Is P.C and multiculturalism an impediment to honest and open discussion of Islam's violent misogyny?

[masmdu]

I find the treatment of women and girls in Islamic culture to be abhorent.

Begin with the universal truth that life is preferable to being murdered or abused. Then any culture that allows for the treatment of women found in Islamic culture is indeed obviously inferior, wrong, dangerous, and in need of change.

Does that make me a bigot?

As seen here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8287154/Shocking-footage-emerges-of-Taliban-stoning-couple-to-death.html

Increasingly Europeans find "hate speech" laws are being used to quash legitimate debate about this.
http://www.hudson-ny.org/1829/free-speech-on-trial-in-europe

[patrice]

1. Not amongst those strong enough to be honest, but the real question is what to DO about it. nt

[cali]

2. Please don't use right wing propaganda to make your argument

[Hannah Bell]

4. +1

[masmdu]

5. Explain please?...A video of a woman being stoned to death is "rightwing propaganda"?

[Hannah Bell]

9. lol. no, the idea that such things can't be discussed because of "political correctness".

like they're not discussed practically every damn day is the msm & even here at DU.

discussed a great deal more often than they happen, in fact.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hannah Bell]

14. so what? how does that stop you from discussing it? a discussion implies multiple

points of view, if you want an amen chorus, go to the "bash the muslims" websites and spew.

[masmdu]

17. "Bash the Muslims"...I think you are making my point...If an atempt is made to discuss the issue...

one is quickly made out to be "using rightwing talking points" and "bashing Muslims"

[Hannah Bell]

21. so what? no one is shutting down discussion. there are plenty of folks who will

support your pov, as is clear to me from many such discussions at du.

you just want an amen chorus.

too bad; as i said before, if that's what you want, go elsewhere.

i've been called multiple names here; i don't find it an impediment to discussion.

if you can't take the heat, leave the kitchen.

[masmdu]

25. Well, you're wrong. They are shutting down the discussion. Did you follow the link?

http://www.hudson-ny.org/1829/free-speech-on-trial-in-europe

[Hannah Bell]

28. & that has fuckall to do with islam or any "violent misogyny".

straw. yum yum

"bash the muslims" = the site for this conversation

bye bye

[masmdu]

32. Couldn't stand the heat in the kitchen?

[Hannah Bell]

52. i can take heat just fine. but not interested in heat without light.

the heat of straw men is unilluminating.

bye again

[masmdu]

65. So you'll take the time to "hit and run" but not to discuss...ok...bye to you too

[masmdu]

22. BTW, how the hell can you have a "point of view" about stoning a woman to death?

[Hannah Bell]

23. btw; do you like your straw raw, or seasoned?

your op is about "ISLAM'S VIOLENT MISOGYNY".

which, btw, is pretty much irrelevant to what's going on in egypt right now.

[masmdu]

26. Who said anything about Egypt?

[masmdu]

29. And, No, my OP is not about "Islams violent misogyn" It's about limit to the discussion of the topic

because of political correctness and multiculturalism. See the distinction?

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LeftishBrit]

99. I do see the distinction, and IMO...

talking about 'Islam's violent misogyny' is NOT in itself bigoted, so long as it is made clear that this does not involve all of Islam, or only Islam. Some countries in the grip of Muslim theocracy do practice violent misogyny, and this needs to be condemned. (The Taliban is at the far right extreme of this.) Some Muslim-majority countries are not theocracies in the least and do not practice violent misogyny in the least. Some non-Muslim countries and groups have a big problem with violent misogyny. It is to be condemned wherever it is found, and never excused either on the grounds that 'they are our allies after all', or on the mirror-image-ist grounds that 'they are against our RW leaders after all'.

On the other hand, claiming that the topic is being suppressed in Western countries because of 'PC and multiculturalism' IS intrinsically bigoted. Not invented by you; you are quoting people who claim expertise on Europe. But the implication is that 'Those immigrants (multiculturalism) and liberals ('PC') are suppressing our freedom of speech. We can't criticize those uppity baddies without them punishing us! They are controlling us!' Not very different from the racist who complains that 'non-whites have more rights than whites' or the antisemite who complains that 'Zionists control the media' or the homophobe who complains that 'they are forcing the homosexual agenda on us'. And the irony, of course, is that they earn lots of money by criticizing their scapegoats in the press for 'suppressing criticism' - and yet all their criticisms get published and spread; hardly a suppression!

