Women's Rights in the Middle East

[cipher6]

Women were considered property here. You do realize that right? If someone damaged your property, you had recourse. If they damaged their own... well property doesn't have recourse.

I understand that, but can you point to anything that shows violence against women was similar accepted in the early US as it is in the middle east?

Pretty much everyone views pets as property, but some societies are more outraged at violence and suffering inflicted on pets than others.

The point is, it's a belief that they have. It's a belief that they have as a people.

Yes, and I think that belief, 1st is wrong, and 2nd a society that holds such beliefs, isn't going to be the type of culture that a peaceful secular democracy with equal rights for all springs from. I might be wrong, but thats my opinion.

A question I might ask is this... what purpose does male circumcision (or as some refer to it, Male Genital Mutilation) serve in THIS country?

Talk to a doctor, the two are certainly not the same thing.

One involves removing the foreskin, has positive health benefits, and very low risk. The other involves remove the clitoris, sometimes parts of the labia, or by sealing the opening completely (to be cut open again by the husband.) It involves a lot of pain and complications as well.

 

[cipher6]

But during the salem witch trials it was the society of the town that accused and tried and put these women to death.

But one town isn't representative of an entire culture.

Depends on which country you are living in. Just because the US embraces this. Doesnt mean every country does.

EXCATLY! Just because we value life, doesn't mean other cultures do. Just because we think its wrong to rape our daughters doesn't mean other cultures believe the same things... and just because we value secular democracy and individual freedoms, doesn't mean others do as well... which is why I say, I don't have high hopes for secular democracy in the middle east.

Nice of you to try and put words in my mouth. I never said I was ok with the FMG. So stop trying to make me out like I BACK THIS.

If your so passionate about stopping this. Why not go over there and make a change to try and help these women. We know you wont as your all talk and no action. Your to scared to raise your voice over in egypt and call their practices wrong and barbaric. As you know as soon as you spoke they would kill you.

You are nothing more than an internet tough guy. Go over there and help them women if it bothers you so much and want it to stop. All you got to do is buy a Plane ticket to egypt. Just make sure you make it one way.

I'm not bringing this up because I want to reform Egyptian culture, it would be nice, but I'm not that nieve. Its, I think, evidence western style secular democracy doesn't have a good chance in a culture like that. Our government was grown in our culture, a different culture will grow a different government, I don't think Egyptian society wants the same things western society does.

 

[Dark Jedi]

But the foreskin was put there for a reason. I bet anyone that was circumcised wasnt asked if they wanted it or not. I see it no different. They are messing with something that shouldnt be messed with. So if your are for circumcision then you should be for the FMG. As in both the unwilling participant didnt have a say in the matter. It was pushed upon them by their parents.

 

[ElasticNinja]

you know, in my country the clergy raped boys and girls and no one gave a shit

 

[Dark Jedi]

you know, in my country the clergy raped boys and girls and no one gave a shit

Catholic? I know we have this problem and the Vatican just moves them to a different church and keeps it hush hush just so they can do it again and again. Finally the Gov is stepping in and are arresting and putting them on trial.

Its sad when your suppose to trust the clergy to help and protect you. They view it as an endless smorgasbord to do as they please.

 

[cipher6]

But the foreskin was put there for a reason. I bet anyone that was circumcised wasnt asked if they wanted it or not. I see it no different. They are messing with something that shouldnt be messed with. So if your are for circumcision then you should be for the FMG. As in both the unwilling participant didnt have a say in the matter. It was pushed upon them by their parents.

Well, this isn't a debate about circumcision, but about the type of culture that can be expected to embrace a secular democracy.

But lets side track, if the mods don't mind...

Hypothetical.

1 child gets immunization shots to prevent illness. Another child gets injected with snake poison to prevent Satan from taking over their soul. most kids that get immunization don't have negative effects, and it helps them, most kids with the snake poison die or get real sick, and it has really no measurable benefits.

