The psychology that leads one to take their life or that of another has been studied by many learned people over many decades with varying degrees of success and insight.
The desperation and the hopelessness of the oppressed who carry out these acts has not. These women took their lives and the lives of others because of an ideology in a system that requires their obedience, much like here.
An Ideology which allowed for no other alternative than blind alligience to a cause or belief. A belief honed from infancy, that the only answer was to kill themselves and others. The irony is , others will replace them and their victims , they will be but a dim memory.
Paradise, which is promised, is similar to the enslavement of the minds of African Americans who, through the use of Christianity were taught that suffering on this earth was their lot and their reward was heaven, later. This ideology and mindset has been passed down generation after generation, there and right here in the US.
In that regard Islam and Christianity are not that different. Religious dogma has but one goal, to keep the masses narcotized, while the powerful prosper at the expense of those who do their bidding under the auspices of pleasing their respective Gods through the ultimate sacrifice, the sacrifice of their own will and minds.
The illusion of opportunity and the safeguards put in place for the masses are how those here can look askance across the water at the women who saw no other way out of their slavery.
The women who become suicide bombers were the victims of the same patriarchal structure that has a stranglehold on women everywhere. They had no choice, not really. Either go along or be outcast from the group, similar to the ideals and morals of some in America. Although it takes a different form. Here women are rewarded for certain behaviours, none as drastic but just as damning to the psyche.
The brainwashing of women has gone on since Biblical times, it is a necessary ingredient to a patriarchy’s success.
There is no difference between a woman who says, “annihilate them” and one who straps a bomb on herself and actually does it. Both suffer from having no real power. Power comes from the ability to alter the existence of others. No woman has that power, yet.
Women were seen as nurturers , as givers of life, but the mindset that they have to be equal to men in every way fosters the notion that they somehow have to give up their humanity as well. In that regard, if things do not change, there is little hope for this planet.
Patriarchy has done its job well.
While I agree that this religion is obviously an example of patriarchy and male domination at work, I’d like to point out that many men within this religion are also completely submissive, the only difference is that they are submissive to the scriptures, the clerks, and their governments who enfore the scriptures upon them, it is not men to blame, but the scriptures of an evil religion based on complete blind acceptance from both sexes, with no real room for intereperation, or independant thought.
The danger in writing from a political view point is that often, I feel, you are unable to see other elements at work (perhaps you see them, but exempt them from your writing as they are not relevant to feminism, which is what I hope you’ve done.)
For instance, you feel the women are victims of a patriarchal structure, I feel that both men and women are victims of an evil religion based on complete blind acceptance from both sexes, with no real room for intereperation, or independant thought. You have singled out one cause for their victimisation. I have taken a general stand point looking over the entire thing. Obviously, your point is valid, but your point stands within mine, that the scriptures are to blame first, and men second.
I only wish more feminists could write with a broader view point, you can always make your point as you have, but at the end, you could have added a segment based around other factors that forced these women into this position.
Comment by Virgil Hart — July 29, 2008 @ 10:59 am |
Mr. Hart,
Who in the heck do you think wrote the Bible and religion en toto? If Christianity (and Islam) are “evil” religions, look not to the religion but its many creators and its power structure.
The writers of religion and culture are men, not women.
Men are only victims of power’s need to protect and vindicate itself. In that sense, men are simply the victims of men with more power, as it has always been.
I suggest Sherry Ortner’s groundbreaking and seminal (allusion intended) artical, “Is Female to Male as Nature is to Culture?” readily available online via a quick google.
I only wish more men could write with subtlety and sophistication, you can make your point, as you have, but in the end, you simply show that patriarchy is unable to see outside of its own power structure box.
Patriarchy is dull witted and without intellectual creativity.
Comment by bluesmokeofparadise — July 29, 2008 @ 2:54 pm |
“Mr. Hart,
Who in the heck do you think wrote the Bible and religion en toto? If Christianity (and Islam) are “evil” religions, look not to the religion but its many creators and its power structure.
The writers of religion and culture are men, not women. ”
Source please?
