11-Year-Old Gang-Raped. NYT posts controversial article about it.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

Maladroit's got the most appropriate interpretation so far.

Although what I meant was that these people who blame women for 'turning men on' and 'asking' to be raped, would be so arrogant as to blame a baby in the womb for making a woman look pregnant and turning a pregnancy fetishist on, before they would blame the rapist.

That poor rapist. What a slut the woman is, to be pregnant.

After all, men are all complete martyrs to their hormones and can't possibly be blamed for giving in to pure sexual impulse or losing all self-control when a pretty girl walks by. It's the girl's fault for being pretty, walking by, or stepping out of the house in the first place.

There are people in the Right Wing who would say that sort of thing without being sarcastic.

Sadly, there are some men who really do think like this. Some years ago, I was volunteering at a local museum when a fellow volunteer (yes, a man) expressed the opinion that any woman who didn't cover herself in a burka was trying to seduce all the men around her and was asking to be raped. (Note that absolutely no woman in the area wore a burka, including the Muslin women, who saw no problem with showing their faces.) He was sure that all the women at the museum were trying to seduce him, including the 80-something woman who was growing progressively more senile all the time and couldn't remember his name.

He was finally asked, not so politely, to leave and not return after he told the president of the museum association (the husband of the senile woman) that his wife was a slut who needed to be controlled.

As if wearing the burka or the hijab stopped women in the middle east from getting raped. Those garments were never about protecting women. They were about controlling women. Turning women into crowds of black pillars, rather than individuals, so it's easy to ignore them and their opinions.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

As if wearing the burka or the hijab stopped women in the middle east from getting raped. Those garments were never about protecting women. They were about controlling women. Turning women into crowds of black pillars, rather than individuals, so it's easy to ignore them and their opinions.

Burkas piss me off. Perhaps I misread the Qur'an, but I don't recall seeing the word "burka" anywhere. Head coverings, yeah. Head-to-toe full body coverings that result in babies being born with rickets? Not so much. You're right, burkas are a symbol of oppression rather than a symbol of piety.

Technically, the Qu'ran has a line saying from the prophet Mohammed, that, "The best veil is the veil over the heart" or something like that, probably meaning women should be faithful to their husbands and veil their hearts from becoming whores. Islamic priests of the time promptly interpreted that as to mean women should also wear literal veils (and also to control them).

Then it became tradition. And then it became tradition that the greater the veil the better protected one is from temptation. Then it became law.

Back to the point, what a woman wears isn't what gets a man to rape a woman. It's his own uncontrolled sexual desires.

I often want to get a tattoo. And sometimes I've wanted to cut myself. But I chose not to, for whatever reason, and no it's not because my mum would go nuts.

You can be tempted but you can overcome that temptation but a lot of people don't.

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

You can be tempted but you can overcome that temptation but a lot of people don't.

Because if you're part of the controlling group in society, it's much easier to limit, persecute, or try to altogether get rid of the temptation than work on your self-control.

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

burkas are a symbol of oppression rather than a symbol of piety.

Wouldn't that depend on the woman wearing it?

I'm not comfortable with someone immediately damning everyone who wears the burka (or hijab) as a victim. I know too many women who chose -- yes CHOSE -- to wear hijab, and one who chose the burka, even though she's the only woman in this area who wears one.

rae wrote:

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

burkas are a symbol of oppression rather than a symbol of piety.

Wouldn't that depend on the woman wearing it?

I'm not comfortable with someone immediately damning everyone who wears the burka (or hijab) as a victim. I know too many women who chose -- yes CHOSE -- to wear hijab, and one who chose the burka, even though she's the only woman in this area who wears one.

I'm with Rae. The only women I know who wear the burqa are choosing to. (The men in their family also dress extremely modestly) Granted, I live in the United States, where it's not required to wear a burqa or a hijab. I just don't like acting like I know better. Yes, I'm an atheist and I think most religious rules are ridiculous. But that doesn't mean that I get to be a self-righteous ass and tell someone else that their honest belief that their god wants them to be modest before him is stupid. Are there women being oppressed and forced to wear these items? Yes, and that is oppression and general jackassery. But some people do believe that wearing it is a symbol of piety, and want to be pious before their god. Some Jewish men and women do it too, and very few people seem to have a problem with that.

