A Source of Sad Wonder -- The Western Left's Abandonment of Muslim Women

[jordan179]

When I saw that science fiction writer jaylake had posted the following article by Jonathan Lyons, "Islam, Women and the West," essentially dismissing the Western image of Muslim women as oppressed as a mere Orientalist delusion

Comments

[benschachar_77]

I think the worst part about these debates argument wise is when you inevitably have some idiot talk about how we have no right to criticize because we weren't much better 5 centuries ago.

Think about how insane that argument is. Why is something from 500-600 years ago supposed to have any relevance to here and now? Why does something WE did 500-600 years ago annul the sins of another society doing the same thing in modern times?

There are just so many fallacies in that one sentence I'm a tad shocked the cognitive dissonance hasn't killed them.

[polaris93]

And then there's the fact that the oppression of women in the West never involved the Veil and the Burqa, nor required clitoridectomies, nor a number of other items that are routine in the Muslim world. On the other hand, in many parts of Europe, women could own their own businesses and conduct business just as a man could. True, women were denied many of the rights that men had, and there was the Burning Time -- but many men perished of the Burning, as well, and the Burning was directed at Pagans, that is, people who embraced the ancient religion of the region that everyone had followed before Christianity, rather than women per se. The Church had a deadly mysogonistic attitude then, but that was offset by popular attitudes. Women were not locked up in Purdah, and bigamy was considered a sin, not just a crime -- and monogamy favors women in many ways. So yeah, you're right. And even more right than stated here.

[marycatelli]

Actually, there's no evidence that the witches were indeed practicing a secret religion, let alone a surviving pagan one.

[dexeron]

In fact, most evidence seems to say that those burned during the "burning times" (which itself is kind of a misnomer) were just Christians, Jews and some others caught up in a moral panic that came about as the Catholic Church was trying to fight "heresies" within and without: in other words, threats to its power and influence. Paganism had, unfortuantely, been dead for CENTURIES by that point, almost completely wiped out through just basic attirition and societal change - pretty much everyone was just christian by default, with various regional differences based on whatever pagan faiths had been there before christianity took over. However, no one (apart from MAYBE a very small hidden minority) seriously practiced anything we'd call "paganism" until VERY recently, when it was "rediscovered". When you look at the victims of, say, the Inquisition, or the Salem witch trials, the vast VAST majority of these terrible times were just christian women being used either as an example to further reinforce the fear of disobedience, or rich

[gothelittle]

The medieval Catholic Church didn't do an awful lot, if any, of the burnings. The Catholic Church's official punishment for heresies was excommunication. The burnings happened in areas where the Church was subordinated (in some cases, oppressed) by the State. It was the State that conducted the executions, and in many cases the Church outright opposed that level of punishment... and were overruled. Not surprising... there is always trouble when the State finds out that it can use the Church to get what it wants.

The only place where the actual religious folk were doing the actual physical punishment was in Salem a few generations later.

[dexeron]

That's actually a really good point, and one need only look at the Spanish Inquisition to support it. It was largely the monarchs behind it (using the church as a tool, more than the church being the driving force) in a power consolidation. Keep in mind that it was Isabella and Ferdinand II who were behind it, the same monarchs who compelted the Reconquista. In many ways, it was far more political than religious, and Jews and Muslims were in many cases the real victims, as opposed to Pagans who, frankly, just didn't exist any more. This is NOT to say that many, MANY Christians weren't caught up in this as well. Henry VIII's great heresy was to come in only a few decades, and Europe would soon see its share of protestants and catholics burning and killing each other, but even then, it really was less a religious question as one of power. Henry's objection to the Pope was NEVER one of doctrine. Luther's reforms were something he used to JUSTIFY his actions, which were always ultimately about POWER and authority: a contest of

[gothelittle]

When I think about the Catholic Church, working absent/against The Government, dealing with Jews... I remember the information that is only now coming to light about the Church's involvement in hiding WW2 era Jews by faking baptism certificates and giving them safe haven in the churches.

It seemed as if the Catholic Church at the time was more supportive of the Nazis, but that's because the few congregations who openly opposed them were slaughtered. In their various secretive and careful ways, however, the Catholics (led by the Pope of the time) saved over 850,000 Jews.

[polaris93]

You're right. I had forgotten that. Thanks. :-)

[gothelittle]

Never a problem. :)

The most fun I ever had pointing that one out was in my college class, "Women In Sociology", when the teacher's job was clearly to paint Christians as anti-woman by talking about the "Christian witch burnings" in Europe.

