Debate Why Don't Feminists Fight for Muslim Women ???

[Tomenable]

Wanderlust,

Polish people, they should not be unfairly targeted and denied access to better lives. Do you see how tolerance works?

I strongly disagree.

People should work hard and build a better live in their own country. People who escape / emigrate are kind of cowards. If everyone stayed and worked hard to make their own homeland a better place, the whole world would benefit. On the other hand, you seem to be happy that millions of people from the 3rd World are escaping from their countries and flooding into Sweden/Europe.

I wonder why do you like this situation - it is neither good for Sweden/Europe, nor good for the Third World.

 

[Tomenable]

BTW - this Anti-Polish racism in England is not a new thing, it has a very long tradition already.

Already in the 1920s Prime Minister David Lloyd George claimed that Polish people are "monkeys".

So now we only evolved from "monkeys" to "vermin", not sure which racial rank is more superior?

 

[Tomenable]

Wanderlust,

Humans are tribal, narcissistic and stubborn--we need time

Yes, they are - and this is genetically determined. So it will most likely NOT change with time.

Liberals do not understand, that every temperamental trait is under strong genetic influence.

You cannot just mold people into whatever shape you want. We are genetically programmed.

Poles are more energetically and actively Catholic than their Western European and American counterparts. This is widely known. Though they have become increasingly more secular, they are still more devout than other groups.

Yes - most of Poles are religious. And again - religiosity is largely genetically determined.

Around 30% - 45% of inclination for religiosity is genetic*. So Poles are genetically religious.

The same applies to Muslims - they will NOT become less fanatical, because it is in their genes.

*Source: Thomas J. Bouchard, "Genetic Influence on Human Psychological Traits", (Table 1.).

 

[Dinarid]

It's quite hilarious how the Islamophile, Europhile left is so Slavophobic, and basically subscribes to traditional snobbish Western European stereotypes of Slavs…
Maybe Western Europe is beyond help with their tolerance and self-hate.

 

[LeBrok]

So sorry that not everyone wants globalization, the abolition of national identity and culture, and destructive "tolerance". Yes, I'm a nationalist, and I'm proud. That's my political philosophy, just as yours is internationalist globalization. But I respect your worldview, despite how ridiculous it seems to me. I don't assume that I am empirically 100% right.

Nope, you don't get me. I'm fine with every culture and people being proud of their culture, as long as they are tolerant to other cultures.
Unlike you, who is not tolerant to others to the point of hatred:

Also the Bosniak usurpers are not nationalist, their "nationality" is Islam, and they know full well they are sitting on other peoples' lands.

Let's stress it again. I'm ok with Croatian culture or Bosnian culture, or Islam culture. I'm not ok with anyone hating people of other cultures, degrading people and their cultures, hurting and killing people because they are of other culture.
I'm tolerant to tolerant people and I'm intolerant to intolerant people. Can you understand such paradox?

I'm advising you against voicing your hatred against Bosniaks and other Muslims. This won't be tolerated on Eupedia!

 

[LeBrok]

BTW - this Anti-Polish racism in England is not a new thing, it has a very long tradition already.

Already in the 1920s Prime Minister David Lloyd George claimed that Polish people are "monkeys".

So now we only evolved from "monkeys" to "vermin", not sure which racial rank is more superior?

Are you some kind of masochist? Try English 16th century poetry, I'm sure you will find something anti-polish too. Take it to your heart till it hurts.

 

[Angela]

Nope, you don't get me. I'm fine with every culture and people being proud of their culture, as long as they are tolerant to other cultures.
Unlike you, who is not tolerant to others to the point of hatred:


Let's stress it again. I'm ok with Croatian culture or Bosnian culture, or Islam culture. I'm not ok with anyone hating people of other cultures, degrading people and their cultures, hurting and killing people because they are of other culture.
I'm tolerant to tolerant people and I'm intolerant to intolerant people. Can you understand such paradox?

I'm advising you against voicing your hatred against Bosniaks and other Muslims. This won't be tolerated on Eupedia!

I second that.

 

[LeBrok]

Wanderlust,



Yes, they are - and this is genetically determined. So it will most likely NOT change with time.

Liberals do not understand, that every temperamental trait is under strong genetic influence.

You cannot just mold people into whatever shape you want. We are genetically programmed.

We are genetically killers too. Do you think we should use these inborn skills and keep killing each other till the end of the World? Or perhaps we should exercise our other human skills like reason, compassion, cooperation and free will to live in peace and prosperity?

Yes - most of Poles are religious. And again - religiosity is largely genetically determined.

