I really resented the remark that I could not argue feminism because I was a man, but I do understand why it was said at the very least. Amin was a man, and he argued for women's rights far better than I could through his own means. I will try and endeavor because I believe in equal rights for all genders through work, social and cultural roles and understanding.
That being said, the women presented in these new books fought in different ways, but the Princess, while trying her best, seemed physically vain and looking for an outlet to focus herself on in the outside. The woman was very feminately-oriented, mostl focused within her clothing and personal appearance. Although it really cannot be held against her, fighting for women's rights could have been a way for her to express herself outside of the political world that was royality, Saddrathi not having that restriction.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
(Week 3 and 4) Well, just one mishap...
Alright, outside little twins aside, I am impressed with this book. It goes into detail, it explores the fact that women, while oppressed and fighting for their rights, do want a good family structure and a mutual lifestyle with men (where I was expecting more of a militant outlook.)
While I agree with Ahmed's premise and means to a more peaceful end, I do see Amin's point more; that a woman-while needing to be a part of the society and, by the religion, kept from the prying eyes of man who aren't husbands- but it is the husband's job to control their own urges, not the women to control who they look for the men. They should be able to do it themselves. That's a very important argument to all of this.
While I agree with Ahmed's premise and means to a more peaceful end, I do see Amin's point more; that a woman-while needing to be a part of the society and, by the religion, kept from the prying eyes of man who aren't husbands- but it is the husband's job to control their own urges, not the women to control who they look for the men. They should be able to do it themselves. That's a very important argument to all of this.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
(Week 2...And 1 too.) Okay, Ahmed really is all over the place..
I enjoy her style, and she's very informative, but she doesn't just talk about the Sassyrian Empire, but also Alexander the Great, the Byzantine, the inculsion of Christianity and other religious beliefs that effected women from the region, and the pervasive standards that women were treated in all aspects, not just familial....Hell, even the ideas on veiling are so shifted as well; I wonder how it became from just high-class women and "respectable women" differentiated from prostitutes, to all women wearing them...
While we are on this subject, I might as well bring out something that has seriously bothered me since I found this part in the book; supposedly, misogynist attitudes about women concerning divorce, property ownership, marriage, etc...were all carried over through cultural diffusion through the different cultures in the Middle East at the time, but not the treatment of day-to-day relationships between husband and wives, which were far better and more mutual? What the hell? Sure, I understand pressures from other males to act more aggressively, which lead husbands to take the aspect of wife degradation even more (I just see the logical extension behind it, nothing more.), but you'd think that base kindness and affection towards a member of a "lower class" on the scale of gender in the Middle East would be seen as novel and important to adapt, or at least make the women think that their treatment within society is wrong, and push for mutual treatment sooner.
The only conclusion I can come up with for something like this is simple and something I have seen before. Patriarchal pressures. The men band together, develop their own band of social understanding, and make assumptions about how their lives should be run, and how their women should be treated.
Well, history has shown us that assumptions make fools of us all. But something it hasn't shown all that well is something I'll likely be saying throughout the entire course in some way or another:
Patriarchy hurts men, too.
While we are on this subject, I might as well bring out something that has seriously bothered me since I found this part in the book; supposedly, misogynist attitudes about women concerning divorce, property ownership, marriage, etc...were all carried over through cultural diffusion through the different cultures in the Middle East at the time, but not the treatment of day-to-day relationships between husband and wives, which were far better and more mutual? What the hell? Sure, I understand pressures from other males to act more aggressively, which lead husbands to take the aspect of wife degradation even more (I just see the logical extension behind it, nothing more.), but you'd think that base kindness and affection towards a member of a "lower class" on the scale of gender in the Middle East would be seen as novel and important to adapt, or at least make the women think that their treatment within society is wrong, and push for mutual treatment sooner.
The only conclusion I can come up with for something like this is simple and something I have seen before. Patriarchal pressures. The men band together, develop their own band of social understanding, and make assumptions about how their lives should be run, and how their women should be treated.
Well, history has shown us that assumptions make fools of us all. But something it hasn't shown all that well is something I'll likely be saying throughout the entire course in some way or another:
Patriarchy hurts men, too.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Intro Post
Hi, I'm Matthew Szlapka. I joined this class to learn more about the subject matter, now that I have been given the chance due to changes in my schedule. While I was not able to make the first class due to my schedule switch which happened on the first week, I will work hard and continue to push forward from this point onward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