At the time, I didn't know about the role of the State. But I did know enough to raise my hand and point out that, at that time, the Catholic Church was also persecuting other Christians... the Protestants, my ancestors. So it wasn't quite accurate to claim that Christians were being anti-woman.

The teacher looked completely startled, remained silent for a moment, and then admitted quietly that she hadn't thought of that.

Man, that was an interesting class.

[polaris93]

That was a remarkable teacher. Such graciousness can be rare in college and university environments. :-)

I think the whole "the Church is/was anti-woman" thing is mostly a product of latter-day feminism, which is liberal and thus anti-Christian. Yes, there clearly have been misogynistic thinkers and leaders in the Church, but anti-other things have also been common targets down the ages, depending on the times and outlook. The Church today is much more classical liberal in its outlook than ever before, and open to discussion about them. The "liberals" have gone in exactly the opposite direction, and that includes today's "feminists," who frequently forget to check their sources and at times simply make stuff up, anything as long as it can make the Church or other target look bad. If such women ever get the opportunity, they'll definitely burn leaders and congregations of the Church at the stake. That's what scares me -- that someday the liberals will have such or make opportunities for that and worse.

[cutelildrow]

The greatest evidence that feminism embraces anti-Christianism is how they themselves will hesitate to speak out with any regularity about the oppression of women in Muslim cultures, instead choosing to regularly point how how 'unequal' women still 'are' in the West. They've embraced demonizing the comparitively pro-women Christian and Catholic church... but then place on the pedestal Islam as a delightful and wonderful religious alternative that holds women's rights as one of it's pillars.

I'm never really sure where they get that particular delusion, but pointing out the reality results in responses of "but we have abusers in OUR culture too, and these people who do violence on women there in the name of Islam are just people who misunderstand their religion."

It makes me wonder sometimes if opening their cranium would reveal a brain...or a skull full of maggots. That aren't even alive.

[polaris93]

They are among the people of the lie, those whose lives have become living lies, who lie and lie and lie to themselves and others on a constant basis. That is the nature of the Left. So it's easy to drop one more lie into their pitiful excuses for brains and have them embrace it, especially because they are too ignorant to question what the propagandizers tell them to believe. You're right -- they're among the walking dead.

[marycatelli]

Belief in witchcraft is a common trait, being unknown only in certain hunting and gathering societies and modern 20th centuries ones. And witch hunts were widespread. The biggest ones on record were in the Roman Republic.

There's no reason to think it was anything but a standard-issue witchhunt.

[polaris93]

Really? Ask the Roman Catholic Church, which kept records of the burning of "heretics." as opposed to "witches" (whose deaths by fire they also recorded). Heretics were considered a tremendous danger to the Church and to Christendom, and both men and women accused of it were burned at the stake. Witches, on the other hand, were feared by individuals, but they were considered more of a community problem than a pan-European one. "Heretics" at times included Jews, non-Christians not classifiable as any particular religion, families practicing age-old rituals and lifestyles inherited from pre-Christian ancestors (in the Northlands, this included followers of Thor, Odin, and other Norse Gods, who were hated by the Church, and in Ireland they included followers of the Celtic Gods), and so on and so forth. There's plenty of evidence for that, from the Brothers Grimm and their Norse studies to the anthropology professors I studied under at college. So one lady got a bee in her bonnet and decided that there had been no survivals from pre

[marycatelli]

What a stunningly credulous person you are.

No, in point of fact, there is no evidence precisely because we do have records of what the Church -- and the Protestants -- were doing.

As for the Brothers Grimm and their contemporary and immediately subsequent fellow folklorists -- they went to their evidence with the axiom that it was all Really Really Really Old Stuff rather than find evidence for it. Many of their claims about pagan survivals are not merely wrong but impossible. And of those that can not be proven wrong, a vanishingly small portion can be proven to be right -- or even have some evidence for it.

[polaris93]

How prone you are to ad hominem arguments!

There really were pockets of people in Europe with religious traditions going well back before Christianity came to the region, just as there are Native Americans today who follow pre-Columbian traditions. My information comes from anthropology professors as well as anyone else -- are you saying none of them knows what he/she is talking about? If so, let's end this conversation right now, because you know specialists in anthropology know what they're talking about and being obstructive just for the hell of it.

If the only way you can feel good about yourself is to sneer at others, I feel very, very sorry for you. You always take a confrontationalist, combative stance, and all that leads to is blog wars. No, thank you.