[patrice]

48. +1 Good catch. nt

[markpkessinger]

73. Complaints about "political correctness": the tail that wags the dog

Complaints about "political correctness" have become the tail that wags the dog. Had an argument with one of my sisters over the holidays about the purported "war on Christmas." She has bought, hook, line and sinker, into the FOX News agit-prop, believing it was now "illegal" to call a Christmas Tree a "Christmas Tree" (based on a newspaper story that a local school had erected a tree and had instructed teachers and employees to call it a "holiday tree." I told her that no, it's just that government organizations (like public schools) and many other organizations are now doing something a lot of business have been doing for over 40 years: displaying a little sensitivity to the fact that not all their customers/constituents are necessarily Christian, and not wishing to cause needless offense. My sister saw it as "PC run amok." I posed this question: considering Christianity's overwhelming cultural dominance in this country -- a cultural dominance so pervasive that Christianity alone among the religions in this country has had one of its holidays declared a national holiday -- is it really such an enormous imposition to ask (NOT legally compel) Christians to show a modicum of sensitivity to adherents of other religions in using non-specific language when speaking in mixed settings? Is that really asking so much?

[fishwax]

16. +1

[blondeatlast]

58. +1 (Cali and Hannah Bell in agreement--and me with both!). nt

[Hannah Bell]

3. no. as witness any random day at du.

[xchrom]

6. does being 'liberal' or 'progressive'

stop anti-arab bias?

[marmar]

7. I find a culture that allows corporations to stomp all over the rights of people.....

..... to be rather abhorrent.

[masmdu]

15. No body said it wasn't. I was talking about violence towards women in Islamic cultures..any thougts

?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

37. Stoning women or unionizing Wal-Mart

decisions, decisions

[tularetom]

8. Was "Christianity" at fault for the holocaust?

I'm not sure it's "Islam" you should be pissed off at but some repressive regimes in Arab countries, who are not above twisting the tenets of their religion to keep their citizens poor, scared and powerless.

[Swede]

10. Whooosh,right over your head.

[aquart]

11. Women are participating in this uprising.

So maybe this is NOT the day for this discussion.

[slackmaster]

13. Yes, clearly so.

I see you've already been tarred with the "right-wing propaganda" accusation.

[muriel_volestrangler]

68. When one links to right wing sites, "right-wing propaganda" is a valid response

About Hudson New York
Your generosity to the Hudson New York Briefing Council enables:

Human Rights Activists, Moderate Muslims and Expert Investigative Reporters to:

* Amplify dissident voices worldwide that stress the need for reforms in rule of law, property rights, free-market opportunities, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and other institutions of democracy
* Monitor Russia and China's economic and military offensives, evaluating their implications to the West.
* Examine the use of oil as a political weapon against the West, and promote the urgent development of alternate sources of energy.
* Divest Iranian holdings from pension plans, banks and foreign subsidiaries.
* Press for transparency and accountability in non-governmental organizations, The United Nations, and other international institutions.
* Counter lawsuits intended to intimidate and silence critics of religious extremism, and combat States which train children to be suicide killers.
* Track the funding of terrorist cells and their systems of communication, and disable them when possible

http://www.hudson-ny.org/about/

Yeah, they're right wing.

[Codeine]

100. +1

For some reason being an apologist for this medieval bullshit is considered a hallmark of progressivism around here.

[Warpy]

18. Kneejerk feminism and a lack of knowledge of history sure are.

Historically, Islam banned all the tribal practices that made life for women pure hell. That coincided with its golden age. Islamic women in the seventh century had rights their Christian sisters could only fantasize about until the late eighteenth to mid nineteenth century, like the right to own and control their own property.

Eventually patriarchy reasserted itself and Islam began the abuse of women that occurs with any religious patriarchy.

I find the treatment of women under any organized patriarchal system to be abhorrent, no matter which god it blames or which book it claims to worship.

[masmdu]

20. Agreed...I wasn't aware of the history, thanks.

[Warpy]

24. It's really worth a read

Start with Wiki and follow the links and sources.

