Is it Safe to Visit Arab Countries?

[EL]

I see it as acceptance of a biological fact.

This has been the usual argument during all times when it comes to holding back women in the society. Although it is true that originally the biological differences led to a division of tasks between men and women, I do not think that it is a good argument to apply today. I do think women do want a career as much as men do, but that traditions and expectations keep them back (as well as let society hold them back). What I mean is that we now live in a civilized world where there is hardly anything to gain from giving men and women certain roles in society. Note my emphasis on that the western world repression of women do not lie much in the laws themselves, but that it has a traditional origin.

But I think you should keep things in perspective. There are far more serious issues of oppression and inequality confronting women than work and pay conditions in Europe.

I agree, and I have never said there are not more important issues to deal with. All I am saying is that repression of women in the western world is still a problem. The case of repression of women explicitely stated in the law is of course much worse. This does not mean one cannot fight both problems at the same time though. (Probably a progress in one place will also help the other.)

 

[Cyrus]

I agree, and I have never said there are not more important issues to deal with. All I am saying is that repression of women in the western world is still a problem. The case of repression of women explicitely stated in the law is of course much worse. This does not mean one cannot fight both problems at the same time though. (Probably a progress in one place will also help the other.)

Im curious what this 'repression' of women in the western world is. I live in the USA, I don't see 'repressed' women anywhere. I can't think of any things done to women in the west that would begin to compare to the ME.

 

[EL]

I can't think of any things done to women in the west that would begin to compare to the ME.

E.g. sallaries. (See above posts.)
I'm not comparing to the ME.

 

[Cyrus]

E.g. sallaries. (See above posts.)
I'm not comparing to the ME.

I would hardly consider that 'repression'. Thats too strong a word. I would call it a social inequality.

A repression would be a woman can't work because she's a woman. Its a bit of a stronger condition.

 

[EL]

I would hardly consider that 'repression'. Thats too strong a word. I would call it a social inequality.

A repression would be a woman can't work because she's a woman. Its a bit of a stronger condition.

Ok, I'm not a native speaker so I do not really know where the limit should be drawn. Fact is though that women get lower sallaries just because they are women. Anyway, I think this kind of discussion is getting a bit too off topic. I'll be happy to continue discussing "gender inequality" in western countries, but maybe it should be moved to another thread.

 

[Cyrus]

Ok, I'm not a native speaker so I do not really know where the limit should be drawn. Fact is though that women get lower sallaries just because they are women. Anyway, I think this kind of discussion is getting a bit too off topic. I'll be happy to continue discussing "gender inequality" in western countries, but maybe it should be moved to another thread.

Depends on the person. To me, repression really means something quite severe. I wonder how one would determine such a statistic though. Two people (both male or female) could work at the same place and start with totally different pay scales. So, how can one say a woman earns less. Then you have to look at averages. Now, are those averages from the same places of work? It seems like you can really play with the stats to get any result you would like to. -Just something to consider.

There are lots of women that run big companies, so I am not sure if I buy the women get less pay argument. I'd have to see more data on it though.

 

[russ_watters]

The distinction I would make is between enforced vs latent culturally-caused differences. In the US there is actually forced equality under the law. Prejudices persist, but they are not legal or widely condoned. Repressive cultures often have unequal laws, but even without those laws, the culture is prejudiced against women and the justice systems look the other way.

 

[Gokul43201]

a disorder, as in short sightedness, autisim, diabetes etc... evolutionary, it is not a plus, and can hinder the number of a certain species

A common misconception. See: http://www.newscientist.com/channel...l-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html

that is why you don't see totally gay species, and that is why i called it a disorder.

You also don't see a totally intelligent species. Furthermore, the negative correlation between http://www.jstor.org/stable/2172480?seq=1 is more than well established. So, by your argument, high intelligence is a disorder.

 

[Evo]

E.g. sallaries. (See above posts.)
I'm not comparing to the ME.

I make more than the men I work with. We are paid on the basis of knowledge and results. It's called "merit".

 

[EL]

I make more than the men I work with. We are paid on the basis of knowledge and results. It's called "merit".

And I know a woman who started on a lower sallary then her male colleauge although she had better merits.

Point is, the error bars get pretty big when looking at single cases. Of course neither my or your anecdote proves anything. I will try to look up some relevant data when I get some time over.

 

[mheslep]

And I know a woman who started on a lower sallary then her male colleauge although she had better merits.

Point is, the error bars get pretty big when looking at single cases. Of course neither my or your anecdote proves anything. I will try to look up some relevant data when I get some time over.

No your anecdote is not the equivalent of hers. Her's is an example necessarily drawn from a lifetime of 1st person experience in the work place, yours can not be so.

 

[EL]

No your anecdote is not the equivalent of hers. Her's is an example necessarily drawn from a lifetime of 1st person experience in the work place, yours can not be so.

When did I say they were equivalent?