I just don't feel that other people should get involved in a person's own religious beliefs. As long as they're not sacrificing virgins or anything. And I do mean an individual's own beliefs, not something their society forces them to do. I'm not saying it's okay to oppress women, or men, or anyone. I'm saying if an individual feels that the way to be devout to their god(s) is to cover their head, pray five times a day, not eat pork, not eat beef, tithe, take communion, meditate, etc., then those are their beliefs and choices.

rae wrote:

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

burkas are a symbol of oppression rather than a symbol of piety.

Wouldn't that depend on the woman wearing it?

I'm not comfortable with someone immediately damning everyone who wears the burka (or hijab) as a victim. I know too many women who chose -- yes CHOSE -- to wear hijab, and one who chose the burka, even though she's the only woman in this area who wears one.

I agree with Rae that it depends on the woman. I had a female doctor from the Middle East I saw for quite a few years, and while she never wore a burka, she did wear a veil over her head and dressed modestly (skirts below the knees and long-sleeved blouses). I just assumed she was dressed that way because she chose to dress that way-she'd no doubt been raised in a household where this was how women dressed, but the fact her parents allowed her to attend medical school and become a doctor would suggest they didn't view her as being worthless and in need of control.

I will add she was one of the best doctors I ever went to-willing to spend the time to actually listen to you, instead of just half-listening, deciding what was wrong, and hustling you out of the room with a prescription and the problem not really solved like so many male doctors do.

Of course, there are a lot of Amish and Mennonites around here, plus a retirement home for nun, so we're used to seeing women in long dresses with their heads covered.

Rabid Badger wrote:

rae wrote:

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

burkas are a symbol of oppression rather than a symbol of piety.

Wouldn't that depend on the woman wearing it?

I'm not comfortable with someone immediately damning everyone who wears the burka (or hijab) as a victim. I know too many women who chose -- yes CHOSE -- to wear hijab, and one who chose the burka, even though she's the only woman in this area who wears one.

I agree with Rae that it depends on the woman.

My line of thought is when one is raised in a fundamentalist interpretation of a religion, then that makes it difficult to say her actions are due to "choice". How can she make a fully informed and rational choice when she's been presented with a fundamentalist view of her religion and taught not to question it? Choice has always implied to me that one can look at two or more sides of every argument or thought process and critically analyze it. That is not the instance in fundamentalist religions. There's only one appropriate interpretation, which leads to only one appropriate "choice".

YMMV.

What about the women who aren't raised in a fundamentalist society, but convert? I've known more than one person who wasn't raised that way, but decided that was the life they wanted. Just like I've known lots of people who, the second they were out of their parent's house, ditched all those beliefs. I don't think people are mindless sheep for the most part. A lot of people go through a phase in adulthood where they decide what they themselves believe, apart from how they've been raised. Some people are of course going to stay with what they believed as children, not because they've been brainwashed, but because that is what they believe too.

[quote="OzymandiasBowie"then that makes it difficult to say her actions are due to "choice".[/quote]

If that's the case, then no one EVER makes their own choices. That is a particularly slippery slope. I feel it's rather colonialist to believe that we know what is better in these women's lives than they do. Yes, I want them to have that choice, but it's a shitty thing to then tell them they've chosen wrong because they didn't do what you think they should have.

Burka-woman is a convert. Half the people I know who wear hijab are converts. The other half are woman raised mostly in the US who definitely had a choice. I'm tired of hearing how "they didn't REALLY have a choice because enculturation blah blah blah.*" Bullshit. These are intelligent, strong, forward-thinking women. Most of them I've spoken with do not believe hijab is absolutely required; they do this because it is one more way for them to show their submission to their God, one more way to express the depth of their religious experience.

*Not directed specifically at Ozy here, just a general rant.

rae wrote:

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

then that makes it difficult to say her actions are due to "choice".

If that's the case, then no one EVER makes their own choices.