[masmdu]

31. Thank you. I will.

[arthritisR_US]

27. Excellent background material and your views coincide with my own. n/t

[riderinthestorm]

46. Yes I agree with this but knowing that history doesn't change the situation today

for girls and women which is misogynistic.

And while Islam in the 7th century may be a great thing, like all patriarchal religions, the oppression of women was/is codified into it's teachings, and it's inevitable that women will suffer.

[Teaser]

75. Except for that part about marrying six year old girls

the "Prophet" didn't seem to mind that.

[Warpy]

92. Nor did much of the rest of the world, which did it too

You can't judge people 1300 years ago by modern standards. You can only judge them by the standards that generally prevailed during their time.

Aristocrats in Europe and Asia married daughters off in infancy.

[Hello_Kitty]

19. No.

[leftstreet]

33. This is why Ceiling Cat created unRec n/t

[masmdu]

35. In all seriousness. Could you please explain why you think this should be "unRec"-ed?

[leftstreet]

39. Maybe you're unaware of the passive / aggressiveness in your OP

Would you ever post an OP like this?:

Is P.C and multiculturalism an impediment to honest and open discussion of US Drone killings in the ME?

:shrug:

Your OP can't decide what it wants to talk about

[masmdu]

42. Actually, I would make that post if P.C and multiculturism prevented a discussion of same...

[leftstreet]

44. But this isn't a site where rightwing apologists post

(for the most part) :-)


There is no hampering of discussion here, so I don't get your point

[masmdu]

54. Look, I'm the first to admit I'm not the brightest guy around (surprised?) but I thougt a discussion

about PC and multiculturalism stiffeling a discussion about the conditions of women in Islamic culture might lead to some interesting ideas of how to work around such roadblocks to, hopefully, lead to some means of ending such violence.

[leftstreet]

57. You should probably post your question in Ask The Administrators

:popcorn:

[blondeatlast]

59. Then start one without the code words. See what happens. nt

[masmdu]

66. What? What code words are you talking about...? I'm not kidding, I don't get what you are saying.

[blondeatlast]

71. PC and multiculturalism are code words of the right. Remove them and restate your case

and you might have a damn good discussion.

[masmdu]

74. Ok...Does being overconcerned with offending others based on their religion limit the discussion of

the violent misogyny suffered by women and girls in Islamic cultures? So, what's the difference really with the OP?

[blondeatlast]

76. Let me rephrase that for you...

"I (meaning you) want to say something offensive, but since it will not sit well with people who engeage in polite discourse, I may as well not say it even though I just did."

In other words, you are looking for a "PC" way of slamming Islamic culture. I won't offer you a pass to do so.

[masmdu]

78. What!...How can you ascribe meaning to what I wrote other than what I wrote? Really?

What did I say that is offensive?

You'll have to believe me. I am neither smart enough nor devious enough to try and do what you suggested.

As to slamming Islamic culture what else would you do when a culture allows for stoning of rape victim except slam it? Accept it?

[blondeatlast]

80. Did you kill Medgar Evers? I know I didn't--but I'm White, and Southern--

and my family marched in Birmingham with the civil rights marchers and Dr. King.

That brush you are using will paint several airplane hangars at once, not just a barn. You don't need book smarts to figure it out, friend--you asked the question in your OP--and I think you've answered it in this thread.

[masmdu]

83. You are making no sense. But I am honestly willing to listen. Could you just speak plainly instead

of in riddles? I'm white and southern too. I marched in civil rights marches MYSELF.

[blondeatlast]

84. You want to blame an entire culture for the evil done by a few. that is like blaming every

American for letting the Katrina misery happen.

Not every Muslim stoned that poor woman--but you seem to blame them all for it. Then you attempt to pre-empt us calling you on it with your "PC and multiculturalism" doublespeak. Whether you were aware of it or not, both words are INTENDED to stifle honest debate. Read up on frank Luntz--and Goebbels.

[masmdu]

87. Thank you. I really am being sincere here. I don't think I've ever thought of PC or

multiculturalism as a means of stifling debate.

