Egypt's Islamists warn giving women some rights could destroy society

[Evo]

Women aren't cattle, they're not "owned" and should have the same rights as men. I just find this attitude toward women unacceptable.

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Egypt's ruling Muslim Brotherhood warns that a U.N. declaration on women's rights could destroy society by allowing a woman to travel, work and use contraception without her husband's approval and letting her control family spending.

The Islamist movement that backs President Mohamed Mursi gave 10 reasons why Muslim countries should "reject and condemn" the declaration, which the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women is racing to negotiate a consensus deal on by Friday.

The Brotherhood, whose Freedom and Justice Party propelled Mursi to power in June, posted the statement on its website, www.ikhwanweb.com , and the website of the party on Thursday.

Egypt has joined Iran, Russia and the Vatican - dubbed an "unholy alliance" by some diplomats - in threatening to derail the women's rights declaration by objecting to language on sexual, reproductive and gay rights.

A coalition of Arab human rights groups - from Egypt, Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories, Jordan and Tunisia - called on countries at the Commission on the Status of Women on Thursday to stop using religion, culture, and tradition to justify abuse of women.

"The current positions taken by some Arab governments at this meeting is clearly not representative of civil society views, aspirations or best practices regarding the elimination and prevention of violence against women and girls within our countries," said the statement issued by the Coalition for Sexual and Bodily Rights in Muslim Societies.

http://news.yahoo.com/egypts-islamists-warn-giving-women-rights-could-destroy-061331905.html

 

[Astronuc]

Egalitarian societies thrive. Inequality destroys, or otherwise diminishes a society or group.

Equity and reciprocity are necessary.

 

[jim hardy]

We just gave 'em $250 million?

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2013/03/why-john-kerry-gave-250-million-egypt/62706/

I'm confused.

 

[Evo]

We just gave 'em $250 million?

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2013/03/why-john-kerry-gave-250-million-egypt/62706/

I'm confused.

We shouldn't give them anything until they allow equal human rights, just my opinion.

 

[aquitaine]

We shouldn't give them anything until they allow equal human rights, just my opinion.

I seriously doubt that they will. Unfortunately progress like women's rights has not touched that part of the world in a meaningful way and it will take a lot more before it finally does, if ever. Still it is sad though, women in general seemed to have had more rights under secular dictators like Saddam and Mubarak than islamist democracies...

 

[jobyts]

My understanding is $250 million is part of the Camp David agreement, not just a "give":) Egypt is expected to buy US weaponry. So this is just an international business deal. Muslim brotherhood wants to come out of this treaty.

In a bigger picture, it all runs on money, and no one cares about human rights. They all say it to make common people like you and me to make feel good.

Saudi is one of the countries with the worst women right laws among other Arab countries. And it is the most friendly Arab country to US.

 

[AlephZero]

We shouldn't give them anything until they allow equal human rights, just my opinion.

So long as "you" treat all other countries equally in that respect (best not to name manes, when most of the ban-guns are controlled of the US ), it sounds like a wim-win situation.

The US gets to stay rich. The rest of the world gets to carry on doing whatever it wants. What's to liose?

 

[Vanadium 50]

I just find this attitude toward women unacceptable.

I'm afraid you are going to have to accept it, because...

We shouldn't give them anything until they allow equal human rights, just my opinion.

...it's a part of the Islamist value system that there is a hierarchy: Islamic men at the top, Jewish women at the bottom. The concept of "equality", which the west sees as a virtue, is something that the Islamists see as a direct attack on their religion.

Their minds won't be changed by conditions of foreign aid. Or anything, really. Your choices are to accept it today, and hope to change the minds of the next generation or the one after that (and part of the reason for foreign aid is to change their minds), or a massive military action to strip these people of their political power. I don't think that's realistic.

 

[Lavabug]

I'm afraid you are going to have to accept it, because...



...it's a part of the Islamist value system that there is a hierarchy: Islamic men at the top, Jewish women at the bottom.

I would add to that: "and homosexuals underground".

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Egalitarian societies thrive. Inequality destroys, or otherwise diminishes a society or group.

Equity and reciprocity are necessary.

