Should a modern western democracy refuse to condone and tolerate the oppression

[scarletwoman]

and marginalization of women?

Should a modern western democracy refuse to condone and tolerate practices which totally erase a woman's identity and force her into complete public anonymity?

Does a modern western democracy have a valid interest in promoting equality and human rights for all its citizens and sanctioning those who would promote otherwise?

Does a modern western democracy have the right to expect that those who wish to enjoy citizenship therein abide by its social mores?

[babylonsister]

1. Promoting equality and human rights is wonderful. Dictating anything

isn't.

[scarletwoman]

19. So, you don't think there should be laws against slavery?

[BeatleBoot]

2. Good thing the United States has The U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights

We are a Constitutional Republic that happens to be democratic.

Big difference from being a democracy.

All a democracy means is that if the other 9 decide, they can eat the 10th person.

Ancient Greece come to mind.

But we have the U.S. Constitution that declares, among other things, that the other 9 can't eat anyone.

By the way, I happen to love my country.

And I am a Democrat.

[timeforpeace]

3. Since it is actually the religion that condones these things, and the country that then tolerates

them, can we also insist that the religion change? I assure you, I get your point, and we will see more moves like Sarkozy has made, but the root is in the religion. Will it ever change?

[scarletwoman]

11. The root ISN'T religion, it's actually cultural. The Koran does not mandate burqas.

The Koran (and I realize this isn't the correct transliteration, but I can't quite remember the correct one) only states that women should dress modestly. This is interpreted differently by different Islamic cultures.

In Iran, for example, only a head scarf is mandated.

The CULTURAL oppression of women in the Middle East predates Islam. The Burqa is a CULTURAL artifact, not a religious requirement.

sw

[scarletwoman]

17. See, that's a fallacy. Islam does not dictate that women wear burqas, Islam only says

that women should dress modestly.

To say that "religion" dictates burqas and therefore we need to accept it in the name of tolerance is no different than saying that "religion" mandates hatred toward gays and therefore we must tolerate it.

Religion doesn't have to change, the intolerant practices being excused by "religion" DO have to change. Do you understand the difference?

sw

[texastoast]

4. We should refuse to condone

And, like somebody said, we are not free until the least of us is free. Witness our troubles because of the lack of women's stature in many cultures. Peace will be more likely when the women stand equal across the world. We must help them stand up when they ask.

And religion must evolve to embrace this. And it won't be the first time it has.

[mike_c]

5. tough question...

...and I'm not certain how to answer.

Does a modern western democracy have the right to expect that those who wish to enjoy citizenship therein abide by its social mores?

When you specify the situation in the OP subject line, most folks here-- most liberals-- are probably very uncomfortable allowing any social group to be oppressed.

But your broader question, quoted above, goes well beyond the subject line, I think. Must immigrants give up their own culture whenever it is alien to the host country's social system? Sometimes it's truly useful to ask them to, I suspect. Other times, they bring diverse perspectives that enrich the host country's "social mores" and it would be a grave mistake to demand that they abandon them.

So no, I don't think modern democracies, as I understand the term, should condone the oppression of women, or any other social class. On the other hand, I think demanding that all who wish to "enjoy citizenship" abandon their own cultural institutions in favor of the host country's is equally wrong.

[EFerrari]

6. It's not really that tough. Female infanticide is also a cultural institution.

Is there any place for that in a democracy? Obviously, no, there isn't.

If we take "culture" to be a higher priority than the human rights of women, then women are in deep doo-doo.

[mike_c]

7. but women are members of those cultures too....

Do you or I have the right to decide whether their social institutions are correct for them? Shouldn't they have some say in the matter?

Again, I'm referring ONLY to the poll question as cited in my original response-- not to the broader question of whether we should work for social justice for all, whenever we can. But shouldn't we do so by accepting and merging cultures rather than by cultural dictate?

Conversely, should cultures that oppress women (or others) have an equal right to demand that American women accept oppression when visiting their countries? That knife cuts both ways, after all.

[EFerrari]

8. The subjugation of women in just about any form makes itself pretty obvious to me.

And I feel no obligation whatsoever to agree with it, wherever I find it.

The knife against the throat of women's rights really doesn't cut both ways. Try and find a cognate anywhere for the burga. There isn't one.

As a bi-cultural person and a sometime student of cultural anthropology, I think I understand your POV.