I know not every Muslim stoned that poor woman. But they follow a belief system that allows for that to happen. That allow for violence against women and girls. And if one attempts to talk about that aspect of Islam then one is being insensitive or disrespectful or in Europe where there are laws against doing that people are punished for it.

How does that allow for open discussion of the problem of violence towards women in Islam?

(And thank you again for coming down to my level intelectually)

[BOG PERSON]

36. western culture doesn't have a record of treating muslim females excellently either

for example, it impoverishes the societies they live in, isolates them, objectifies them, exoticizes them, tries to divide them against muslim males, murders and abuses them, drops bombs on them, and so on

[Book Lover]

43. Or non-muslim females either. (nm)

[masmdu]

45. True that.

[EFerrari]

38. "PC" is what the right wing calls respect for other people. n/t

[masmdu]

47. So showing respect precludes truthful discussion? It seems to be so with those in

Europe who speak out against the complete lack of respect for women shown in Islamic cultures.
(2nd link in OP)

[EFerrari]

53. Why would honesty and respect be mutually exclusive?

And I don't read right wing tripe, but thanks any way.

[masmdu]

56. They aren't. So one should be able to say that women are stonned to death in Islamic cultures withou

without being threatened, punished, or fined.

And again, in all seriousness, why is the link "right wing tripe"? I'm hoping to learn something.

[BOG PERSON]

60. you're being obtuse

[masmdu]

70. I'm really not. I am perhaps not as quick or smart as you, but I was being sincere.

[LeftishBrit]

91. Yes. But one should not go around saying that ALL Muslim cultures stone women to death...

or that if we let in immigrants from Muslim countries they will force us to stone women to death, or stone women themselves, etc.

Whether prosecution is the answer may be debatable; but they are not reasonable views.

Anyone who is genuinely interested in fighting against the practice of stoning in the countries where it occurse, rather than just using it as an anti-immigrant talking point, may wish to support the following organization:

www.stop-stoning.org

[blondeatlast]

61. FOR THE WIN! nt

[closeupready]

40. If this thread had been about Christianity, it would have been locked pronto.

Talk about PC. :eyes:

[patrice]

49. There are ways to say things and then there are other ways to say things, so

you need to quote the things that were said about Christianity in order for us to evaluate how they were said and, then, decide whether your claim that all threads criticizing Christian attitudes toward women are locked pronto.

[jimmie]

41. I agree with you 100 %

eom

[Unvanguard]

50. No. However, the notion that there is such a thing as "Islamic culture" is. n/t

[Rex]

51. No.

Everyone finds the treatment to be abhorrent. A 14 years old girl should not be stoned to death for getting raped by her uncle. The Politically Correct realm has nothing to do with obvious wrongs like treating women like cattle. Everyone knows that is wrong/evil. Call it what you will. You can't get around that with words or certain mannerisms. A slave is a slave is a slave. My 2cents.

[masmdu]

62. Agreed. Then why are those who speak out about this in Europe punished?

It seems to me that PC and multiculturalism are indeed limiting the discussion of these obvious wrongs/evil.

[Rex]

64. It is a cultural anomaly. Like talking about puritanical traits in America.

People get uncomfortable talking about a whole other cultures habits in society. Even if they are obvious and very bad ones.

[masmdu]

72. Interesting take, thanks.

[Rex]

79. NP. I see you are getting flak by some.

It would be the same thing around here if you asked, "why do christian extremist beat their wives and keep them barefoot in the kitchen?" That is not a very PC thing to say (though we have seen people that want to live that very lifestyle in American society). Some that do talk about it are past the PC/multiculturalism bullshit bestowed onto us by the M$M. Yet, even when the Mainstream approaches such topics - it is still uncomfortable (as a society) to talk about such shameful behavior. I believe that is the root of the problem - shameful behavior purposely kept from being discussed by a supposedly open society. This would apply to The Church and priest pedophile cases being covered up over the centuries - things most people don't want to talk about and WON'T. People don't like to talk about cultural anomalies - another example would be cannibalism and its reemergence in modern societies.

[Recursion]

55. In the US roughly three women per day are murdered by an intimate partner

And 600 per day are sexually assaulted.

And these are both down 75 percent from 20 years ago.

So, no, I'm not going to call their misogyny worse than ours, though I'll call both bad.

