Why Don't Liberal Feminists Fight for Muslim Women?

Right, so it's ok to dehumanize Muslims because they are not a race?

He's making a semantic point. Discrimination is discrimination. Doesn't matter if it is applied to religion or race. Neither is acceptable. And we are not talkign about criticism of Islam. I get so tired of how people try to dress up prejudicism as "criticism"

 

No twisting needed.

You know what you wrote

 

In the Fall, the woman eats first and then the man. Some churches have taught then that the woman was to blame. Others teach they were both to blame. It always seemed irrelevant to me since the Fall was orchestrated by Satan and is supposedly a necessary prerequisite of redemption anyway, so there's no use crying over it.

On Matthew 5:32, I don't read that -- nor have I heard it taught -- that there are different divorce rules for men and women. Corinthians 7 is a tremendously egalitarian chapter, so I find it strange you pluck one verse and say it demeans women in some way. It doesn't, and moreover the entire chapter is talking about equality of the sexes inside and outside of marriage (the only exception is based on believers vs. unbelievers).

But, I'll grant you Corinthians 14. While we know from the earlier passages that the genders are equal in salvation, this passage does indeed seem to stake out different roles in worship.

 

WTF are you babbling on about. Where did he "dehumanize Muslims"?

You are still an idiot.

 

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=276132

 

The actual - very accurate - statement made by okierock:

The statement Sweet Lou/New Yorker made up and projects, from that harmless statement by okierock:

I mean...wtf . okierock said no such thing at all. He only made that ONE post above on that thread.

Sweet Lou's manipulative and lying post is a perfect example of:

When called out on it:

...instead of apologizing for completely making up a statement and attributing it to okierock, who never said any such thing, Sweet Lou repeats the same tactic:

Nowhere did okierock "dehumanize" anyone.

Sweet Lou is either a pathological liar or he does this on purpose, or both.

 

ATW, I never said anywhere that okierock dehumanized anyone. You are reading that entirely wrong. I am asking a rhetorical question, not making an accusation.

Is it really that hard to see that???

 

How is

in direct response to (and quoting)

not an accusation?

How can you lie so pathologically that it is obvious to everyone and not notice it?

 

This is childish and I am sick of it to be honest. I am just here to have debate not get into it with you.

I am asking him since Muslims are not a race does that make discrimination against them ok? My point is that it doesn't matter if they are a race or a not and it's just semantics. This isn't about saying he is a bigot, I don't think he is, he knows I don't think he is because while we disagree, I respect him and believe what he writes is in earnest.

Why are you so obsessed with me and trying to defame me?

 

The only one who defamed anyone was you - you defamed okierock.

How can you say "you respect him" when you posted previously "it is not a problem at all to you to call Muslims evil dirty people".

Something is seriously wrong with you.

 

I did not defame okierock. I suggest you read up on rhetorical questions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question


I don't think you really care - your goal here is very negative as you aren't even reading or acknowledging what I am saying. It's not my problem that you can't understand what a rhetorical question is. But I think you do - and this is really a means for you to attack.

 

Everyone saw what you did. End of story.

 

Is the statement "Muslims are horrible people" a racist statement?

Technically, no, but it is a bigoted statement. Criticize particular beliefs that some may hold, but passing character judgment against an entire group of people with a certain label, even if they have diverse beliefs, is not right. It's not "racism", but it's in the same category.

I think this was the point Sweet Lou 42 was driving at with his rhetorical question.

 

Who made that statement? okierock certainly did not.

Again, who made that statement?

Again, who made that statement?

durvasa, explain how the bolded part is a "rhetorical question". Explain yourself.

 

Thank you for articulating that very well. That's exactly what I was getting at.

 

No one made the statement. I'm just making a general observation. Just as okierock was making a general observation when he sad that criticizing Islam is not racist (unless I missed something, no one in this thread claimed it was).

Its the non-bolded part that's the rhetorical question. I didn't interpret the bolded part as an actual accusation he was making towards okierock. He knows that okierock would agree the opposite is true -- that it is clearly problematic. This is a rhetorical device, like sarcasm. Anyway, that was my reading of it.