Unfortunately this kind of self correcting system isn't true IMO. For thousands of years women and other groups were subjected and society still flourished. In addition even in the west we live in patriarchal societies riddled with privilage. We might be more egalitarian but that doesn't make us absolutely so.

 

[Tosh5457]

Islamism teaches that women are inferior to men in the Qu'ran, the Muslim Brotherhood aren't even extremists. As long as islamists control a government, those will always be the rules. The same could be said for Christians or Jews perhaps, as the Old Testament says the woman shall be dominated by the man...

 

[JonDE]

Islamism teaches that women are inferior to men in the Qu'ran, the Muslim Brotherhood aren't even extremists. As long as islamists control a government, those will always be the rules. The same could be said for Christians or Jews perhaps, as the Old Testament says the woman shall be dominated by the man...

I don't know that it is really fair to say that about islamists. In Turkey, 99.8 percent of the population identify their religion as Islam, yet they seem to be making strides towards equalization between men and women. I am not saying Turkey is perfect at it, but they do seem to recognize it is a problem and are trying to fix it. They have even had a female prime minister.

 

[mheslep]

...it's a part of the Islamist value system that there is a hierarchy: Islamic men at the top, Jewish women at the bottom. The concept of "equality", which the west sees as a virtue, is something that the Islamists see as a direct attack on their religion.

I don't think the value system described is as fundamental to Islam in general as it is to particular Islamic sects (that I call radical) which have risen in prominence. See for example:

Cairo University
1959, no vails.
http://c481901.r1.cf2.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/egypt1.jpg

1995, about 50% vails
http://c481901.r1.cf2.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/egypt3.jpg

2004, all vails, few exceptions.
http://c481901.r1.cf2.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/egypt4.jpg

 

[mheslep]

Egalitarian societies thrive. Inequality destroys, or otherwise diminishes a society or group.

Equity and reciprocity are necessary.

Unfortunately this kind of self correcting system isn't true IMO. For thousands of years women and other groups were subjected and society still flourished. In addition even in the west we live in patriarchal societies riddled with privilage. We might be more egalitarian but that doesn't make us absolutely so.

The suppression of women is one of the major reasons given by some scholars to explain why Islamic countries gradually fell behind their western counterparts, after initially being more advanced - better mathematics, better scholarship and government in general for some centuries. Yes productivity increased slowly for both in the Middle Ages but later failed to keep pace in Islamic countries as the West's productivity exploded during the Renaissance.

What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East

 

[boomtrain]

I'm afraid you are going to have to accept it, because...



...it's a part of the Islamist value system that there is a hierarchy: Islamic men at the top, Jewish women at the bottom. The concept of "equality", which the west sees as a virtue, is something that the Islamists see as a direct attack on their religion.

Their minds won't be changed by conditions of foreign aid. Or anything, really. Your choices are to accept it today, and hope to change the minds of the next generation or the one after that (and part of the reason for foreign aid is to change their minds), or a massive military action to strip these people of their political power. I don't think that's realistic.

Or we could ignore them, worry about our own society, and assimilate anyone who immigrates.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I don't think the value system described is as fundamental to Islam in general

Which is why I said Islamist and not Muslim.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Or we could ignore them

Sounds a lot like "accept" to me.

 

[aquitaine]

The suppression of women is one of the major reasons given by some scholars to explain why Islamic countries gradually fell behind their western counterparts, after initially being more advanced - better mathematics, better scholarship and government in general for some centuries. Yes productivity increased slowly for both in the Middle Ages but later failed to keep pace in Islamic countries as the West's productivity exploded during the Renaissance.

What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East

I have to question that notion. Until very recently the West didn't really have any women's rights either, an example of that was during the Victorian era women essentially were the legal property of their husbands. They had no right to own property, to file lawsuits, to vote and what wages she might have earned were to be turned over entirely to her husband who had total control over the families financial affairs.