 

[mheslep]

"Of course neither my or your anecdote proves anything." Evo's anecdote has more weight.

 

[EL]

"Of course neither my or your anecdote proves anything." Evo's anecdote has more weight.

And does not prove anything.

 

[nabki]

Originally Posted by nabki
a disorder, as in short sightedness, autisim, diabetes etc... evolutionary, it is not a plus, and can hinder the number of a certain species

A common misconception. See: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...sexuality.html

i will quote the article:

...It is still not clear to what extent homosexuality in humans or other animals is genetic (rather than, say, due to hormonal extremes during embryonic development), but there are many mechanisms that could explain why gene variants linked to homosexuality are maintained in a population...Until it became acceptable for same-sex couples to live together in western countries, many homosexual people had partners of the opposite sex...Even if homosexuality does reduce reproductive success, as most people assume, there are plenty of possible reasons why it is so common...It could well turn out that different explanations are true in different species...

that is why you don't see totally gay species, and that is why i called it a disorder.

You also don't see a totally intelligent species. Furthermore, the negative correlation between IQ and family sizes is more than well established. So, by your argument, high intelligence is a disorder.

i will quote the article:

This conclusion is not universally accepted

high intelligence could be considered a disorder, as Stephen Hawking wrote in 'the universe in a nutshell'. it could also be caused by the genetic codes for intelligence and fertility being on the same genome, and the study was done on humans. nothing done on lab animals that might verify that claim is -as far as i know- available. and it was written in 1954, way before modern IQ tests, genetics, and psychology. an argument against that is there is only one totally intelligent species we know of, which means that high intelligence can cause problems for the species. i am not qualified in such fields, which is why i quote others. it is also why i don't write in the maths and physics subjects since there are those who are more qualified than me, who can give better and more accurate answers. it is also the reason that some of the posts in this thread are unqualified, since they are based on very shaky information. and unsupported claims. and biased opinions.

Originally Posted by nabki
please you two, stop being childish and don't start degrading this discussion, if you two continue posting such silly and irrevelant posts it will get very personal and then it will be locked... admedezz you were doing pretty well in my oppinion until that started. and cyrus resorting to such childish posts only shows how weak and unreal your view is.

I wasnt being childish to him, it was a joke of friendship (which I don't think he understood). This is why you shouldn't interject into my conversation with someone else. I wasnt talking to you, was I? If I wanted to talk to you, I would have quoted you. Dont stick your nose into my conversation.

you know, if you wanted to have a private conversation there is thing thing called a private message, please learn how to use it.

it was a joke of friendship (which I don't think he understood).

if it was a joke, it was lame and non-constructive. i don't think such a provocative joke should have been posted in this thread, at that time. that is why your argument is weak, since you resorted to telling lame jokes and did not answer the previous posts.

proof. most of the ME is anti-zionist, not anti-semetic including such groups as hezbullah and hamas.

Im sure that makes them bunch of nice guys then, huh? The west has freedom of press. They can publish whatever they want about muhammad. If the middle east wants to kick and scream about it like a bunch of children, they make themselves look all the worse. And they can thank THEMSELVES.

yes it does. and we have freedom of press, just watch al-jazeera, al-arabiya, al-manar or any of the multitude of TV channels available to the arab world. but the arab press has restraint, and it has respect. the arab press does not attack religious icons and respects other peoples beliefs.

a disorder, as in short sightedness, autisim, diabetes etc... evolutionary, it is not a plus, and can hinder the number of a certain species, that is why you don't see totally gay species, and that is why i called it a disorder. i understand that it seemed a little nazi the way i put it but i don't say kill them because they are blind ,diabetic gay etc...

I would look up the word 'disorder' in a dictionary. Actually, what you did say was that you can 'punish homosexual acts.' Now, I don't know if you mean one can, or one should. I'll let you clear that up though.

i will clear that up, once i consult someone more knowledgeable than me in sharia law. i will post a reply to ASAP.

i lived in the uk for over 12 years, i think i know what i am talking about. i saw the moral degredation that was happening and that was admitted by many other people. and they arent helping the situation by not allowing the moderates in.

That must make you an expert on moral authority. Are you implying that radical imams are now 'moderates'? This phase is comical. So, what are people doing in the UK these days, running around raping and killing each other? What a general, nonsense statement.

the fact that you keep on deliberately misunderstanding my words is comical. please define radical imams. and if you think qardawi is radical then i don't know any religious leader in the world who isint.
for your information, UNICEF (i think) put the UK in the worst 10 countries for a child to be raised in- partly because of the high teen pregnancy rate.i will try to find a link to the report and your statement is general, extreme and nonsense, since you keep twisting the meaning of my words. please stop doing it, it is very provocative and annoying.

and it seems like i am arguing against intolerant radical westerners... sheesh.

If you think this is 'radical' westerners, then your in for a rude awakening. This is NORMAL western thinking. Get used to it.

proof.

