This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

2
3

Social IssuesGynocentrism in Islam (self.MensRights)

HotZone_ が 投稿

There is a very common tendency even in Men's Rights circles to claim that women are horribly oppressed in Islamic societies. As I write this, there is a sticky on the front page urging feminists to go where they are supposedly needed -- to countries like Saudi Arabia. When Lauren Southern protested the Slut walk, she held up a sign reading "there is no rape culture in the West," implying that there is a rape culture in the east. Maybe in war zones. But in Saudi Arabia, for example, rape is punishable by death, and female on male rape isn't recognized at all.

To her great credit, Karen Straughan has attempted to bring nuance to this issue, annoying some conservatives in the process. She points out that men in Islamic societies make the same claim about the West, namely that we oppress our women. The tendency of society A to claim that society B oppresses their women is so common that it's remarkable there isn't a term for it in the social sciences. The closest I've seen is Edward Said's work on Orientalism, or the general tendency to portray non-Western or non-civilized cultures as barbaric.

The issue of women and Islam is made more complicated by the fact that there is a propaganda war underway between the West and Israel on the one hand and the Muslim world on the other. One of the documents released by Wikileaks revealed a CIA psywar campaign specifically designed to highlight "female oppression" in Afghanistan in order to encourage otherwise skeptical Westerners to support the war effort.

This is certainly nothing new. DW. Griffith's film "Birth of a Nation" essentially resurrected the KKK in the 1920's by portraying a black man raping a white woman (indeed the majority of lynchings during Reconstruction and beyond were sparked by false rape allegations - so much for "listen and believe"). Propaganda films during WWI showed bloodthirsty huns raping women and throwing babies out windows. Soviet propaganda films showed Americans mistreating their women. And so on and so forth. The reason these "women in peril" propaganda campaigns are so effective is because all societies are more or less gynocentric. We care much more about the well being of women and children than we do about men.

What happens in war zones is not the norm, obviously. However it is telling that when a group of women are raped or enslaved or killed by ISIS it becomes front page news, whereas when men and boys are killed it is just background noise. Same with drone attacks. When a man or teenaged boy above the age of fourteen is killed by a drone attack he is automatically labeled a "militant", whereas women and children are automatically classified as "civilian." The common phrase repeated after a mass casualty event, "including women and children", tells us all we need to know about which sex is truly valued.

Are Muslim societies patriarchal or gynocentric? The paradoxical answer is both. In terms of the relationship between the sexes they are not much different from Western nations during the 19th Century.

Here is a superb three part series by Ayam Sirias entitled "MGTOW vs Islam." It dispels a lot of the myths about women in Muslim societies, and also examines how gynocentrism can result in such radically different results depending on culture, technological advancement and other factors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0448MUQIuw&list=PLvT3JkAEdnjrCqb9jyE4HLoWPUwxSogIy

Lest anyone think I am trying to defend Islamist regimes, I am an atheist. There are certainly no shortage of legitimate criticisms of Islam and other religions, including the manner in which BOTH sexes are treated by holy texts. I do think that an egalitarian gender debate would be helpful in Islamic countries, but frankly it's none of my business. As for sending our feminists to Saudi Arabia, I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. ;)

全 27 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]xynomaster 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

Are Muslim societies patriarchal or gynocentric? The paradoxical answer is both. In terms of the relationship between the sexes they are not much different from Western nations during the 19th Century.

This seems to be the answer to me. They're definitely patriarchal, I don't think that can be argued. But I would say that what people here refer to as "gynocentric" is, in a sense, very similar to patriarchy - whereas men are in power, women are viewed as helpless victims in need of protection from men. Doing away with patriarchy also helps to do away with this. It's why, for instance, people in certain Muslim countries might be horrified at our decision to allow women into combat roles - despite being patriarchal and oppressive to women, their beliefs are based on a strong desire to protect women at the same time and the thought of sending women to fight, and probably die, is not something they can understand.

When a man or teenaged boy above the age of fourteen is killed by a drone attack he is automatically labeled a "militant", whereas women are children are automatically classified as "civilian."

This is on us though. This is OUR decision, not Muslim countries, since Western countries (USA in particular) are the ones doing the drone strikes. That's what makes it so sad. We paint ISIS as villains for dragging men and boys away from their homes to be summarily executed while essentially doing the same things ourselves.

Not that I oppose the principle of drone strikes, but targeting 14 year old boys and then declaring them militants without any evidence? For god's sake come on, that's downright evil.

[–]HotZone_[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

But I would say that what people here refer to as "gynocentric" is, in a sense, very similar to patriarchy - whereas men are in power, women are viewed as helpless victims in need of protection from men.