[LanternWaste]

63. As I know it, PC is nothing more than being civil and respectful...

As I know it, PC is nothing more than being civil and respectful. If one cannot be both civil and respectful in a conversation, regardless of topic, then I can only imagine one has very little knowledge of that topic.

[readmoreoften]

67. Oh good lord.

:eyes:

[blondeatlast]

69. +1. nt

[Capitalocracy]

77. islam, like other religions, is used as a tool for control and oppression,

but it's not inherent in the religion itself. As a matter of fact, if we hadn't been undermining democracies in the Middle East for so long, they would probably be a lot further along in civil rights than they are today. Paul Jay of The Real News said Afghan schools were integrated, both sexes, and things like headscarves were frowned upon in urban areas and viewed as anachronistic and, to try to use a cultural analogy, a redneck thing to do, before the Russians invaded and the U.S. funded the fundamentalists to fight them off and the fundamentalists took over.

Religions don't kill people, people kill people. Framing it in terms of a problem inherent to a religion, especially when you're referring to only one religion, borders on bigotry. Religion is very important to the people who believe in them, and we can NEVER SOLVE ANYTHING unless we find solutions that include religious freedom, and never exclude any one religion.

[masmdu]

81. Thanks you, I really appreciate your response. You have shed light on why so many seem angry about

my OP. I hadn't seen it in those terms. I will however, point out, that I can't help but refer to only one religion when talking about stoning of women and violent misogyny as I don't know of any others that allow for it.

But your point about it not being inherent in the religion is appreciated.

[Capitalocracy]

89. Thanks

Civil discussion, that's what I like. :toast:

Here's what I think the problem is in what you're calling Islamic cultures. If you look throughout history, the connection between patriarchical misogynistic societies isn't WHICH religion they are, it's HOW religious they are. And beyond that, and to make this less about religion, how democratic they are.

Right now, we have a lot of non-democratic situations going on in nations that have a high concentration of Muslims or Islamic theocratic governments. But it's not just "Islamic cultures" where terrible things are happening... just look at other extreme situations where Christian "culture" is predominant. The suffering of women, homosexuals, marginalized people ("witches", albinos...) is happening in very similar ways in different parts of Africa, not just in the name of Islam, but in the name of Christianity, with witch hunts, and even in smaller, less formal religions or supersticions, as we're seeing with the killing of albinos and the atrocities committed due to misbeliefs about AIDS. Just yesterday, I read an article that said people are mugging AIDS patients and robbing clinics in South Africa because they've come to believe that they can get high on a mixture of marijuana, rat poison, detergent, and antiretroviral medication. The ARVs don't even really get you high, but they're still killing people.

In the Middle East, we're seeing some societies that have never been democratic or have never gotten past the stage of monarchy, but they are still there because of our help. And we've seen secular democracies, or secular not-so-democracies, toppled by U.S. (and Soviet) interference. Fundamentalist Islam has received massive funding on our part, and has its own sources of funding in the oil monarchies today. Madrassahs don't pay for themselves, you know. So this is a combination of nations that have preserved medieval misogynistic ideas or have brought them back from the dead, and yes, the suffering is terrible, but this isn't really about Islam. It's about poverty, marginalization, and a lack of democracy. These factors keep entire nations in the dark ages, isolated from the cultural advances of the rest of the world. That's why we're seeing such horrible suffering.

And so you know where I'm coming from, I'm an atheist, but I'm a huge supporter of freedom of and from religion. After all, when there's no freedom of religion, we atheists are the first against the wall.

[LeftishBrit]

82. No. It isn't! Other things can be.

I *do* think that sometimes a 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' attitude can prevent a minority of people on the left from fully acknowledging that not all enemies of the Bushies are themselves good; that some of them are serious human rights abusers; that the Muslim Right are at least as bad as the Christian Right; and that there's a good chance that within 10 years there'll be a significant problem of collaboration between the two. However, I have NEVER met anyone, on left or right, who sympathizes with the Taliban.


But the meme that 'multiculturalism and PC' are suppressing free speech and free debate are a classic right-wing meme. No, they are not. If people choose not to address a particular issue it's usually for quite other reasons. Is it 'multiculturalism and PC' that prevents plenty of American and British right-wingers from condemning the gender apartheid and other human rights abuses of Saudi Arabia?