It's not something that applies in general; it's something that applies specifically in religion. Religious piety tends to remove autonomy, you're either a believer or in The House of Unbelievers (in Islam). You're either in your own Celestial Kingdom or cast out into Outer Darkness (Mormon), or Heavenbound versus Hellbound (Christianity). How can you make an informed, reasonable choice when if you dissent you believe that you'll be eternally damned if you make the wrong one? My point is this: Religion tends to negate choice because the rules and regulations by which you are bound implicitly state that if you make what your specific religion deems the wrong choice, then you are eternally damned. Saved if you do, damned if you don't.

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

rae wrote:

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

then that makes it difficult to say her actions are due to "choice".

If that's the case, then no one EVER makes their own choices.

It's not something that applies in general; it's something that applies specifically in religion. Religious piety tends to remove autonomy, you're either a believer or in The House of Unbelievers (in Islam). You're either in your own Celestial Kingdom or cast out into Outer Darkness (Mormon), or Heavenbound versus Hellbound (Christianity). How can you make an informed, reasonable choice when if you dissent you believe that you'll be eternally damned if you make the wrong one? My point is this: Religion tends to negate choice because the rules and regulations by which you are bound implicitly state that if you make what your specific religion deems the wrong choice, then you are eternally damned. Saved if you do, damned if you don't.

Not that I agree or disagree here, but you could, like, refute her arguments instead of resorting to lame facepalm smileys.

(C'mon, Doob. ily but c'mon)

InkWeaver wrote:

Not that I agree or disagree here, but you could, like, refute her arguments instead of resorting to lame facepalm smileys.

Not that I've seen the smiley concerned (I have pictures turned off for this board), but I'd gather that what he means is that these are the choices you make when you go in for religion. The only way to be free of it, is to embrace atheism, a decision quite a few people have made. To an atheist, all these kinds of decisions look weird.

Congratulations, Ozy. You've ignored basically half the religions in the world. !Religion =/= Judeo-christian. Youv'e seriously even discounted some of the major world religions. :-\

Do not assume that even those who CHOOSE to follow Islam/Christianity/Judaism have no leeway in their beliefs. To do so is such an oversimplification as to render it useless.

Do you realize that what you are saying here is that no one who follows a religion has a choice ever? Do you realize you are saying that 95% of anyone in the history of EVER had no choices?

rae wrote:

Do you realize that what you are saying here is that no one who follows a religion has a choice ever? Do you realize you are saying that 95% of anyone in the history of EVER had no choices?

That's my point. You don't have much of a choice. By that, I mean that it's not a valid choice if you're going to be ostracized or punished for making the wrong one, i.e., the decision not to practice. So, yes. One could reasonably argue that religious people do not have a choice in terms of showing their devotion.

Point 5 most relevant; I take no responsibility for resultant loss of time on the website.

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

rae wrote:

Do you realize that what you are saying here is that no one who follows a religion has a choice ever? Do you realize you are saying that 95% of anyone in the history of EVER had no choices?

That's my point. You don't have much of a choice. By that, I mean that it's not a valid choice if you're going to be ostracized or punished for making the wrong one, i.e., the decision not to practice. So, yes. One could reasonably argue that religious people do not have a choice in terms of showing their devotion.

Except so many people make choices against what their religion believes. There are many Christians who don't give a damn what Leviticus says and support gay rights. There are many gay people who are themselves Christians even though their religion, according to the Old Testament, would damn them to Hell for embracing who they are. You can't say all religious people never have a thought of their own, because the fact that there are so many branches of religions proves that wrong. Lutherans don't have the same beliefs as Catholics, Catholics don't have the same beliefs as Baptists, yet they all believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the savior of mankind sent by God to die for our sins. (I know I am staying within Christianity here, but that is where most of my knowledge lies, having been raised Christian.)

If what you are saying is true then none of these branches would exist. Martin Luther? Why he never would have nailed that missive to the cathedral door, because if he did he'd go straight to Hell for disagreeing with The Church. But he clearly did it, because he felt that it was the right thing to do.

As I mentioned I was raised Christian, but now I am an atheist, and people as close-minded about religion as you Ozymandias, give reasonable atheists a bad name. Just as much as you or I, religious people are still thinking people. Just because they have chosen a path in this life different than the one you have chosen doesn't make them all robots that believe the exact same things.

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

rae wrote:

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

then that makes it difficult to say her actions are due to "choice".

If that's the case, then no one EVER makes their own choices.