Around 30% - 45% of inclination for religiosity is genetic*. So Poles are genetically religious.

I agree. But in other 45% they are traditionally religious.

The same applies to Muslims - they will NOT become less fanatical, because it is in their genes.

Fanaticism is mostly cultural. Killer is already in us, fanatic teaching unleashes it.

 

[Fire Haired14]

Fanaticism is mostly cultural. Killer is already in us, fanatic teaching unleashes it.

So true. I think everyone has a switch inside of them that can make them into savages. Even a 10 year old girl. Teaching isn't the only thing that brings it out. Things that we put emotional value you on like loved ones or politics or sports brings that out as well whether we're taught fanatics or not.

 

[LeBrok]

It's quite hilarious how the Islamophile, Europhile left is so Slavophobic, and basically subscribes to traditional snobbish Western European stereotypes of Slavs…
Maybe Western Europe is beyond help with their tolerance and self-hate.

Stop being so afraid of everything! World is beautiful! Come out of your shell and live a little. Hug your neighbor like Jesus asked.
Just kidding. This is how they get you...

 

[LeBrok]

Personally, I believe that Islam will follow suit. In Sweden, less than a quarter of the estimated %5 Muslim population are actually practicing Muslims. Times change, people change, cultures change and evolve--that's normal and follows human tradition. I don't understand why people on an anthropology forum have a hard time grasping this.

It was a surprise for me too. Then again how many people 70 years ago, in midst of destruction of WW2, would envision peaceful and economically advanced Europe of today? Just few optimists and visionaries. The rest would have called it Utopia. Just short 7 decades ago!

 

[Dinarid]

Stop being so afraid of everything! World is beautiful! Come out of your shell and live a little. Hug your neighbor like Jesus asked.
Just kidding. This is how they get you...

I'm not even really a practicing Christian (more spiritual/"theist"). I do hug my neighbor by I care for my own first and foremost, because yes, I am proud of my people.

 

[Dinarid]

I completely reject the idea that everything about us is "genetically programmed". I think everything except for perhaps some physical traits and mental disorders are influenced by the environment. Should we give up on educating people then?

 

[Dinarid]

Nope, you don't get me. I'm fine with every culture and people being proud of their culture, as long as they are tolerant to other cultures.
Unlike you, who is not tolerant to others to the point of hatred:


Let's stress it again. I'm ok with Croatian culture or Bosnian culture, or Islam culture. I'm not ok with anyone hating people of other cultures, degrading people and their cultures, hurting and killing people because they are of other culture.
I'm tolerant to tolerant people and I'm intolerant to intolerant people. Can you understand such paradox?

I'm advising you against voicing your hatred against Bosniaks and other Muslims. This won't be tolerated on Eupedia!

I don't "hate" them, I don't like the occupation of our land. And yes I do have some problems with Islam as do most people on Eupedia. Just look at the Quran discussion thread. No one said anything about Middle Easterners being racially inferior or anything.

 

[gyms]

Merkel says German multicultural society has failed
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11559451


http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/ottomanempire_1.shtml
Mehmet slaughtered many of the population and forced the rest into exile, later repopulating the city by importing people from elsewhere in Ottoman territory.

http://www1.cbn.com/churchandministry/1400-years-of-christian-islamic-struggle
The Muslim wars of imperialist conquest have been launched for almost 1,500 years against hundreds of nations, over millions of square miles (significantly larger than the British Empire at its peak). The lust for Muslim imperialist conquest stretched from southern France to the Philippines, from Austria to Nigeria, and from central Asia to New Guinea. This is the classic definition of imperialism -- "the policy and practice of seeking to dominate the economic and political affairs of weaker countries."

 

[Wanderlust]

"Muslims never had the benefit of such reformations but now find themselves at a crossroads ..."

We keep hearing calls for an ‘Islamic Reformation’, assumed to be the remedy for a fundamentalist Islam behind the conservative Salafi brand as well as the Jihadist. Islam, under these assumptions, generates problems because it had not been ‘reformed’. The assumed model is the Christian Reformation of the sixteenth century, the Protestant reformers, Luther, Calvin and their followers. Informed writers on religion and history have pointed out the problematic nature of these suppositions, with regard to the histories of both Christianity and Islam. I argue here that Islam has undergone many reformations, in radically different directions: Wahhabism, much like Protestant reforms, urged a return to the scriptures and prophetic traditions and a rejection of ‘corrupt’ and heretical practices of saint worship and visitation of tombs, Sufi mysticism and ceremonies, and sectarian doctrines, principally Shi`ism. In contrast, a modernist and rationalist reformation was a powerful strand in public life, politics and culture from the nineteenth and throughout the twentieth centuries, in the Ottoman, Arab and Iranian worlds. These different kinds of ‘reform’ were institutionalised in various ways, recounted below. Liberal/ modernist reforms are now available in public space, but not attractive to most religious Muslims because they do not fit in with their social and psychological needs and outlooks.