I can't think of any things done to women in the west that would begin to compare to the ME.

anyone heard about that Austrian man who raped his daughter and kept her in his cellar?

unrealistic radicalist. i bet you believe in (the myth of) pure evil.

The people in the video speak for themselves. 63% of muslims in england support terrorist acts, 32% of muslims in england think the west is immoral and should be destroyed. This is NOT a small minority and to do nothing against them will simply embolden them further.

i can't get to youtube, my connection is dial up, so please get me a reliable source that is not youtube based.

Someone mentioned not seeing many Egyptian women walk the streets unaccompanied. This is true

we am still waiting for proof

An interesting article I read today about a young Egyptian girl being sold into slavery by her parents. According to the Egyptian couple that bought her, it's common place in Egypt. I would assume among the very poor.

http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspi...icle55737.html

yes, such a pity that things like that happen in a country with a western backed regime. let's not forget the child-trafficking scandal that involved a french charity and Chad.

i am not saying that ME societies are perfect, but they aren't as bad and as intolerant as they seem (lets keep Saudi and Iran out of the picture). and neither are western societies the utopias cyrus thinks they are. but that does not mean they don't have some things that are better than in ME societies.

 

[Cyrus]

if it was a joke, it was lame and non-constructive. i don't think such a provocative joke should have been posted in this thread, at that time. that is why your argument is weak, since you resorted to telling lame jokes and did not answer the previous posts.

Again, I wasnt talking to you and it wasnt provocative. Get a life. I was talking to him, not you. What you just said above is nothing more than a bunch of bullsh!t to hear yourself talk.

yes it does. and we have freedom of press, just watch al-jazeera, al-arabiya, al-manar or any of the multitude of TV channels available to the arab world. but the arab press has restraint, and it has respect. the arab press does not attack religious icons and respects other peoples beliefs.

All religious icons are mocked in western papers. Its called freedom of press.

the fact that you keep on deliberately misunderstanding my words is comical. please define radical imams. and if you think qardawi is radical then i don't know any religious leader in the world who isint.

When did I ever mention the name qardawi? I don't even know who he is, and I don't care who he is.

for your information, UNICEF (i think) put the UK in the worst 10 countries for a child to be raised in- partly because of the high teen pregnancy rate.i will try to find a link to the report and your statement is general, extreme and nonsense, since you keep twisting the meaning of my words. please stop doing it, it is very provocative and annoying.

Wow, a high teen pregnancy rate...seriously. I hope you have better data than 'high teen pregnancy rate'. Stop posting crap, and I won't call you out on it.

proof.

You do realize, you crying 'proof' every time does not make you sound credible. You said you lived in the UK for 12 years, you should know this from first hand experience. I live in the west, I don't have to 'prove' this to you. Gimme a break.

anyone heard about that Austrian man who raped his daughter and kept her in his cellar?

Yeah, so what about it? Are you now going to make a generalization from that one extreme example? Thats not an argument. That was highly illegal, and the man will go to jail. Unlike the middle east where its legal to discriminate against women.

I can't get to youtube, my connection is dial up, so please get me a reliable source that is not youtube based.

Thats not my problem.

I am not saying that ME societies are perfect, but they aren't as bad and as intolerant as they seem (lets keep Saudi and Iran out of the picture). and neither are western societies the utopias cyrus thinks they are. but that does not mean they don't have some things that are better than in ME societies.

Compared to the ME, the west is a utopia.

Sorry to be so nasty, but I really am getting sick and tired of muslim people thinking the have some special knowledge on moral authority over others. They do it all the time, and I can't stand it.

 

[quadraphonics]

i but the arab press has restraint, and it has respect. the arab press does not attack religious icons and respects other peoples beliefs.

Yeah, just look at what a fair, respectful portrayal Judaism gets in Arab media. Oh, wait...

 

[Gokul43201]

i will quote the article:

i will quote the article:

high intelligence could be considered a disorder, as Stephen Hawking wrote in 'the universe in a nutshell'. it could also be caused by the genetic codes for intelligence and fertility being on the same genome, and the study was done on humans. nothing done on lab animals that might verify that claim is -as far as i know- available. and it was written in 1954, way before modern IQ tests, genetics, and psychology. an argument against that is there is only one totally intelligent species we know of, which means that high intelligence can cause problems for the species. i am not qualified in such fields, which is why i quote others. it is also why i don't write in the maths and physics subjects since there are those who are more qualified than me, who can give better and more accurate answers. it is also the reason that some of the posts in this thread are unqualified, since they are based on very shaky information. and unsupported claims. and biased opinions.

To summarize, what I've gotten from your post, you seem to have:
1. Not yet made any case for homosexuality being a disorder, and moreover
2. You are now suggesting that acts of intelligence should be banned.

 

[Evo]

It's been several days with no response from nabki to substantiate his claims and this thread is making no progress.

Closed.