I think it also depends how we define power. On whose behalf are decisions being made? Is the chauffeur more powerful than his female boss because he is driving the car? Is a five year old Afghani boy sent off to work to support his mother and sisters more "powerful" than they are? This is why I don't think the term "patriarchy" is useful. Truth be known, almost all civilized societies are plutocracies. They serve the rich (both men and women) first, then women in general, and lastly men. Men are only served to the extent that they are viewed as a threat to the men and women in power.

Edit: Also

women are viewed as helpless victims in need of protection from men. Doing away with patriarchy also helps to do away with this.

If the West is any indication, it does no such thing. Feminists continue to promote the narrative that women are helpless victims.

[–]xynomaster 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

On whose behalf are decisions being made? Is the chauffeur more powerful than his female boss because he is driving the car? Is a five year old Afghani boy sent off to work to support his mother and sisters more "powerful" than they are? This is why I don't think the term "patriarchy" is useful.

That's not how I look at it. Of course those people don't have any power. But I look at patriarchy as meaning that men control most positions of power. But that is only a very small subset of men - patriarchy, in my view, involves having men to compete for the few "power positions" in society, such that men who emerge victorious control society but those who lose become disposable. This, of course, oppresses women because they have no chance of having any power in society under such a structure, and the only thing protecting them is the good intentions of those men in power - as soon as men without good intentions take power, these women suffer horrendous fates and don't have the societal power to stop it.

What you call gynocentric, I think of as the rule that lets women sit to the side of this patriarchal competition and not engage in it - the right to be considered an innocent bystander in this whole competition for power.

Which is why I associate removing the patriarchy with removing gynocentrism, but don't pretend they are the same thing. What we're doing isn't so much removing patriarchy as allowing women to involve themselves in the competition too. Now this doesn't destroy gynocentrism, because in many cases women are given the choice between entering this competition or staying innocent of it, where men are not. But it helps to destroy it, because being allowed to play this patriarchal game kind of inherently comes with the assumption that you will be expected to do so sometimes.

I think it's hard to argue that the progress we've made in destroying patriarchy hasn't (albeit to a lesser extent) also succeeded in destroying gynocentrism. I mean, you all but admit to this by your own example:

Is a five year old Afghani boy sent off to work to support his mother and sisters more "powerful" than they are?

Can you imagine a 5 year old boy in the West being sent to work to support his mother? The very idea of it is absurd. Clearly, the burden has shifted at least from young boys working to support their mothers to the reverse. Here women having the right to enter a competition for power has translated into the responsibility to do so as well.

There are countless other examples as well...But basically my point is that fighting the patriarchy and allowing woman to compete for power positions, even if this is optional for women while required for men, does have some inherent benefits to destroying gynocentrism as well. So we shouldn't stop doing this, but we also shouldn't forget that we need the MRM to fight to remove the gynocentrism as well - not only should women have the right to compete for these power positions, but they should also have the same responsibility to do so that men do.

The best example of this I can think of is the military. Fighting to allow women into combat roles is equivalent to fighting the patriarchy - we allow women to enter this deadly competition for status that has been restricted to men since virtually the dawn of time. Fighting to make the draft gender-neutral (or eliminate it) is equivalent to fighting gynocentrism, since it equalizes the REQUIREMENT to enter this competition for both genders. Destroying the patriarchal nature of the military is a necessary first step, and we should support it, but alone it is not sufficient to obtain equality for men.

I know this was kind of a rant, but I hope it makes sense.

[–]HotZone_[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

men control most positions of power.

This assumes that only government bureaucrats have power. In fact ruling elites typically regard politicians and bureaucrats as mid level functionaries. Your average super rich woman has vastly more power than your average politician. This has been true throughout history. Rich women exercise power behind the scenes. They are every bit as powerful as their male counterparts.

The most important question is not whether a government official has a penis or a vagina, it is whom that person is serving. Hence the limo driver analogy. Governments serve rich men and women first, then women, then men. We don't live in patriarchies. We live in oligarchies. One of the most destructive things about feminism is that it blinds and distracts the poor from the real source of their oppression.

they have no chance of having any power in society under such a structure

Women don't need the vote to exercise power. That's how powerful they are as a sex. Female power exists at all levels of society. It's so ubiquitous that we don't even notice it.

Which is why I associate removing the patriarchy with removing gynocentrism

It hasn't worked in the West. At all. The gender roles are still fundamentally the same. Women are precious snowflakes and damsels in distress, men are simultaneously their rescuers and oppressors and above all their work horses.