It's not something that applies in general; it's something that applies specifically in religion. Religious piety tends to remove autonomy, you're either a believer or in The House of Unbelievers (in Islam). You're either in your own Celestial Kingdom or cast out into Outer Darkness (Mormon), or Heavenbound versus Hellbound (Christianity). How can you make an informed, reasonable choice when if you dissent you believe that you'll be eternally damned if you make the wrong one? My point is this: Religion tends to negate choice because the rules and regulations by which you are bound implicitly state that if you make what your specific religion deems the wrong choice, then you are eternally damned. Saved if you do, damned if you don't.

I really don't see how this differs from a society where the religion is consumerism. You either follow the fashion trends and wear those bodices and skirt cages, the strappy high-heels (which do more physical harm to you than a burka ever would), the pencil skirts, the tight white tees and miniskirts, or risk being ostracized by your society. The only difference is that the one in the name of beauty is socially acceptable, and the other, done in the name of faith, has to work much harder to legitimize itself. The thing they both have in common is having roots in oppression.

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

rae wrote:

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

then that makes it difficult to say her actions are due to "choice".

If that's the case, then no one EVER makes their own choices.

It's not something that applies in general; it's something that applies specifically in religion.

Actually, a number of radical feminists would say that the same thing applies to the practices of femininity - that it's impossible for women to "choose" to wear high heels, dress sexy, get boob jobs etc. just because they want to, because there are social rewards for conforming to a particular beauty and behavioural standard and social punishments for not conforming.

InkWeaver wrote:

Not that I agree or disagree here, but you could, like, refute her arguments instead of resorting to lame facepalm smileys.

(C'mon, Doob. ily but c'mon)

Sorry. I was too tired to fully comprehend the sheer volume of wrong contained in that statement.

Still shouldn't have posted in the first place, but whatever...

(I'll try to address things that haven't already been addressed)

Quote :

It's not something that applies in general; it's something that applies specifically in religion.

If you're going to argue for a behaviorist style argument that being raised on a certain religion makes it impossible to choose anything but that religion, you're going to have to apply that same behaviorist model with everything we grow up with.

I mean, do we really have any free will at all? Or is it just a myth? Are we just products of our genes and our environment? A lot of people would argue yes.

Quote :

burkas are a symbol of oppression rather than a symbol of piety.

Yes ladies, burkas are a form of oppression that tell you to hide your shameful bodies behind a veil.

It's much better to put your bodies on display as an object to be oggled by the masses.

Quote :

Religious piety tends to remove autonomy

Only this statement and your entire post after this is one gigantic stereotype that's pretty easy to dismantle piece by piece. The fact that there are converts at all causes your stereotype to fall apart like a house of cards.

Quote :

That's my point. You don't have much of a choice. By that, I mean that it's not a valid choice if you're going to be ostracized or punished for making the wrong one, i.e., the decision not to practice. So, yes. One could reasonably argue that religious people do not have a choice in terms of showing their devotion.

By that same token, we don't have much choice but to follow a lot of cultural behaviors taught to us by our environment. While we may all just be products of our environment without a "real choice" in the matter, that doesn't make the things we've learned from our society "bad".

Saying that burka's are oppressive and wrong is incredibly ethnocentric and close-minded. Who are you to look down your nose at these people and say that their way of dressing is inherently "wrong" and that Muslim women who wear burkas just aren't as "liberated" as you?

A choice having a negative consequence =/= you have no choice. If my landlord raises the rent on my apartment, I have several ways of dealing with it. I can pay the increased rent, take him to court to argue the rent increase is unfair, band together with other tenants to convince him not to go through with the increase, or I can leave. No matter how much I like the apartment, or how much of a hassle it would be to relocate, or any of a thousand other reasons, the choice to leave is always present. None of those factors ever take that choice away from me. That is what it means to have "no choice".

So it is with religion. Social conformity is an extremely powerful motivator, this is true. However, it at no point robs you of free will*. More than once I have read about or seen with my own eyes members of a church ostracized for acting on beliefs different than the mainstream. Typically these people voted with their feet and joined other churches rather than compromise on their beliefs. The existence of these stories suggest that, however difficult or unpopular they may be, the choice is still there. Obviously, there is a limit here. "Wear a burqa or I fucking kill you," as in Saudi Arabia, does impinge on free will because no reasonable alternatives exist. Thankfully, this situation is very rare. Unfortunately for you, it is not limited to religion (people are frequently prevented from leaving their countries by despotic rulers to name one example, I'm sure you can think of others).