Would you then say, if your in favor of injecting your kids with immunizations, you should also be in favor of injecting them with snake poison, because in neither situation did the kid have a choice?

Or could you look at the risk/benefits and determine one was better and less harmful than the other?

 

[ElasticNinja]

hey I was baptised without my permission
all those days at church left some mental delusions in my head

 

[cipher6]

you know, in my country the clergy raped boys and girls and no one gave a shit

I've seen a HUGE public outcry about this issue. That might say something about Catholic clergy culture, who covered it up for a long time, but once it was out in the open, society as a whole was outraged.

 

[Dark Jedi]

Well, this isn't a debate about circumcision, but about the type of culture that can be expected to embrace a secular democracy.

But lets side track, if the mods don't mind...

Hypothetical.

1 child gets immunization shots to prevent illness. Another child gets injected with snake poison to prevent Satan from taking over their soul. most kids that get immunization don't have negative effects, and it helps them, most kids with the snake poison die or get real sick, and it has really no measurable benefits.

Would you then say, if your in favor of injecting your kids with immunizations, you should also be in favor of injecting them with snake poison, because in neither situation did the kid have a choice?

Or could you look at the risk/benefits and determine one was better and less harmful than the other?

The snake is symbolized as Satan. So to inject snake venom in to a child is to have the child embrace satan.

Many parents dont get their children immunized.

 

[Dark Jedi]

hey I was baptised without my permission
all those days at church left some mental delusions in my head

Just as long as it wasnt southern baptist then your ok.

 

[cjr72]

The Civil War had nothing to do with Slavery until the Emancipation Proclamation.

It was an economic war. The populace cities in the North had much greater representation in Congress. This allowed them to create a huge economic imbalance.

For example, things the North produced and sold had huge import tariffs (think pots and pans), which meant that the South was forced to pay high prices for goods produced by the North.

Things the South produced and sold (think Cotton) had no import tariffs, so the North could purchase them cheaply from other sources forcing down prices on Southern produced goods.

This economic imbalance was the driving force behind the confederacy.

While it's true there were other grievances the Civil War had much to do with slavery. The timing of the Emancipation Proclamation was due to the fact that Lincoln knew many in the North would not rally around a war that would result in freeing slaves so he had to downplay that and sell it as a war to keep the Union together. Also the South made no secret of the fact that Lincoln and the Republican's anti-slavery stance was a reason for secession: Declaration of Causes of Secession

 

[Dark Jedi]

While it's true there were other grievances the Civil War had much to do with slavery. The timing of the Emancipation Proclamation was due to the fact that Lincoln knew many in the North would not rally around a war that would result in freeing slaves so he had to downplay that and sell it as a war to keep the Union together. Also the South made no secret of the fact that Lincoln and the Republican's anti-slavery stance was a reason for secession: Declaration of Causes of Secession

Plus when Lincoln was saying slavery was wrong He still had his slaves in the white house during the Civil war. As many of the nothern families did.

 

[ElasticNinja]

I've seen a HUGE public outcry about this issue. That might say something about Catholic clergy culture, who covered it up for a long time, but once it was out in the open, society as a whole was outraged.

50 years later
and plenty of people knew

 

[cipher6]

The snake is symbolized as Satan. So to inject snake venom in to a child is to have the child embrace satan.

Many parents dont get their children immunized.

You failed to address they hypothetical point being made. FGM vs male circumcision, are you able to look at risk/benefits and determine one is better than another, or is anything you do to a child before they can form their own opinion of equal value and morality?

When did this become about all middle east societies... weren't we just talking about Egypt?

I think Egypt is somewhat representative of other societies in the middle east. Kinda like the UK and American have similar culture.

The Civil War had nothing to do with Slavery until the Emancipation Proclamation.

Have you read the "Corner Stone Speech?"

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

Although at founding not everyone had equal rights, there was as Alexander H. Stephens puts it,

the prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically.

