting
the aim to mention the critical things about Iqbal has nothing to do with him as a great poet and perhaps a philosopher too. It has to do with considering him as someone who puts forth his adulation of the place of women in the society in Pakistan while his actions in his own life seem to contradict his comments.
I would agree with the assertion that the personal life of one must remain out of the public domain except if the individual is in a position to affect public policy as a politician or a role model for the youth of the society.
The music of Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan should stand alone ....even detached from himself as a person but his behaviour as a man is fair thing to know if it becomes public knowledge in that it affects another individual or that his values become or are becoming appealing to the masses.
Human beings are complex and COMPOSITE characters dependent on so many things which are not in their own control...........so perhaps we need to be more like Mirza Ghalib and less like ME in evaluating them.
BUT if we do that then how do we reconcile with the Islamic Sharia -( and other legal systems)- which prescribes and requires a very strict code of behaviour from the Muslim population at large.
My own view-( a bit heretical) is that to place a thinking person in a straight jacket while you have to set certain rules to maintain the rest -( un thinking) of the population.
And that brings forth the issue of freedom..which is totally another huge subject.
I think the fundamental problem with Muslims today is that we are caught between the 1400 years since the advent of Islam on one hand and now the diffusion and permeation of thought processes that have come from the Western part of the world, the French and Russian revolutions etc etc.
There is a yearning for following and continuing " OUR OWN" civilization.....but what exactly was that and WHEN was that in existence if ever.....and was it ever OUR OWN.
And while doing that there is a great deal of re-writing of history to support that line of argument including of course blatant falsification on purpose and by design.
I had tried to write something about examining this subject at PKP .........
http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/is- ... on-genetic
but everyone got so irate that the objective purpose of the thread was lost and I am sure the same will happen here were we to start to examine something like that.
the aim to mention the critical things about Iqbal has nothing to do with him as a great poet and perhaps a philosopher too. It has to do with considering him as someone who puts forth his adulation of the place of women in the society in Pakistan while his actions in his own life seem to contradict his comments.
I would agree with the assertion that the personal life of one must remain out of the public domain except if the individual is in a position to affect public policy as a politician or a role model for the youth of the society.
The music of Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan should stand alone ....even detached from himself as a person but his behaviour as a man is fair thing to know if it becomes public knowledge in that it affects another individual or that his values become or are becoming appealing to the masses.
Human beings are complex and COMPOSITE characters dependent on so many things which are not in their own control...........so perhaps we need to be more like Mirza Ghalib and less like ME in evaluating them.
BUT if we do that then how do we reconcile with the Islamic Sharia -( and other legal systems)- which prescribes and requires a very strict code of behaviour from the Muslim population at large.
My own view-( a bit heretical) is that to place a thinking person in a straight jacket while you have to set certain rules to maintain the rest -( un thinking) of the population.
And that brings forth the issue of freedom..which is totally another huge subject.
I think the fundamental problem with Muslims today is that we are caught between the 1400 years since the advent of Islam on one hand and now the diffusion and permeation of thought processes that have come from the Western part of the world, the French and Russian revolutions etc etc.
There is a yearning for following and continuing " OUR OWN" civilization.....but what exactly was that and WHEN was that in existence if ever.....and was it ever OUR OWN.
And while doing that there is a great deal of re-writing of history to support that line of argument including of course blatant falsification on purpose and by design.
I had tried to write something about examining this subject at PKP .........
http://pkpolitics.com/discuss/topic/is- ... on-genetic
but everyone got so irate that the objective purpose of the thread was lost and I am sure the same will happen here were we to start to examine something like that.
20 posts
• Page 1 of 1