The writers of religion are men and women, the inhabitants of this planet learnt to lie before they learnt to talk.
They learnt to invent supersitions based on ridiculous concepts of the sanctity of life. We’re here, we don’t know how, we must be special. Men and women created religion, religion didn’t just appear, it wasn’t just suddenly written, it evolved, it grew from superstitions held by early man and early woman.
We’re all to blame for religion.
Besides, even if your point stood, according to McElwaine, the heirarchy would still emerge as.
God
Man
Woman
Earth.
God still reigns supreme in terms of suppression. Which in turn means religion reigns supreme, and since religion is “God’s word,” not man’s religion is still the opressor of man and woman kind.
Besides, Mitochondrial Eve was on this planet 140,000 years ago, Y-chromosomal Adam was here 60,000 years ago, both somewhere in Africa. Which essentially means male blood lines, in the middle east and in Africa, are more partial to dying out, which in turn means, there are more women, as the Y chromosome is proving to be weaker than the X chromosome. This is supported by the fact that even today, most middle-eastern and African countries have more women than men. Usually the number of women per man in these areas, is between 1.01 to anywhere above and beyond 2.5.
“Men are only victims of power’s need to protect and vindicate itself. In that sense, men are simply the victims of men with more power, as it has always been.”
First off, your statement could only be true in a society that is governed entirely by men, (a society you do not live in,) secondly, it could only be true if said society was not democrating (again a society you do not live in.)
Women continually vote, in democracies for male candidates, even when female candidates are available, (Hilary vs Obama, and the London election, I can also cite many recent elections in my home country if you wish.)
In democracy, women vote for men, they do it because the women who attempt to run in elections obviously do not represent their views, what does that say of your so called male dominated system where women are subjigated and dominated by men?
I only wish feminists could write with less aggression and more tact, and write without generalisations.
You cannot blame all men for the actions of a few, you cannot trace all crimes back to first men and say it was their doing. You say I am unable to see outside my own “power structure box,” you claim I am part of a “partriarchy,” explain please, how I am.
I don’t vote, out of moral obligation, as such, I do not put men in power, secondly, even if I did put men in power, what would it matter? That would prove nothing, not every man on the planet is inherantly trying to hold you down.
I support woman’s rights in the workplace, again disproving your theory that I am part of a “patriarchy,” I am against all religion, (which you claim was invented by men alone,) again proving I am not part of the “patriarchy”
“Patriarchy is dull witted and without intellectual creativity.” You’re right, I’m glad I’m not a part of it, although I’m sure you’re bound to differ and try to claim that all men inherantly are because their environment from birth demands them to be…
Feminism is a childish backlash against the crimes of men past, that wont die, despite having achieved it’s aims as best it can as a political tool.
You try to claim I can’t see outside my own “power structure box”, yet aspects of my character prove otherwise, you cite my blaming religion (apparently according to you invented by men,) and not men, as something that proves I cannot think outside a box.
This just makes you appear ignorant, and your assumptions are only outweighed by your launching into vindictive thinly vieled personal attacks, even though my original post I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and assumed you’d seen other factors at work, even though I had no proof you had.
Feminism is ugly, vindictive, and angry. Needless to say, in this comment, I’ve responded in kind.
Comment by Virgil Hart — July 29, 2008 @ 6:29 pm |
Personal attack?
Think again.
Comment by bluesmokeofparadise — July 30, 2008 @ 7:41 am |
“I only wish more men could write with subtlety and sophistication, you can make your point, as you have, but in the end, you simply show that patriarchy is unable to see outside of its own power structure box.
Patriarchy is dull witted and without intellectual creativity.”
Personal attack, read again.
Comment by Virgil Hart — July 30, 2008 @ 6:45 pm |
First a clarification. I would agree with Mr. Hart that religion, superstition, belief that the fantastic is real is not merely the province of men, but a product of both of humanity’s genders. But the question wasn’t whether it was a man or women who first thought that sprits were real, or supernatural forces controlled nature, or prayed to some higher power. The question was whether the two religions being discussed – Christianity and Islam – were fundementally patriarchal in their creation and content. Let’s see. Father’s empowered to kill their daughters for lack of virginity. Women ordered to shut up in church. DIsobedient wives beaten. Patriarchal? The only answer, even with a cursory reading of their holy scriptures or understanding of their respective histories, could only be… hell yeah.