In practice it wasn't equal, but there was a driving cultural understanding that it should be, it took 200 years to fully enact that idea, but the ideas was there from the start... I don't know if that exists in Egypt and the Middle East.

Plus when Lincoln was saying slavery was wrong He still had his slaves in the white house during the Civil war. As many of the nothern families did.

Thats flat out, just plain wrong. Can you point to one shred of evidence to support this claim about Lincoln?

Also, what evidence do you base the claim "most" Northern families owned slaves during the Civil war?

All the Northern states passed emancipation acts between 1780 and 1804; most of these arranged for gradual emancipation.[126]

50 years later
and plenty of people knew

Like who? You mean the media, police, general public, all new but didn't say anything? What was the trigger then that caused all these people that did know to suddenly be outraged?

 

[Dark Jedi]

You failed to address they hypothetical point being made. FGM vs male circumcision, are you able to look at risk/benefits and determine one is better than another, or is anything you do to a child before they can form their own opinion of equal value and morality?

Whats the worse thing an Uncircumcised penis cause? Having a sore penis from not cleaning? I know many guys that has their foreskin and they will all say as long as you keep it clean you will have no problems. Let it go and they say you learn quick to keep it clean.

So again what is the reason to do this procedure on babies?

 

[Dark Jedi]

So how do you know FGM isnt a good thing? Have you heard the opposition side for doing it? Or are you closed minded to only see your conclusion is the correct one.

 

[cipher6]

Whats the worse thing an Uncircumcised penis cause? Having a sore penis from not cleaning? I know many guys that has their foreskin and they will all say as long as you keep it clean you will have no problems. Let it go and they say you learn quick to keep it clean.

So again what is the reason to do this procedure on babies?

Much of it is religious, but there is also the increased protection from STDs. Its actually recommended by the UN in Africa because of the decreased transmission rates of Aids for circumcised males. But their concern is people might see it as a cure all, and stop taking other preventative measures.

So how do you know FGM isnt a good thing? Have you heard the opposition side for doing it? Or are you closed minded to only see your conclusion is the correct one.

They say it keeps the women pure and evil sex thoughts out of their head. But 80% of prostitutes in Egypt had FGM, so I think we can through that idea out. I've seen no evidence that chopping up your genitals decreases sex drive or promiscuous behavior, but that is one major claim for it. Others simply see it as right of passage, you become a women when you have your clitoris and labia cut off.

But again, this isn't a debate about FGM vs circumcision.

 

[AngryHatter]

Back to the topic.
Israel lets women fight in the army and get elected prime minister.
Who is to say?

 

[ElasticNinja]

Back to the topic.
Israel lets women fight in the army and get elected prime minister.
Who is to say?

so?
many Muslim countries have higher proportion of female MPs than mine

 

[byteware]

While it's true there were other grievances the Civil War had much to do with slavery. The timing of the Emancipation Proclamation was due to the fact that Lincoln knew many in the North would not rally around a war that would result in freeing slaves so he had to downplay that and sell it as a war to keep the Union together. Also the South made no secret of the fact that Lincoln and the Republican's anti-slavery stance was a reason for secession: Declaration of Causes of Secession

Those are portions of documents. Sometimes 80 pages into the actual documentation.

(says so on the very site you linked).

Here is something that you may not know... Lincoln swore he would never allow the institution of slavery to be diminished.

He swore that during his Inauguration.

There was no reason to secede over slavery.

 

[byteware]

You failed to address they hypothetical point being made. FGM vs male circumcision, are you able to look at risk/benefits and determine one is better than another, or is anything you do to a child before they can form their own opinion of equal value and morality?

What exactly are the benefits of male circumcision?

I think Egypt is somewhat representative of other societies in the middle east. Kinda like the UK and American have similar culture.

There's no reason to believe that. Especially with a large portion of the Muslim community supporting and protecting the Christians there (not all, as recent events have shown).

Have you read the "Corner Stone Speech?"

Have you ever listened to Biden? I don't think any one will argue that he is indicative of the US, or even Obama.