If you want to make the argument that religion is a form of brainwashing, in that for followers of religion going against the edicts of the church are literally unthinkable, we can have a discussion about that. You never know, maybe it won't degenerate into a massive flamewar! You could also say this social pressure is bad enough to speak out against, and that civil disobedience against authority, especially the ultimate Authority, needs to be encouraged more (I am of the opinion that the phrase "Alright, then, I'll go to hell" single-handedly makes Huckleberry Finn a must-read). But neither of these are the arguments you're making, and neither of them are either products of or logical antecedents for the argument you are making.

PS: I am a die-hard atheist, and have been involved in at least two flamewars in this community and several more across the interwebs. I have pretty much no bona-fides among the believers to polish. I am not telling you this as apologetics for the godly. I am telling you these things because your arguments are faulty.


ETA: Here's one example I'm talking about. There's a bit of lead-up to it, but it's still not terribly long.


*: Smarter folk than I have made the argument that free will is mostly illusory anyway, but treating it as real is the only way we can have a functioning basis for ethics as well as keep society turning. Not attempting to derail, merely acknowledging

OzymandiasBowie wrote:

rae wrote:

Do you realize that what you are saying here is that no one who follows a religion has a choice ever? Do you realize you are saying that 95% of anyone in the history of EVER had no choices?

That's my point. You don't have much of a choice. By that, I mean that it's not a valid choice if you're going to be ostracized or punished for making the wrong one, i.e., the decision not to practice. So, yes. One could reasonably argue that religious people do not have a choice in terms of showing their devotion.

You still did not address half of my post. You are still conflating Judeo-Christian with ALL RELIGIONS EVER, including no few where personal choices are respected, so long as they aren't hurting anyone. If you mean Christianity / Judaism / Islam, say Christianity, Islam, or Judasim. Do not say 'religion' as if they are the only three and all religions are exactly like them. They aren't. Many of them not even a little bit.

You also ignored the part where I pointed out that these women I was speaking about CHOSE to wear hijab even though they say it is not required. It seems you're saying these women didn't 'really' have a choice, which is completely illogical. Please to be showing me how they didn't really have a choice, without saying 'religion takes away all choices.'

Religion, from Hindu to Catholic, is a set of institutionalized rules by which one must abide to show their devotion to their deities. It's the ultimate civil pressure, and it's not a choice. You cannot make a rational choice when you face unthinkable consequences for making the wrong one. There are only a few set ways that one can show their faith; a Muslim cannot say a rosary as an appropriate way to honor Allah. A Catholic cannot take a pilgrimage to Allahabad to honor Jesus. Religion, whether it's Judeo-Christian or Shinto, is a set of rules by which one must abide to show their faith. Such a choice, believe or be cast aside.

Leaving aside the fact that Martin Luther was excommunicated and damned to hell for nailing his missives to the door of the cathedral (according to the Catholics), converts still are bound by the rules and regulations of their new religion. Converts still have to consider the means which are appropriate for celebrating their faith. Just because they moved from one faith to another doesn't mean that they don't have a set of prescribed rules that they have to abide by to show their devotion to their God. They're just different rules and customs. The fact they converted doesn't change anything; they're still pious. Between impiety and piety, there is no reasonable alternative.

The fact a person has chosen to dress in the holy garb of their religion is different then choosing to believe in a supernatural force. The former is a result of the latter. Q: How does this religion say I may properly honor my god? A: You may do either A), B), or C). That is what I mean by choice and how religion removes it. You can only honor your God in ways that your religion, regardless of whether or not you're a convert, has said is appropriate. The burka is not mentioned in the Qur'an, and it masquerades as a holy garment. My problem with the burka is that it came from radical interpretations of the text with the sole purpose of subjugating women under the guise of piety. It's not religious because of its origin and intent.

Religion is defined by who makes the rules and who follows them and emphasizes certainty. "You'll end up on the wrong side of the river if you do/don't do that."