Human rights organizations devote a lot of attention to the abuses that occur in Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere. Of course more should be done! Sadly, most people tend not to be maximally interested in abuses that occur far away.

No one is 'quashing legitimate debate' in Europe; that is a claim made by anti-immigrant bigots, who want to blame immigrants for everything. And they get all their complaints spread in the tabloid press, which certainly is not 'quashed'.

And please don't take Soeren Kern's words seriously. Any genuine points that he may have are drowned in a general right-wing paranoia. Here he was in 2008, grumbling that Europaeans are too nasty about Sarah Palin:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/what_europeans_are_saying_abou.html

[masmdu]

85. Then what do you make of the punishment of those who broach the subject in Europe?

The Danish penal code states: "Whoever publicly or with the intent of public dissemination issues a pronouncement or other communication by which a group of persons are threatened, insulted or denigrated due to their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation is liable to a fine or incarceration for up to two years."

And then when somebody make comments about such things as violent misogyny in Ilsam they are arrested, fined, or otherwise punished. Isn't that impeeding the discussion?

And, I have yet to see the Christian right stone somebody to death. Although, I find them bad in otherways it really doesn't compare.

[LeftishBrit]

86. Reporting violent misogyny in Muslim countries does not come under these laws

It is hate-speech against local Muslim immigrants that is penalized in such countries, not criticism of Muslim countries. And it is not restricted to Muslims; but racial and religious minorities in general: Black people, Jews, etc.

E.g. the report on the Jesper Lengballe case is extremely selective. It wasn't just because he criticized Muslim countries. The sort of thing that Lengballe says is:

'Islam and Christianity cannot be reconciled. And they haven't been able to during the 1500 years that Islam has been in existence. I see the religion Islam as a threat to any society where it settless'. And he claims that Europe needs to mobilize against the threat of 'Islamification' by Muslim immigrants. It's classic anti-minority bigotry, not unlike the antisemites who claim that 'the Zionists control Britain/America', or racists who claim that their countries are being overrun by black people. Whether such people should be prosecuted may be debatable; but they should certainly not have their views treated as valid.

I agree that the Taliban are worse than any modern (though not past) instance of the Christian Right - though the Ugandan Christian Right are in serious competition on many issues. But neither is very relevant to the situation on Europe. The average conservative Muslim first- or second-generation immigrant in Europe has a lot in common in social views with the average conservative Christian Europaean. They will not institute or even wish for Taliban-like policies; but may join their Christian counterparts in voting for politicians who oppose liberal policies on such issues as homosexuality and abortion. And of course there are also many liberal and secular Europaean Muslims, just as there are many liberal and secular people among the far larger group of Europaean Christians.

[masmdu]

88. How is it hate speech to shine light on the abhorent actions done in Islamic cultures?

I would hope that if other groups were doing similar things they would be called out just as loudly and the critic would feel free to do so with out legal threat.

[LeftishBrit]

90. It isn't, but it's hate speech to call for mobilization against an entire religious or ethnic

group as a threat to one's culture.

And it is hate-speech to equate a religious or other minority group within your country with the same religious or other group in another country - often not even their country of origin. Most Muslims in Europe are not from Afghanistan or even of Afghan descent. Most in the UK are of Pakistani, Bangladeshi or Turkish descent. Many in other Europaean countries are of Turkish, Algerian (especially in France), or Bosnian descent. Would it be fair to blame all African-Americans for abuses by Mugabe, or all Catholics for Pinochet or Franco?

[Spike89]

95. As others have said, sharpen your brush...

Islam culture means almost nothing, just as Christian culture is broad enough to mean nothing. For instance, "Christian culture encourages the subservience of women and the sexual exploitation of young girls" is wrong, even though there are sects right here in the U.S. that certainly fit the bill.

Ironically, the stoning of adulterers is in the Xtian bible too. You are tarring an entire religion with the practices of a few fundamentalist sects, but it goes well beyond that--by bringing "culture" into the discussion, you're linking two ideas that aren't always a fit. For instance, everyone in the U.S. belongs to a "christian culture" by the broad-brush definition, but of course not everyone here is Xtian, nor do we all have the same customs, norms, or even laws (which vary from State, even city-to-city).