I meant that Islam had not previously endured an all encompassing, earth shattering, cataclysmically violent and confrontational reformation similar to the Christian Reformation that many agree pushed Europe to fundamentally alter its core (because of the immense cost and casualties), but that the immense violence and destruction rocking the Islamic world in recent times was forcing them into a similar space where fundamental change must occur, in large part due to the devastation, the subsequent fallout and enduring consequences. I'm not arguing that violence is necessary when it comes to reform but just that it usually and understandably raises the stakes significantly higher because the amassed and escalating atrocities are untenable. With rampant acts of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism across the globe, the complete destabilization of Muslim nations, the unparalleled migrant crisis, etc..., the stakes have never been higher for Islam as a religion to get its act together.

But I agree that Islam has been reforming itself for at least the last century, and some of those reformations have resulted in more conservative and less progressive versions of Islam, which is always a possibility--"Reformation" does not have a liberal bias, it just means that the people are renegotiating power and authority and sometimes the heathens are the most vocal. But in concert with the current crises underway in the Muslim world, I do think that because we live in the internet age where there is a wealth of competitive ideas, and millions of Muslims are achieving greater literacy and are able to individualize their beliefs for themselves outside of some imam, alongside the ever growing population of secular muslims living in Western nations who are being (unfairly) held accountable for the sins of the worst factions, that a cataclysmic, core altering reformation is in process. And in an ever globalizing world, it is most certainly within the "social and psychological needs" of the Muslim people to acclimate to more progressive, tolerant, open-minded values.

 

[Wanderlust]

I'm not an expert in Islamic history, but

the 2 highlights in Islamic cultural life are the Abassid Caliphate in Bagdad and the Morish Umayyads
it has been said many times that these cultures were way ahead of the backward Christian kingdoms in Europe

haven't the Abassids been ousted by fundamentalist Islamist fractions who promoted strict Islamic rule again?
haven't the Umayyads been ousted by the fundamentalist Almohavides?

I'll repost a previous comment:

I meant that Islam had not previously endured an all encompassing, earth shattering, cataclysmically violent and confrontational reformation similar to the Christian Reformation that many agree pushed Europe to fundamentally alter its core (because of the immense cost and casualties), but that the immense violence and destruction rocking the Islamic world in recent times was forcing them into a similar space where fundamental change must occur, in large part due to the devastation, the subsequent fallout and enduring consequences. I'm not arguing that violence is necessary when it comes to reform but just that it usually and understandably raises the stakes significantly higher because the amassed and escalating atrocities are untenable. With rampant acts of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism across the globe, the complete destabilization of Muslim nations, the unparalleled migrant crisis, etc..., the stakes have never been higher for Islam as a religion to get its act together.

But I agree that Islam has been reforming itself for at least the last century, and some of those reformations have resulted in more conservative and less progressive versions of Islam, which is always a possibility--"Reformation" does not have a liberal bias, it just means that the people are renegotiating power and authority and sometimes the heathens are the most vocal. But in concert with the current crises underway in the Muslim world, I do think that because we live in the internet age where there is a wealth of competitive ideas, and millions of Muslims are achieving greater literacy and are able to individualize their beliefs for themselves outside of some imam, alongside the ever growing population of secular muslims living in Western nations who are being (unfairly) held accountable for the sins of the worst factions, that a cataclysmic, core altering reformation is in process. And in an ever globalizing world, it is most certainly within the "social and psychological needs" of the Muslim people to acclimate to more progressive, tolerant, open-minded values.

you say the Christians were conquerors and colonisers and Muslims never got to that
there are 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide
do you think most of them were converted peacefully?
what do you think would have happened to Europe if Karel Martel didn't stop the Muslims in Poitiers?

I never said or even implied that Muslims did not conquer or colonize like Christians because that would be egregiously preposterous and inaccurate. They were just as terrible in their own right. What I also said is that similarly to Christians, Muslims are experiencing "universal karma" for their previous exploits. I have never paternalized them or portrayed them to be blameless victims.

I think your vision is very one-sided

Actually, it's not. I'm rather balanced, just not a fear drenched hate monger.

 

[Wanderlust]

Wanderlust,


I strongly disagree.

