Agayek said:
There's one problem with all this: You're basing your argument on Western culture. That simply doesn't hold true in Pakistan. Just the rumor that she was sleeping with that guy lead to severe beatings, performed by her father no less, and it could easily have led to murder. The woman is the good guy here because she chose to fight back against systematic oppression instead of meekly accepting it as she has been raised to do.
I'm basing this argument on Western culture only insofar as I am commenting on peoples' reaction to it. I'm not attempting to defend anyone's actions, simply pointing out the hypocrisy of peoples' reactions to it. As for her being a "hero" who "stood up" against "systematic oppression", we have only her word that she didn't actually sleep with the guy. We have only her word that she wasn't just psychotic. I'm not saying that is the case, but it can't be proven that what she's saying is the truth, and if she was the one who had been attacked, the man would still be the bad guy as far as you're concerned. My point, is thus, in fact, proven.
Her response, assuming the article was factual, was perfectly valid, and in no way out of proportion.
It is impossible to judge from the article. Nothing has been proven at this point, and all we have is her word that she didn't start this whole thing. Add to that the similarity to the incident on the cover of Time Magazine recently, and it's not hard to imagine that she may have simply been crazy and acting out in a way that she knew would make western feminists come to her rescue. If she had simply killed him, would we even be hearing about this?
As for your final, fairly random, point, the reason men dominated women for so long is for one simple reason: Men are stronger and more aggressive. It's simply a fact that men are more physically capable (on average, I don't want to hear about whatever woman you know that can fold you into a pretzel) in almost every regard, plus with our natural aggression, we were the ones who took control in the... less civilized era. Our societies have all been built on that foundation, and until very recently martial prowess was still one of the largest defining factors in societal power, meaning men retained that power.
To be fair to the feminist movement, though, there are more than likely more than a few very big historical decisions that were iat beingnspired, if not outright made, by women.
If men are stronger and more aggressive than women, then there are differences between the sexes that go beyond simple appearance. Therefor the statement that "women are the same as men" is not true. There are differences between the sexes that no amount of legislation can fix. If that is the case, things like more men in the hard sciences are not a sign of discrimination, and instead a sign of different ways of thinking. Beyond this, most of the garbage collectors that I've ever seen are men, why is no one complaining about lack of equality in garbage collector hiring?
I would like to suggest a theory counter to your own, somewhat misandrist (yes, it's a word) theory. Human societies, when such a thing was formed, came to a realization. There were a number of jobs that needed to be done. Some jobs required problem solving, team work, and a lack of regard for personal safety. Other jobs required things such as multitasking, and a sense of aesthetics. Now, it's reasonable to assume that even at this point, the natural inclinations of the sexes, being at least partially chemical or genetic, made the ones doing the problem solving, team work, dangerous things mostly male, and the ones doing the aesthetic, multitasking things female. As such, because things got done, eventually the roles became solidified, and perhaps even codified, not because men want to dominate women, BUT BECAUSE THE SYSTEM WORKED. If you want to argue, of course, that such roles are NO LONGER necessary, or perhaps NEED TO BE LOOKED AT IN LIGHT OF MODERN ADVANCES MAKING HOUSEWORK NO LONGER A FULL TIME JOB, then that's reasonable, but to call the whole system sexist is ridiculous and reactionary.
Aside from all of that, as you pointed out, women were FAR from powerless throughout history.
AquaAscension said:
I challenge you to prove you read the article. You're missing a lot of critical facts in your defense of this man based on an Americanized definition of the term "feminism" and "equality". These concepts don't yet exist in the middle east. There is a concept called honor killing over there that was ended in our Anglo-Saxon ancestors' culture very early on. This idea of honor killing is that if someone in your family does something to my family, I have to take revenge which leads to your family taking revenge and pretty soon you get a familicide situation. So, that practice was outlawed when a ruler introduced the weregeld (literally translated as "man gold" a practice in which you'd pay money to stop the blood shed). Now this honor killing practice also happens in the middle east; however, it was supposedly outlawed by the Quran. And technically, it was. Unfortunately, rather than completely obey the law when it comes to women, rather than taking revenge on another man for stripping your family of its honor (read premarital sex), the girl/woman in question is simply killed by her own family. With the girl dead, honor is restored in the most twisted logic possible.
I, in fact, did read the article. I thought it was very inconclusive. We were treated to a lot of 'allegedly' and 'according to...' Nothing is substantiated, at this point it's all he said/she said. Your knowledge of Islamic law and history is interesting, however, completely missing the point. My point here is this, and it is supported many times throughout this thread; even though there is no proof to her claims, and even though she may be simply crazy, people (westerners) are automatically assuming she is telling the truth, and was a victim. There is no thought that perhaps the man is telling the truth, it's not even a possibility in people's minds EVEN THOUGH HE HAS SUFFERED A DISFIGURING INJURY. You talk about twisted logic? How about the twisted logic that states that a woman is justified in permanently scarring a man whom at least FIVE OTHER PEOPLE rely on to keep them alive? He's married and has children, he will certainly not be able to provide for them while recovering, and will likely find it difficult to work with a permanent, disfiguring injury.
It's not uncommon for this practice to happen either in the middle east. It may be illegal to get a divorce, but the law is sketchier about being a widower, and some men will actually kill their wives in order to marry someone else. It's not divorce, which is frowned upon in the religion, but killing a woman instead somehow isn't.
I'm not even going to get involved in this discussion, as I know very little about Islamic law on the subject. However, this is okay, because my intent was never to comment on the incident, itself, as such. I am responding largely to people's responses to it.
I'm sorry you feel that the current feminist movement is incorrect, and I admit that it has its flaws, but it's a hell of a lot better than treatment women have historically been receiving. For a glimpse of that treatment, look at the middle eastern culture.
What treatment have women been historically receiving? Do you mean not having to work soul crushing, dangerous jobs? Do you mean not having to be shot/stabbed by the millions so a general could see what his enemy was hiding at the top of a fortified hill? Men have given much throughout history, and any time women were treated poorly, it's often quite observable that men weren't treated very well, either. Even today, it is observable FACT that men receive tougher sentences for the same crimes, are nine tenths of workplace fatalities, are more likely to be arrested in domestic disputes EVEN IF THE WOMAN IS THE AGGRESSOR, hurt more financially than women in divorces, and most of the people committing suicide in the world. So how great are men being treated?
OT: because of the danger outlined above due to the practice of honor killing, this woman was entirely justified.
IF she is telling the truth, and IF she is not simply psychotic and using the recent cover of Time Magazine to gain the attention of Western feminists (hey look, it worked!), then she MAY have been justified in killing him. However, what she did what she did was spiteful, and frankly, difficult to justify under any circumstances; it was certainly not heroic. Besides this, in any case, now, she has not only shamed her family, but is also a criminal, so she may have, in fact made things worse for herself.