[uppityperson]

93. No and yes. Some people will espouse "cultural tolerance" for everything and if you

speak out against any bit, then you are not being PC. Sometimes discussions do get shut down for that reason. However, there are many of us who are capable of, and do, discuss the good and bad parts of any religion, any culture, any people.

There is my response to your subject line.

"I find the treatment of women and girls in Islamic culture to be abhorrent." It depends on the country and group. Some are severely restricted, others not. I agree that treating women as less than human, as often happens in Fundamentalist Extremist groups, countries, is wrong. And those that support it are wrong, dangerous and in need of change.

However, not all treatment of women "found in Islamic culture" is wrong. "found in Islamic culture" is way too broad, rather like "found in black culture". There is no one "Islamic culture" and saying there is, attributing the evil of the misogynistic fundies to all Islam is wrong.

[Violet_Crumble]

94. Do you think there's such a thing as Islamophobia?

Just curious to know what yr thoughts are about Geert Wilders and ones like the BNP. Do you think they're trying to have 'honest and open discussion of Islam's violent misogyny'?

I find misogyny in any culture it appears in to be abhorrent. Unfortunately, there's some folk who focus solely on Muslims, not out of any concern for women, but because they hate Muslims...

[markpkessinger]

96. The problem with your underlying thesis

Islam, like every other major world religion, is enormously complex and and multifaceted; Muslim praxis and attitudes towards women vary widely from one national context to the next, and from one Islamic sect to another. Not all Muslims are fundamentalists or extremists. An example: I work with a Muslim woman who was born in Albania but was subsequently raised in, and has spent most of her life in, western New York State. Her attitudes on most subjects are about what one would expect of any middle-aged American mother who is doing her best to raise and provide for her family, keep up the mortgage payments, etc. And she'll be the first to tell you she does no buy into the extreme subservience of women Islamic extremists adhere to. So you simply cannot safely assume that any particular behavior or attitude displayed by a subset of Muslims is characteristic or is a feature of Islam as a whole.

So, your question, in referring to "Islam's violent misogyny," carries with it an unexamined assumption: i.e., that the misogyny of which you speak is a feature of Islam in general rather than a characteristic of certain sects and subcultures of Islam. Thus, while you claim to call for an "honest and open discussion," you prejudice the discussion (perhaps unintentionally) before it even starts.

I can illustrate something similar that happens in discussions of Christian attitudes and beliefs. I am a liberal Episcopalian (Anglican). Like many of my fellow Episcopalians, I do not subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Bible. Since I don't see the Bible as a single book, but rather a collection of religious writings written by humans over many centuries, and containing many different forms of literature within itself, from myth to poetry to narrative, etc. I don't even apply the same interpretive standard to the entirety of the Bible. Thus I have no problem accepting scientific theories about the originals of the cosmos, of the earth, or of human beings. (Anglicanism made peace with scientific discovery well over a century ago). Nor do I believe that Christianity is the only path to God (whomever or whatever he, she or it may be). Yet, when discussions about Christian belief take place in, say, the media, almost invariably what gets presented as "the" Christian view is that which is believed by evangelical fundamentalists. Evangelical Fundamentalists, of course, would probably argue that people with beliefs similar to mine are not valid Christians. They are entitled to that belief, but in broader discussions among people of varying beliefs, the presumption that the evangelical fundamentalist view is necessarily "the" Christian view is simply inappropriate.

I think it is perfectly possible to have an "open and honest" discussion about misogynist beliefs and practices that occur within Islam (and there are plenty of misogynist attitudes within Christianity as well, I might add). I think that objections to "political correctness" in these discussions, for the most part, are really objections to dealing honestly with the complexity of the issues under discussion. It's often much less taxing to over-simplify things (I would argue that it is also intellectually lazy), and then to dismiss as "P.C." any insistence that the complexity be accounted for in the discussion.

[patrice]

97. +1

[BOG PERSON]

98. IS PC AND MULTICULTURALISM PREVENTING OPEN AND HONEST DISCUSSION ABOUT WHICH RACE IS THE BEST

[upi402]

101. uh ..

?