Would you agree or disagree with the following:

(1) Its ok to say Islam is an evil ideology
(2) Therefore, practitioners of Islam must be evil people

I don't think (2) necessarily follows from (1), but its a conclusion that's easy for one to arrive at. So, when okierock says "Criticizing Islam is not racist", while that's true, if one makes a logical leap from that to "Muslims are horrible people" then there's a problem.

Generally, its not the criticism of certain troubling parts in Islamic scripture that people take issue with. Its when there are remarks about Islam as a whole and, with that, insinuations on the character of Muslims in general that accusations of racism come up.

 

Okay, then you are just making stuff up. Thanks for clarifying that.

But in conjunction with the bolded part, it is not a rhetorical question. It's putting words into the other person's mouth, and arguing a strawman.

1) yes, 2) no

It doesn't.

No.

Yes, but nobody did that, so both you and Lou are arguing a self-invented strawman, and Lou, on top of that, put these words into okierock's mouth, which is exactly what he does all the time.

You are confused.

1) Remarks about Islam as an ideology are one thing
2) Insinuations on the character of Muslims in general are a separate thing, YOU are the one making the connection
3) Racism is a totally different thing - Islam is not a race. So, to bring up accusations of racism because someone criticizes a problematic ideology is stupid.

Are you stupid?

 

"Are you stupid durvasa? Explain Yourself."

 

I'll take your last question to be rhetorical.

Clearly, I didn't communicate my point across very well. I'll try once more.

Given this:

(1) Its ok to say Islam is an evil ideology
(2) Therefore, its ok to say practitioners of Islam must be evil people

You agreed with (1) and I believe you disagree with (2). Very well. I would concur that (2) doesn't logically follow from (1). But there are many people, granted much less sophisticated than you, who would go from "Islam is an evil ideology" to "Muslims are horrible people." Peruse some Internet comment sections at right-wing news sites, and this is immediately evident.

If there's a logical hole in Sweet Lou's post (as I understood it), its that there's an implicit assumption that believing (1) necessarily leads to (2) (hence, his rhetorical question). That's not the case, though as I believe (1) very often leads to (2) I didn't have a problem accepting that as a premise.

And to be clear on where I stand, I obviously don't have a problem with critiquing aspects of Islamic scripture that conflict with modern sensibilities. As for believing "Islam is an evil ideology", so long as one can separate that sentiment from assuming something bad about a random Muslim they otherwise know nothing about, I wouldn't say there's anything racist or bigoted about it.

But I also believe that for most people who hold such a belief regarding Islam, it is very natural for that to lead to extremely negative feelings against Muslims in general. So, I suspect that promoting "Islam sucks" messages is more likely to lead to increased bigotry than anything actually helpful, even if the person doing it may not himself/herself be a bigot.

 

Quick reply to the actual video.

Feminism is a varied and diverse movement. Feminism in the ideal sense means trying to obtain equal opportunity for women, manifest in the policies of society. Ideal Feminism respects differences between the genders, psychologically and physically, and does not discriminate on the basis of religion, race, or culture. It respects those things, but does not bow and make exceptions for them.

A hijab is a hijab. A law is a law, be it the Constitution or Sharia. Ideal Feminism tackles these issues on the basis of its principles, not on the basis of other factors. It may not be completely right, but it is coherent and respectable.

What many see today as Feminism, is a form of discrimination. The so called "Third wave Feminism", like many of the liberal social justice groups, spread discrimination based on the false pretense of morality. They utilize the morally strong victim to boost their support, without actually providing proof that the group they represent are actually disproportionately victimized.

In summary, the third wavers do not care so much as obtaining equal opportunity as much as self interest. This is why you will see more and more anti-rape culture movements in Western Society, while the factual rape prevalence in the Muslim communities are ignored.

What we can do as a people is to point out logical fallacies as we see them. We don't need to hate Feminists, we simply need to point out that they are wrong and get back to enjoying our lives.

Disregard b****es, gents. Get yourselves nice girls, hit the gym, watch some good NBA basketball, and live it up. Life is too short to waste on the ignorant.