As for Mr. Hart’s comments on feminism, it’s always refreshing to see someone expression two completely opposing thoughts without even the pretense of noticing the contradiction. First he writes: “I only wish feminists could write with less aggression and more tact, and write without generalisations.” Well, without rendering a verdict on his characterization of feminists, it seems a reasonable request for engaging in a poltiical discussion or debate. A few sentences later, Mr. Hart has this to say, “Feminism is a childish backlash against the crimes of men past, that wont die, despite having achieved it’s aims as best it can as a political tool.” Hmmmm. Seems that Mr. Hart is just brimming with relaxing vibes and concrete analysis – no agression or generalizations here. Right?
But underneath Mr. Hart’s little snit lies a presumption that is unequivocally as false as his pretense of support for the liberation of women. The crimes of men, and more fundementally, the crimes of a patriarchal order are far from being pale shadows of a less enlightened past. Whether it takes the form of honor killings, wife and girlfriend beating, the international child sex industry, the continuing assault on women’s rights to control their reproduction – to name a just a few – the unfortunately limitless amount of evidence around us renders any accusation of “childish” feminists not simply grossly out of touch with reality, but a cruel choice of words.
Comment by passingthought — July 30, 2008 @ 9:10 pm |
“Seems that Mr. Hart is just brimming with relaxing vibes and concrete analysis – no agression or generalizations here. Right?” – Awww, well done you for noticing.
“without even the pretense of noticing the contradiction.” – First off, don’t worry, I noticed, Secondly, I felt it only fair to respond in kind, it’s not a contradiction, if you think it so, you’re a bit of a moron, thirdly, even if it was, why would that matter? It’s a contradiction of character, (in my ability to spot your snide remarks, point them out, say it’s childish, but my inability to stop myself responding in kind – nobody said I had to be a good person who can practice what he preaches. This argument isn’t about my character or my ability to be the better person in an argument, it’s about religion, patriarchy, men, and women.) Finally, from a purely philisophical point of view anybody who believes contradictions in character should be seen in negative light is pretty much doomed to live a very boring life. Contradictions in character are what make people the interesting brilliant beings they are, and the only reason people attach a negative conotation to the word “contradiction” is because they fear the disorganised, they fear the chaotic, they fear not knowing what’s going to happen next.
Contradictions in our character, and personality, make life worth living.
“The question was whether the two religions being discussed – Christianity and Islam – were fundementally patriarchal in their creation and content.” – I’m pretty sure it wasn’t actually, I’m pretty sure, you said men invented religion, I said men an women invented it, and you agreed with me, you’re just trying to bring a new point up under a weak guise of it being previously mentioned to get the upper hand in the debate using underhand debating tactics because you know you’ve lost.
Secondly, I’ll accept this NEW point, as NEW question, patriarchal in content? yes. Who’s to blame? Men and women. Who should we blame? Men and women. Does this blog blame men and women? No, it blames men.
“But underneath Mr. Hart’s little snit lies a presumption that is unequivocally as false as his pretense of support for the liberation of women.” – Great, where’s your evidence for this blatant crap? I could say you pretence for the support for the liberation of women is false also, and it would mean just as little as what you said of me. Why? You have no proof, I have no proof. So would you like to grow up and stop being childish now? Because when you finish with the childish name calling and shouting “liar liar, pants on fire” I’ll finish with it also, and maybe you can sit and have an intelligent conversation.
“But underneath Mr. Hart’s little snit lies a presumption that is unequivocally as false as his pretense of support for the liberation of women. The crimes of men, and more fundementally, the crimes of a patriarchal order are far from being pale shadows of a less enlightened past. Whether it takes the form of honor killings, wife and girlfriend beating, the international child sex industry, the continuing assault on women’s rights to control their reproduction – to name a just a few – the unfortunately limitless amount of evidence around us renders any accusation of “childish” feminists not simply grossly out of touch with reality, but a cruel choice of words.” – Nice try for a sympathy vote, but you failed. I never claimed feminists were childish for being against those things, I suggest you stop trying to twist my words, because I’m not a typical idiot on the internet you can try to run circles round by using silly little debating tricks.