The problem I think is a lot more fundamental. Since the end of the Dark Ages in Europe, Western societies have had a number of very significant, groundbreaking reform movements. Off hand I can think of the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the Women's Rights and Civil Rights movements. All of these had monumental effects and essentially gave us the Western world as we know it today. But here's the rub: Those reform movements didn't really happen in the non-Western world. The Reformation, for example, gave us the modern idea of separation of church and state, but that didn't happen in the Islamic world. This is why Islam almost always appears to be intertwining itself with the state it inhabits, this is why when the Islamists took power they wanted to cram as much Sharia into their constitution as possible and why areas in Europe with high muslim immigration have (especially in the UK) tried to setup their own parallel legal system based elusively on Sharia. Now there are some areas that did have some of these reform movements and not others, like Turkey for now does have a decently strong separation between mosque and state.

This also applies to other parts of the non-Western world too to greater or lesser degrees. Japan for example did adopt the enlightenment, but not any of the others. Shinto-ism was essentially the state endorsed religion and still believed in the royal family's divine right all the way until the end of World War 2. They didn't reform that willingly, they adopted the separation of temple and state only after we firebombed their cities, nuked them twice, and then put a gun to their head and told them this is how they will govern themselves from now on (the post war Japanese constitutional revisions were more or less written by the US occupying authority). That is why Japan has the appearance of a modern state with a modern economy and political system while women are still second class citizens and racism is quite prevalent both against foreigners and the Ainu.

In a way it's like looking back through time to varying points in our own history. If you want to see many of the kinds of behaviors and values our ancestors had at one time or another. It also goes a long way towards explaining why things in the world are the way that they are.

 

[boomtrain]

Sounds a lot like "accept" to me.

If by "accept" you mean "accept that your country doesn't have infinite powers to change the world" Then I'd agree.

If by "accept" you mean "find this attitude acceptable" then I'd disagree.

 

[Evo]

If by "accept" you mean "accept that your country doesn't have infinite powers to change the world" Then I'd agree.

It's the UN, not a country.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I don't think the UN is going to be much help. Many countries would be afraid of the precedent that UN will come in with force - and it would take force - to support the western ideal of human rights.

Would China support it? Would Russia? That's 2 of the P5 already. You also need 4 members from the other 10. Seven, actually, as Morocco, Pakistan, and Azerbaijan are majority Muslim and therefore hopeless.

 

[Evo]

I don't think the UN is going to be much help. Many countries would be afraid of the precedent that UN will come in with force - and it would take force - to support the western ideal of human rights.

Would China support it? Would Russia? That's 2 of the P5 already. You also need 4 members from the other 10. Seven, actually, as Morocco, Pakistan, and Azerbaijan are majority Muslim and therefore hopeless.

Unfortunately, you're correct.

 

[aquitaine]

I don't think the UN is going to be much help. Many countries would be afraid of the precedent that UN will come in with force - and it would take force - to support the western ideal of human rights.

Would China support it? Would Russia? That's 2 of the P5 already. You also need 4 members from the other 10. Seven, actually, as Morocco, Pakistan, and Azerbaijan are majority Muslim and therefore hopeless.

There already is a UN Declaration of Human Rights and all of those countries you mentioned did sign it. Here's a map of all the signatories:

Now considering the abysmal state of human rights of all kinds in many of those countries I would say this declaration shows just how useless the UN really is.

 

[boomtrain]

Their minds won't be changed by conditions of foreign aid. Or anything, really. Your choices are to accept it today, and hope to change the minds of the next generation or the one after that (and part of the reason for foreign aid is to change their minds), or a massive military action to strip these people of their political power. I don't think that's realistic.
...

Sounds a lot like "accept" to me.

If by "accept" you mean "accept that your country doesn't have infinite powers to change the world" Then I'd agree.

It's the UN, not a country.

Vanadium 50 didn't mention the UN or anyone country specifically, but you're correct that the OP does include a quote from the UN via Reuters. In any case, who would supply the lions share of troops in a "massive military strike"? Who supplies the bulk of the foreign aid that's used to "change their minds"?

For the sake of accuracy, I probably should have said: 'If by "accept" you mean "accept that your coalition of countries doesn't have infinite power to change the world" Then I'd agree.'