In practice it wasn't equal, but there was a driving cultural understanding that it should be, it took 200 years to fully enact that idea, but the ideas was there from the start... I don't know if that exists in Egypt and the Middle East.

Some understood that it should be, if there was a cultural understanding that it should be, it wouldn't take 200 years for that to happen.

 

[cipher6]

What exactly are the benefits of male circumcision?

See above, increased protections from STDs, the UN recommends it in Africa to help slow the spread of AIDS.

There's no reason to believe that. Especially with a large portion of the Muslim community supporting and protecting the Christians there (not all, as recent events have shown).

I don't know what protecting Christians has to do with anything. Lets put it this way, Egypt is more similar to Turkey than it is to Australia. I think Egypt, and other Islamic/Middle East countries have more cultural overlap than say, Egypt and the Netherlands.

Have you ever listened to Biden? I don't think any one will argue that he is indicative of the US, or even Obama.

Alexander H. Stephens was one of the founders of the confederacy and was outlining why he thinks it got started, slavery was a big point. (this is in response to your comment, the Civil war wasn't about slavery.)

Some understood that it should be, if there was a cultural understanding that it should be, it wouldn't take 200 years for that to happen.

Yes, some in the culture understood that, some did not. But the country was founded on that idea, while not everyone accepted or embraced it, it was a guiding principal. That guiding principal didn't just magically appear one day, it came from somewhere, and was ingrained in the formation of the country. Can Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries fighting for freedoms do the same? I don't know. But I don't hold my breath.

 

[cjr72]

Those are portions of documents. Sometimes 80 pages into the actual documentation.

(says so on the very site you linked).

Regardless of the page slavery is stated quite emphatically as one of the "Immediate Causes" for secession.

Here is something that you may not know... Lincoln swore he would never allow the institution of slavery to be diminished.

He swore that during his Inauguration.

There was no reason to secede over slavery.

In saying that there was no reason to secede over slavery because Lincoln stated he would never allow the institution of slavery to be diminished is putting the cart before the horse. Many states in the South had already seceded before before Lincoln gave that speech. Jefferson Davis had been inaugurated as the President of the Confederacy two weeks earlier. Lincoln was backpedaling to try to appease a South that had already seceded over slavery among other reasons as stated in their causes for secession that I linked to above. That Lincoln was a Republican, a party formed in part to combat the spread of slavery, was not lost on the South as evidenced by both their words and actions.

 

[ElasticNinja]

so what's your solution? a right wing US backed dictator?

oh and BTW, Turkish people are more similar to Dutch people than, say Egyptians in my experience

 

[byteware]

See above, increased protections from STDs, the UN recommends it in Africa to help slow the spread of AIDS.

None of the studies that have indicated these benefits have been conclusive. You may want to do a little research, before you tout something that isn't definitive. The UN, however, is grasping at straws when it comes to AIDS in Africa, and I really don't blame them.

I don't know what protecting Christians has to do with anything. Lets put it this way, Egypt is more similar to Turkey than it is to Australia. I think Egypt, and other Islamic/Middle East countries have more cultural overlap than say, Egypt and the Netherlands.

Yes, but not enough to discuss them as if they were one lump sum.

While the US and the Netherlands have more in common than either do with Egypt, you can't lump them together when discussing social issues.

Alexander H. Stephens was one of the founders of the confederacy and was outlining why he thinks it got started, slavery was a big point. (this is in response to your comment, the Civil war wasn't about slavery.)

So, you are claiming that a person who argued and voted against secession was one of the founders of the confederacy?

Yes, some in the culture understood that, some did not. But the country was founded on that idea, while not everyone accepted or embraced it, it was a guiding principal. That guiding principal didn't just magically appear one day, it came from somewhere, and was ingrained in the formation of the country.

Guiding principle? It's never BEEN a guiding principle.

Can Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries fighting for freedoms do the same? I don't know. But I don't hold my breath.

They can make the same claim that we could when this country was founded.