Gene Expression: Islam, women, freedom & all that

Andrew Reeves ruminates on the freedoms and restrictions that Muslim women are subject too:

First off, since my own social views are usually closer to grumpy old fart than most, I actually have a great deal of sympathy for what Islam says is the proper role of a woman, and the whole porno chic thing combined with my growing disgust at the commodification of what should be an act of commitment between two people leads me to further sympathize with Muslims who find what goes on here in the House of War to be disgusting. Of course, as I am a man, it is much, much easier for me to say that Islam has the right idea, since even under a sha'ria regime I would not be subject to social control by the male members of my family and subject to beatings and death in the event of an infraction of my honor. So it is, then, that I must in fact take issue with our Islamic friends.

As I say, to get an idea of how a society works, note how they treat (control?) their women.

What is interesting is to note how patriotic Islamic women are. I am trying not to use the word "brainwashed." Here's an example from Riverbend (riverbendblog.blogspot.com). She wrote this in a post disagreeing with the cousin marriage article. (Steve, are you reading?) To my mind she is a deluded fembot, but she is obviously sincere:

Iraq is not some backward country overrun by ignorant land sheikhs or oil princes. People have a deep respect for wisdom and ‘origin’. People can trace their families back for hundreds of years and the need to ‘belong’ to a specific family or tribe and have a sheikh doesn’t hinder education, modernization, democracy or culture. Arabs and Kurds in the region have strong tribal ties and it is considered an honor to have a strong family backing- even if you don’t care about tribal law or have strayed far from family influence.

Hard to believe a person can be that programmed, but here it is.

She basically admits that the article is true, and denies the implications. The reason why Iraq wasn't overrun by "ignorant land sheikhs (?) or oil princes is because it was a brutocracy run by a family of psychopaths, whatever one's feelings about the war. As for not hindering "democracy"--what is this chick talking about? I mean, what?

Posted by: Diana at October 1, 2003 07:35 AM

They never had anything close to democracy. Riverbend was airily and with the extreme contempt of the highborn dismissed the idea that the family structure of Iraq might interfere with modernity or "democracy" which, fantastically, she appears to claim Iraq had.

When?

And how did Saddam take power? And when?

Posted by: Diana at October 1, 2003 01:30 PM

« Conservatives in Academia \| Gene Expression Front Page \| Elephant Phylogenetics »
September 30, 2003 Islam, women, freedom & all that Andrew Reeves ruminates on the freedoms and restrictions that Muslim women are subject too: First off, since my own social views are usually closer to grumpy old fart than most, I actually have a great deal of sympathy for what Islam says is the proper role of a woman, and the whole porno chic thing combined with my growing disgust at the commodification of what should be an act of commitment between two people leads me to further sympathize with Muslims who find what goes on here in the House of War to be disgusting. Of course, as I am a man, it is much, much easier for me to say that Islam has the right idea, since even under a sha'ria regime I would not be subject to social control by the male members of my family and subject to beatings and death in the event of an infraction of my honor. So it is, then, that I must in fact take issue with our Islamic friends. As I say, to get an idea of how a society works, note how they treat (control?) their women. Posted by razib at 06:59 PM What is interesting is to note how patriotic Islamic women are. I am trying not to use the word "brainwashed." Here's an example from Riverbend (riverbendblog.blogspot.com). She wrote this in a post disagreeing with the cousin marriage article. (Steve, are you reading?) To my mind she is a deluded fembot, but she is obviously sincere: Iraq is not some backward country overrun by ignorant land sheikhs or oil princes. People have a deep respect for wisdom and ‘origin’. People can trace their families back for hundreds of years and the need to ‘belong’ to a specific family or tribe and have a sheikh doesn’t hinder education, modernization, democracy or culture. Arabs and Kurds in the region have strong tribal ties and it is considered an honor to have a strong family backing- even if you don’t care about tribal law or have strayed far from family influence. Hard to believe a person can be that programmed, but here it is. She basically admits that the article is true, and denies the implications. The reason why Iraq wasn't overrun by "ignorant land sheikhs (?) or oil princes is because it was a brutocracy run by a family of psychopaths, whatever one's feelings about the war. As for not hindering "democracy"--what is this chick talking about? I mean, what? Posted by: Diana at October 1, 2003 07:35 AM They never had anything close to democracy. Riverbend was airily and with the extreme contempt of the highborn dismissed the idea that the family structure of Iraq might interfere with modernity or "democracy" which, fantastically, she appears to claim Iraq had. When? And how did Saddam take power? And when? Posted by: Diana at October 1, 2003 01:30 PM	Razib also blogs at..... Recent Entries New URL! What's wrong among the elites? Why Iran Must Not Be Invaded Culture Contact/Conflict Second front: Rise of the GNGO:s New index page.... Blogger/w.bloggar question Interesting choice of words No more posting for a bit.... Killing democracy softly Search this site: Simple reading View all entries Who is linking to us?