My exact words were:
“Feminism is a childish backlash against the crimes of men past, that wont die, despite having achieved it’s aims as best it can as a political tool.”
Feminism, it was a backlash against the crimes of men of the past, (the men the movement was initiated against, was against “men of the past”, as that’s what they are now.)
It won’t die.
It has achieved it’s aims as best it can as a political tool.
And it is, for the most part, incredibly childish, as you have done nothing but prove, the reason nobody votes for feminists, the reason nobody gives support to feminists, is because they are generally brutish, aggressive and vindictive, they’re like you, people don’t like women like you, women don’t like women like you.
That’s why you aren’t a major political movement. Your public image, and the way you conduct yourself.
Comment by Virgil Hart — August 1, 2008 @ 6:33 pm |
There are contradictions… and there are contradictions. The parent who encourages their child to bravely go into the water and have no fear – but is terrified of doing it them self – is a contradiction. The older brother who comes home from rehab and sternly tells his kid sister to stay off the stuff – is a contradiction. The preacher who castigates his congregation for adultery and fornication while having an affair with the choir leader – is also a contradiction. What makes one a positive and another negative is the difference between an imperfect human trying to help someone avoid their own stumbling blocks and crass dishonest hypocrisy. I’ll let you figure out where your contradiction fits in.
Besides using the rationale favored by the under 10 set, “Mommy, mommy she called me a name first!,” your excuse for nastiness serves more as self-exposure. If you felt personally attacked by “snide remarks” then it would be somewhat understandable to respond with an equally snide personal response. But you didn’t do that. You didn’t trash a single individual. You made derogatory and unsubstantiated remarks about feminists in general – that it is childish, essentially outmoded, ugly and vindictive. Kind of like a white driver getting cut off on the highway by a black man and instead of cussing out “that idiot driver,” goes into a rant about “those people.” It’s very telling, don’t you think.
You’re argument that the debate was simply about whether religion in general was created by men and women or just men might have a leg if no one bothers to read the sentences that opened up the argument: “Who in the heck do you think wrote the Bible and religion en toto? If Christianity (and Islam) are “evil” religions, look not to the religion but its many creators and its power structure.” Now you can try to argue that the word “Bible” refers to some all-encompassing nebulous faith, or “Christianity” and “Islam” have nothing to do with the Old and New Testament or the Koran, or perhaps that the societies that gave birth to these documents were brimming with gender equality, or that the various historical religious establishments were characterized by power sharing among the sexes – but I hope that even you would see the absurdity in attempting that.
As for your request for proof concerning your “pretense” for supporting the liberation of women and charge that I tried to “twist” your words – as the quote goes, methinks though doest protest too much.
As you said (again), your exact words were “Feminism is a childish backlash against the crimes of men past, that wont die, despite having achieved it’s aims as best it can as a political tool.” Then you go on to explain through repeating yourself that feminism is targeting the men of the past, that feminism won’t die, that it has achieved it’s aims as best it can. True, you didn’t say that women were “childish” for protesting against the type of current crimes I listed – you did say against crimes of men past. What is odd, though, is most feminists today protest, speak out, denounce those current and ongoing crimes against women. What is revealing is your use of the word “past.” What is the only logical conclusion – since as you allege feminism “won’t die” even though it has “achieved it’s aims” – is that these women need to just get over it already. Not much different than the argument by white people who adamantly decry discrimination while insisting that Black people need to “get over it” since the civil rights movement “achieved it’s aims.” Hence the phrase “pretense of support for the liberation of women.”
By the way, it appears that you’ve assumed I was a previous poster on this thread. Just to be clear, my response to your posts was my first and only post on this thread.
Comment by passingthought — August 3, 2008 @ 10:00 pm |