But there is no mistaking that there are some cultural practices that are meant to demean and control women and there is no mistaking that when we recognize them, we need to object to them. This may go against the grain of the tolerance that many of us try to foster, but, there it is. :)

[Ohio Joe]

20. No, they are not

When they are threatened with death unless they follow the rules of men, they are not a part of the culture, they are slaves to it.

[scarletwoman]

21. Thank you. That's an excellent answer. (nt)

[scarletwoman]

9. Immigrants are quite free to preserve those parts of their culture which fall within the legal code

of their adopted country. They are free to preserve their language, their traditional foods, their holiday celebrations, their names, their forms of community worship (no one is outlawing mosques), their marriage customs (arranged marriage, for example), etc.

What they are NOT allowed to do is break the laws of their adopted country.

Sicilian immigrants to the U.S. may have had long-time traditional and cultural ties to the Mafia, but there is no legal tolerance of such ties here. At least not publicly.

An immigrant can't expect that everything that was accepted and tolerated in their country of origin is going to be accepted and tolerated in their adopted country. We frown on blood sacrifices here, even though many immigrants come from countries where this is the accepted norm.

That's just how it is. When in Rome, do as the Romans do -- this is not a new concept.

If I were spending time in a Muslim country, I would wear a head scarf without complaint out of respect for THEIR social mores. I certainly wouldn't parade around in shorts and tube top.

sw

[mike_c]

10. would you accept Sharia?

Simply "wearing a head scarf" is akin to saying that you'd choose which of the host country's social systems you can live with, but that you'd retain the elements of your own culture you did not wish to give up. If we have the right to ask others to adopt our social mores when they're here, shouldn't they then have an equal right to ask us enlightened folk to abandon our enlightenment when "in Rome?"

Don't get me wrong-- I'm certainly not trying to condone oppression of ANYONE. I just had some difficulty reconciling the specific instance you cited in your subject line with the broader question posed in the actual poll. :hi:

[scarletwoman]

12. I would never in a million years consider actually immigrating to a Muslim country.

And I don't know if non-Muslims are subject to Sharia law in Muslim countries. But if they are, I would expect that I would have to abide by it and behave accordingly.

My "head scarf" comment was really in regard to being a visitor, since I cannot conceive of ever applying for citizenship in such a country.

sw

[mike_c]

14. is that because of a particular dislike for Muslims...

...or is it really a matter of never wanting to subject yourself to social systems that conflict with your own, especially CONSERVATIVE mores of any stripe?

I know that's an uncomfortable question, but what if you had few alternatives? By stating your objection to immigrating anywhere that would demand that you abandon social principles that are particularly meaningful to you, aren't you essentially answering that you would rather not be an immigrant than be held to the standard you propose for immigrants in your OP?

Anyway, this is getting off topic and I did not mean to hijack your thread. Thanks for posing a thought inspiring OP!

[scarletwoman]

16. I don't dislike Muslims, I very much dislike patriarchal cultures that oppress women.

Islam itself is actually very pro-woman. There are many verses in the Koran that speak about treating women with respect, affirming their rights, forbidding the mistreatment of women, etc.

It's no different than how so-called "Christians" misuse the Bible to affirm their pre-existing prejudices. People bend religion to rationalize their own degenerate thinking.

Anyone who has read Rumi or Khahil Gibran or the Rubaiyat by Omar Khayyam knows that Islamic culture is full of life-affirming beauty. It is not the fault of Islam that it has been so corrupted by small-minded and venal men.

I'm sure I would have gotten on quite well in the Persia of Omar Khayyam. My preference for avoiding immigration to a Muslim country today has nothing to do with any antipathy toward Islam.

As for Muslim immigrants to France, if they cannot accept the French social order why should they be welcomed? There was a quote from a news article awhile back that really stuck with me. The European complaint about Muslim immigrants is that they are colonizing their adopted countries, not entering into the existing social order.

As a long time activist for American Indian rights, I have no problem with crying "foul!" when a group of foreigners attempts to implant its own culture rather than adapting to the pre-existing culture of the original inhabitants of a nation.

sw

[scarletwoman]

13. C'mon! Where are all the defenders of a woman's "freedom" to acquiesce in her own oppression?

[mike_c]

15. LOL...

I think I came dangerously close.... :rofl:

Totally not my intention, 'though!

[scarletwoman]

18. Hey, I know you're a good guy. I'm enjoying our conversation.

I think of you as someone with whom I can actually exchange reasoned and rational responses. :)

sw