People should work hard and build a better live in their own country. People who escape / emigrate are kind of cowards. If everyone stayed and worked hard to make their own homeland a better place, the whole world would benefit. On the other hand, you seem to be happy that millions of people from the 3rd World are escaping from their countries and flooding into Sweden/Europe.

I wonder why do you like this situation - it is neither good for Sweden/Europe, nor good for the Third World.

I strongly disagree.

1.) Many times in human history, emigration has been a matter of life and death, of survival. Is not wanting to die (from war, famine, poverty, plague) cowardice? Is not wanting your family to die cowardice?

2.) A nation of immigrants is the most powerful country on the planet. It actually takes an extraordinary amount of bravery to abandon what you know for the unknown. To some, the cowards are the ones who stay. Personally, I find both of those viewpoints to be overly simplistic and unfair.

3.) Humanity has always benefited from the intimate exchange of different ideas and methods, some of which can only come from perspectives arrived at the world over.

4.) Please don't presume to tell me what I'm happy or unhappy about. Allow me to do that. Thanks.

As an avid world traveler, I somewhat selfishly love the notion of distinct cultures and traditions being preserved so that I can indulge in them. I want there to be Tuscan culture, Catalonian culture, Bavarian culture, Han culture, Yoruban culture--I love that humanity is so different because I find that to be fascinating. But I'm not ignorant to the fact that innately, culture is not static. It evolves and changes. Again, one would think that people who study anthropology would know this better than most.

And quite frankly, some cultures need to change. Not every cultural artifact deserves preservation (the US obsession with guns, female genital mutilation, honor killings). And "outside" influence from other cultures can spur on this change. Personally, I like that Swedish merchants are adopting a more "American" approach to customer service by being a bit more outwardly engaging and enthusiastic. I like that American influence encourages Swedes to be a bit more individualistic and less obsessed with conformity. I like that our rather bland palates have become more accustomed to spicier, more interesting Eastern flavors. But Swedish culture will endure--we will still always respect herring, the queuing process and a need for personal space.

Having said that, I don't believe in unfettered immigration, especially along the lines of what we've recently seen. I think that there must be a healthy respect for the fact that 1.) resources have limitations, 2.) most people need gradual change and time to adjust to "difference," and 3.) with that "difference" comes some potential culture clashes and problems that must be addressed honestly and responsibly. But then again, the migrant crisis is a crisis, and does not reflect normal trends. Sweden is particularly burdened because other countries don't pull their weight, whether from of a lack of desire (Denmark), an inability to handle the load (Serbia and Croatia) or both (Poland)--although Poles don't mind "burdening" other EU nations with their own people, including mine.

Lastly, I believe that most of the current influx of immigrants should go back to their countries once there is greater stability in their lands and that moreover, they actually do want that for themselves. But when people are in dire need, I believe that humanity owes it to ourselves to help. It's quite simply really.

 

[bicicleur 2]

I strongly disagree.

1.) Many times in human history, emigration has been a matter of life and death, of survival. Is not wanting to die (from war, famine, poverty, plague) cowardice? Is not wanting your family to die cowardice?

2.) A nation of immigrants is the most powerful country on the planet. It actually takes an extraordinary amount of bravery to abandon what you know for the unknown. To some, the cowards are the ones who stay. Personally, I find both of those viewpoints to be overly simplistic and unfair.

3.) Humanity has always benefited from the intimate exchange of different ideas and methods, some of which can only come from perspectives arrived at the world over.

4.) Please don't presume to tell me what I'm happy or unhappy about. Allow me to do that. Thanks.

As an avid world traveler, I somewhat selfishly love the notion of distinct cultures and traditions being preserved so that I can indulge in them. I want there to be Tuscan culture, Catalonian culture, Bavarian culture, Han culture, Yoruban culture--I love that humanity is so different because I find that to be fascinating. But I'm not ignorant to the fact that innately, culture is not static. It evolves and changes. Again, one would think that people who study anthropology would know this better than most.

And quite frankly, some cultures need to change. Not every cultural artifact deserves preservation (the US obsession with guns, female genital mutilation, honor killings). And "outside" influence from other cultures can spur on this change. Personally, I like that Swedish merchants are adopting a more "American" approach to customer service by being a bit more outwardly engaging and enthusiastic. I like that American influence encourages Swedes to be a bit more individualistic and less obsessed with conformity. I like that our rather bland palates have become more accustomed to spicier, more interesting Eastern flavors. But Swedish culture will endure--we will still always respect herring, the queuing process and a need for personal space.