Can you imagine a 5 year old boy in the West being sent to work to support his mother?

Absolutely, if the Western country in question had been subjected to decades of invasions and bombings, if the country was one of the poorest in the world, and if many of the adult men had been killed. Young boys are better equipped to perform manual labour than adult women.

It isn't a question of gynocentrism or lack thereof. It's a question of wealth. Unless they are migrant workers, Saudi Arabian boys do not have to support their mothers either. There are currently Mexican boys working in the US doing exactly what you claim could never happen here.

Fighting to allow women into combat roles is equivalent to fighting the patriarchy

Perhaps. But you say this from a position of privilege. I have friends in the military and they all say the same thing -- women in combat roles put men in danger.

[–]xynomaster 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm going to focus on this because I think it is at the heart of our disagreement:

Absolutely, if the Western country in question had been subjected to decades of invasions and bombings, if the country was one of the poorest in the world, and if many of the adult men had been killed. Young boys are better equipped to perform manual labour than adult women.

The thing is, any attempt to fight the patriarchy requires wealth, peace, and stability. Fighting the patriarchy requires examining who has power, and forcibly opposing biology to redistribute it in a more equitable manner. Any attempt to fight the patriarchy, or gynocentrism for that matter, is going AGAINST biology and evolution (and that's a good thing).

When you slide into violence and chaos, power goes to the person with the largest army. Biology takes back over and not only are men and boys forced back into their traditional role, women are as well. I think it's fairly obvious that any social change we're fighting for isn't permanent, but will only last as long as our society does (which will probably be until the end of the world anyway, because it's hard to imagine Western society falling without nuclear armageddon).

Unless they are migrant workers, Saudi Arabian boys do not have to support their mothers either.

But how many Saudi Arabian women are working to support their sons? There are plenty of poor single mothers, or even married mothers in Western countries who work very hard to provide for their children, and not only 5 year olds either - all the way through high school. And barring a collapse in our society they will still be expected to do this, and not the reverse. As a matter of fact, expecting your sons to work to support you is so outrageous here that it is made illegal by child labor laws. Among the average impoverished American family, what do you think is more common, a single mother working hard to support her son, or a single mother expecting her son to drop out of school and work to support her? And how would society react in each of these cases?

Perhaps. But you say this from a position of privilege. I have friends in the military and they all say the same thing -- women in combat roles puts men in danger.

I'm not going to argue this here because I wasn't so much talking about the practical aspects of it as using it as an example of what I meant by patriarchy vs. gynocentrism.

[–]HotZone_[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

But how many Saudi Arabian women are working to support their sons? There are plenty of poor single mothers, or even married mothers in Western countries who work very hard to provide for their children, and not only 5 year olds either - all the way through high school.

That's a fair point. However it's worth stressing that if a single mother does not want to work and can't rely on the sperm donor to support her she will be subsidized by the state, which is essentially a form of wealth transfer from males to females, not entirely dissimilar from the situation we're describing. The difference is that we have enough wealth and stability to provide a safety net. It has little to do with "fighting the patriarchy," so far as I can ascertain, since during the 19th century poor women had to work much harder than is true today.

[–]NWOslave 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

There is no place in the world, nor has there ever been a time where women have been oppressed. Name any society in any time period where women have died from natural or unnatural causes, been impoverished, suffered, or lacked care disproportionally compared to men.

[–]Neo_Techni 2ポイント3ポイント  (19子コメント)

Given we get shot for reading books there. Or thrown back into burning buildings if we arent wearing hijabs, I think can safely argue women have it worse there. There's no point arguing this one. We don't lose anything by it. In fact we make feminism look silly for getting mad at things like representation in video games when we get killed so much overseas.

[–]NWOslave 1ポイント2ポイント  (12子コメント)

A fair guess would be that under any regime, including the US regime, the women are treated with far more leniency than men. Boko Haram threw the boys into a burning building and ransomed the girls. Tell me which is worse? The media claimed they were raped, yet when the ransom was paid the story died. Another false flag that didn't pan out. Every tale of woe by the media claims the west needs to kill everyone in the middle east in the sacred name of democracy. A hundred years of democracy exceeds the death toll from all religious wars over 2,000 years by about a hundred to one. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for flying the democratic flag.

[–]Neo_Techni 0ポイント1ポイント  (11子コメント)

There was the mecca school fires where islamic police threw girls back in a burning building for not wearing a hijab, I think that better represents islam than a group most muslims consider criminals

[–]HotZone_[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

There was the mecca school fires where islamic police threw girls back in a burning building for not wearing a hijab, I think that better represents islam than a group most muslims consider criminals

Right. The most fanatical Muslims in the world, in Mecca, are representative of all 1 billion Muslims. Makes perfect sense. Similarly, the Westboro church is perfectly representative of all Christians.