 

[Galteeth]

It's occurred to me that both Fundamentalist Islam and Ultra-Orthodox Judaism have similar views on women. It is an interesting question to ask: Did these attitudes in middle-eastern societies predate their establishment as religious dogma? If so, why? Certainly religion as a whole has rarely been kind to women, but there seems to be a certain extreme misogyny here. Does this have something to do with the way women were treated in nomadic desert environments? Does anyone know the history or psychological/sociological explanations for this phenomenon?

 

[slider142]

It's occurred to me that both Fundamentalist Islam and Ultra-Orthodox Judaism have similar views on women. It is an interesting question to ask: Did these attitudes in middle-eastern societies predate their establishment as religious dogma? If so, why? Certainly religion as a whole has rarely been kind to women, but there seems to be a certain extreme misogyny here. Does this have something to do with the way women were treated in nomadic desert environments? Does anyone know the history or psychological/sociological explanations for this phenomenon?

Galteeth, not really, although there are many hypotheses, and even examples of matriarchal societies. You may be interested in the book Misogyny, by Jack Holland, which attempts to trace the history of the title prejudice. The book "A History Of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years" by Diarmaid MacCulloch also has several key chapters on the history of this issue with respect to its topic.

 

[mheslep]

I have to question that notion. Until very recently the West didn't really have any women's rights either, ...

The former lack of equality before the law for women in the West does not mean the treatment of women was roughly equivalent between the West and the then Ottoman empire. Treatment was not remotely similar then or now. The kings of England and France did not have harems. The 18th century Sultan of Morocco had 500 concubines. Women were treated like cattle in many Muslim countries, and to a degree still are (per Evo's OP ).

As to your point that there were/are several other cultural differences holding back Muslim countries: I agree.

 

[JonDE]

The former lack of equality before the law for women in the West does not mean the treatment of women was roughly equivalent between the West and the then Ottoman empire. Treatment was not remotely similar then or now. The kings of England and France did not have harems. The 18th century Sultan of Morocco had 500 concubines. Women were treated like cattle in many Muslim countries, and to a degree still are (per Evo's OP ).

As to your point that there were/are several other cultural differences holding back Muslim countries: I agree.

Madame de Pompadour, Louis XVs personal female pimp, I fail to see the difference.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I fail to see the difference.

The two kinds of error are: failure to see the similarities in things that are different, and failure to see the difference in things that are similar.

 

[mheslep]

Madame de Pompadour, Louis XVs personal female pimp, I fail to see the difference.

The difference between prostitution and defacto slavery?

 

[Skrew]

It makes me wonder why feminists and gays are so quick to defend Muslim immigrants.

In regards to women I believe christian europeans were the first group to value their females over being a commodity. Christian europeans were the first to stop slavery and their repeated military intervention into the middle east/barbary coast coast in the 1800s stopped the slave trade of europeans. Slavery only ended in the middle east/africa(although still goes on without official government support) per european colonization of these areas. That evil white imperialism.

 

[arildno]

Until very recently the West didn't really have any women's rights either, an example of that was during the Victorian era women essentially were the legal property of their husbands. They had no right to own property, to file lawsuits, to vote and what wages she might have earned were to be turned over entirely to her husband who had total control over the families financial affairs.

Coverture laws were peculiar English and American laws, and were not at all in that shape in Germany, France, Denmark, Norway etc.

 

[Niles]

As to your point that there were/are several other cultural differences holding back Muslim countries: I agree.

It is ironic, because in pre-Islamic Iran it was not uncommon for women to be soldiers and have high-ranking military positions. One of the commanders of the (10.000) Immortals was a female, her name was Arteshbod Pantea.

 

[nitsuj]

I have to question that notion. Until very recently the West didn't really have any women's rights either, an example of that was during the Victorian era women essentially were the legal property of their husbands.
...
...
It also goes a long way towards explaining why things in the world are the way that they are.

That was a great read...thanks!

 

[jobyts]

Such a policy is really strange. I don't see any point in depriving women of their rights. In what way will it ruin anything? I absolutely don't get it.

Some cultures measure the success of a society by the divorce rate, number families with single parents and not by their technological advancements. When they look at the west, that's what they see.