Having said that, I don't believe in unfettered immigration, especially along the lines of what we've recently seen. I think that there must be a healthy respect for the fact that 1.) resources have limitations, 2.) most people need gradual change and time to adjust to "difference," and 3.) with that "difference" comes some potential culture clashes and problems that must be addressed honestly and responsibly. But then again, the migrant crisis is a crisis, and does not reflect normal trends. Sweden is particularly burdened because other countries don't pull their weight, whether from of a lack of desire (Denmark), an inability to handle the load (Serbia and Croatia) or both (Poland)--although Poles don't mind "burdening" other EU nations with their own people, including mine.

Lastly, I believe that most of the current influx of immigrants should go back to their countries once there is greater stability in their lands and that moreover, they actually do want that for themselves. But when people are in dire need, I believe that humanity owes it to ourselves to help. It's quite simply really.

you forget to tell that most refugees that entered Europe last year and early this year didn't do so out of necessity
they came because they believed the stories of human trafickers who promised them they would get in Europe free housing an a very nice wellpaid job, even if they had no qualifications at all
that is why so many are dissapointed and are starting to return to their home country
so, I don't know whether Sweden got so many immigrants because other countries didn't pull their weight, maybe Sweden was more naive than other countries
and about cultures that need change, I don't say everything is perfect in Europe, but it is not Europe that should change, it is the countries where these people come from that should change
and people that come to Europe as a host should adapt themselves to Europe and not the other way
and what about Poland, they have hosted a lot of Ukrainian refugees, but Europe tried to interfere in Ukraine and they failed out of arrogance, and now everyone in Europe seems to have 'forgotten' what is happening there

I agree some refugees can't stay at home
but they should be allowed in Europe only if there is absolutely no alternative, and if they come they should adapt
furthermore people should be stimulated to return and rebuild their country as soon as it is possible
and if Europe is able to intervene military or in another way to help restore stability in any of these countries it should do so

 

[gyms]

I strongly disagree.

1.) Many times in human history, emigration has been a matter of life and death, of survival. Is not wanting to die (from war, famine, poverty, plague) cowardice? Is not wanting your family to die cowardice?

2.) A nation of immigrants is the most powerful country on the planet. It actually takes an extraordinary amount of bravery to abandon what you know for the unknown. To some, the cowards are the ones who stay. Personally, I find both of those viewpoints to be overly simplistic and unfair.

3.) Humanity has always benefited from the intimate exchange of different ideas and methods, some of which can only come from perspectives arrived at the world over.

4.) Please don't presume to tell me what I'm happy or unhappy about. Allow me to do that. Thanks.

As an avid world traveler, I somewhat selfishly love the notion of distinct cultures and traditions being preserved so that I can indulge in them. I want there to be Tuscan culture, Catalonian culture, Bavarian culture, Han culture, Yoruban culture--I love that humanity is so different because I find that to be fascinating. But I'm not ignorant to the fact that innately, culture is not static. It evolves and changes. Again, one would think that people who study anthropology would know this better than most.

And quite frankly, some cultures need to change. Not every cultural artifact deserves preservation (the US obsession with guns, female genital mutilation, honor killings). And "outside" influence from other cultures can spur on this change. Personally, I like that Swedish merchants are adopting a more "American" approach to customer service by being a bit more outwardly engaging and enthusiastic. I like that American influence encourages Swedes to be a bit more individualistic and less obsessed with conformity. I like that our rather bland palates have become more accustomed to spicier, more interesting Eastern flavors. But Swedish culture will endure--we will still always respect herring, the queuing process and a need for personal space.

Having said that, I don't believe in unfettered immigration, especially along the lines of what we've recently seen. I think that there must be a healthy respect for the fact that 1.) resources have limitations, 2.) most people need gradual change and time to adjust to "difference," and 3.) with that "difference" comes some potential culture clashes and problems that must be addressed honestly and responsibly. But then again, the migrant crisis is a crisis, and does not reflect normal trends. Sweden is particularly burdened because other countries don't pull their weight, whether from of a lack of desire (Denmark), an inability to handle the load (Serbia and Croatia) or both (Poland)--although Poles don't mind "burdening" other EU nations with their own people, including mine.

Lastly, I believe that most of the current influx of immigrants should go back to their countries once there is greater stability in their lands and that moreover, they actually do want that for themselves. But when people are in dire need, I believe that humanity owes it to ourselves to help. It's quite simply really.

Kolla det här,mister True Liberal!(Check out this...)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9VObD_GvEY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOPhr0UQ9wc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o27hCRkJd4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghr-JMq1VT0