It is noteworthy that the Saudi media and the broader society harshly condemned the actions of the police, which is virtually unheard of in that country, after the atrocity in question. I can't imagine them having done so for a group of boys.

You should watch the video I linked above. It will help you understand the hijab issue.

[–]Neo_Techni -1ポイント0ポイント  (7子コメント)

I argued the officially appointed islamic religious police represent islam better than bolo haram.

To use the defense you're using, you're agreeing with me that boko haram doesn't represent islam, so I still win.

Btw, the fires happened .ore than once, and no one was punished

[–]HotZone_[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

I never claimed that Boko Harem was representative of Islam.

You'd have to be an idiot to claim that the most extreme faction of Islam is representative of all 1 billion Muslims, whether Boko Harem or the police in Mecca.

You know where a similar incident occurred? The US. During the triangle shirtwaist fire, over a hundred women and girls died because the employer had locked them in, worried that they would sneak out for breaks. The employer placed profit above the lives of his workers. Shall we condemn every American for the actions of a few unscrupulous capitalists? Of course not.

Incidentally, have you ever wondered how the Saudi government stays in power? Here's a hint: they buy their weapons from the United States. Under the Obama administration, the great feminist Hillary Clinton brokered the largest arms deal in history between the US and the Kingdom of Saud.

[–]Neo_Techni -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

The first guy said boko haram treatment of men/women is proof women are treated better than men in islam.

[–]HotZone_[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

The first guy said boko haram treatment of men/women is proof women are treated better than men in islam.

They are, for the most part. Same as ever other society. Singling out an atypical atrocity doesn't change that.

[–]Neo_Techni -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

But the officially appointed islamic religious police are not?

[–]HotZone_[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Like I said, it's a highly atypical event, and Saudi society responded with harsh condemnation, which sorta defeats your point. The police are the only ones separating the monarchs from being overthrown, so that in itself was remarkable.

Have you ever wondered how boys are treated in Saudi Arabia and other Islamic nations? I'm guessing you never even stopped to consider the question. Here's a stat that might surprise you: female college students outnumber male college students in two-thirds of Middle Eastern countries. Why is that, you ask? It's because so many teenage boys are forced to fight and die in wars.

[–]saoran -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

There was the mecca school fires where islamic police threw girls back in a burning building for not wearing a hijab, I think that better represents islam than a group most muslims consider criminals

Interesting how you describe what actually happened in that incident. No girls were 'thrown' into a burning building. The religious police prevented firemen from entering the burning school because of religious reasons. Still fucked up but lets not start making shit up to support our narrative.

[–]Neo_Techni 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thrown may be hyperbole, but the ones that got out were put back in it.

[–]HotZone_[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

I think can safely argue women have it worse there.

Not at all. Men and boys are much, much more likely to be the victims of atrocities in Islamic societies. Same as in the West. Boys also have to go to work at a very young age to support their wives and sisters if the father dies. And by "work" I don't mean sitting in air-conditioned office writing reports. I mean brutal labour.

As for war zones, both sexes suffer atrocities, but again, men and boys bear the vast brunt of the violence. You have a gynocentric worldview, which means that you regard violence against females to be uniquely horrible as compared to violence against males.

[–]AimingWineSnailz -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well, men are seen as the strong sex and have much larger liberty of action. That comes with costs, but the system clearly discriminates against women.

[–]aussietoads 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

" but the system clearly discriminates against women." The system discriminates in favour of women, not against them.

[–]Piroko 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

In fact we make feminism look silly for getting mad at things like

Well yes.

However, here's were things get complicated...

AS BAD AS things are over there, they get worse every time we try to make things better.

The United States is only really good at one kind of warfare and that's massive bombardment. Congress, and honestly, the voters, are fine with us using cargo planes to hit Islamistani cities with technically-not-nukes. We'd rather flatten cities than lose a single person trying to pacify them.

In light of that there's not a lot we can do to really improve the conditions for the average person in Islamistan.

[–]HotZone_[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

The United States is only really good at one kind of warfare and that's massive bombardment.

I disagree. The US excells at covert operations, including psywar, soft coups, "people power" revolutions, assassinations, sabotage, false flag operations, and numerous other clandestine activities.

However the result is pretty much the same -- violence and chaos.

[–]Piroko 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Okay let's clarify it:

The Department of Defense is only really good at massive bombardment.

Because everything you listed is done by the Department of State.