I am working on my final paper for sociology, and I chose to write about gender stratification and women in developing countries. I decided to write about women in the middle east, because they are in the news quite often and most of those stories depict them as abused and voiceless. The truth is much harder to find. Many of the papers written are from the same view as the media, but many are also from the view that "this was the way it was, we are working on giving women more freedoms." The hardest part about this is seperating how much is abuse against women and how much is women honoring religious traditions and beliefs.

Can we really call it abuse if women chose to follow the codes of a belief?

__________________
"Philosophy is a walk on a slippery rock
Religion is a smile on a dog."

Possibly. I wouldn't say this is true of Islam generally and I have certainly met Muslim women who have freely chosen traditional ways.

But we also absorb our values from our family/society/culture and it is not unusual to accept self-abuse in accepting the abusive traditions of one's culture.

I would go to some readings in feminism to see how this is described in more detail. But it is a truism that women can be their own worst enemies and enemies of other women when they "freely" accept a culturally-defined role of submissive subordination. In many cultures, women themselves have been the key transmitters of negative stereotypes as they pass on such cultural traditions to their daughters and daughters-in-law.

The same sort of thing is sometimes found in people who have been marginalized by racism. They come to adopt the dominant societal view of themselves as inferior, less intelligent, less attractive, etc and either try to emulate the dominant social norm in a form of self-rejection or retreat into the role assigned to them.

In the sense that no legislation or use of force is applied, they are "freely" choosing their lot. But has that apparently free choice been heavily manipulated, not necessarily by individuals, but by the social system as a whole?

I think we do more than "absorb" values. I think that values are impressed upon us from family/culture (and I use "impressed" in a very active sense). It seems true to me that many people take a very active role in making sure that their children are made to believe the things that the parents believe. This is something, as you'll see later in this post, that concerns me greatly.
You see, I don't always think that women (or anybody else, for that matter), "freely" accept a culturally-defined role. Let me give an example closer to home, in beautiful Bountiful, British Columbia. Debbie Oler was raised by the second wife, Memory, of Dalmon Oler, after her mother, JoAnn, another of Oler's wives, died. Debbie was badly abused and belittled by Memory, called stupid (she was not), and brought up to believe that her only happiness would be in being a "mother of Zion," married to and bearing the children of a bigamist. "Celestial marriage" it is called, and it was all she knew.

So convinced was she, so desperate to be anything of consequence at all, that she married Ray Blackmore. Ray was 18 years older than her father, and was, in fact, her stepgrandfather. He had a dozen children older tahn Debbie, and 21 children younger. You may think her choice was free, but if you had been told your whole life that you were worthless, denied an education, taught to believe that your best hope of salvation was service, you might also be insecure and easy prey.

Debbie herself, with the benefit of hindsight, wrote to Justice Minister Anne McLellan more than 30 years later, begging the government to take action. Needless to say, the government did nothing at all. This is religion, after all.

Was Debbie's choice a "free" one? There may, of course, be ways in which you could argue that yes, it was free. For my own part, I rather think any argument that concluded it was truly free would be purest sophistry.
Yes, indeedy! And it is passed on with such vigour that it is difficult, often impossible, to resist. I hesitate to use the term "memes," which I think is over- and ill-used, but certainly young people are being taught nonsense, and are being made, one way or another, to believe nonsense for the rest of their lives.
I think you answer your own question, don't you?

And the wonder of it, to me, is why we -- as a society -- do nothing about it. Of course, I know the answer full-well: "Religious Freedom."

But it is a very, very difficult thing to discern where religious freedom is benign, and when the lessons deeply impressed on deeply impressionable young minds becomes a form of abuse.

And of course, as a non-religious person, and as a humanist, I'm afraid I would tend to err on the side that was more protective of the young, less apt to impart dangerous nonsense to minds incapable of resisting.

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

Middle East is definitely and without doubt a region in the world where tradition, culture and religion plays a very important role in the lives of the people. The women living in these regions are quiet different from women living in West. Although it doesnot necessarily indicate that women are oppressed and restricted in this part of the world, there are many many muslim ladies who cover themselves completely and are satisfied with it.

In Jeddah which is the most modern and developed city in Saudia Arabia, there are ladies who spent time with there friends in resturants and have a good life.

And as a religious person, I agree entirely with everything you have said in this post.

But in Saudi Arabia they are required by law to cover themselves in public whether or not they are satisfied with it. I don't doubt that some are satisfied and would continue to cover themselves even if the law were not there, but you cannot say they are making a free choice when they face arrest if they do not observe the tradition.

It is true that it is law for women to be covered in public in Saudi Arabia. Like I said, I have been trying to seperate the religious from the secular, and have found it very difficult, since much of the law in the Middle Eastern countries is based on religious codes. But, just because the women are coverd, we cannot say that is a form of abuse, since women around the world convert to Islam and choose to cover themselves. We can say that the laws are oppressive and remove freedoms. To be honest the hijab and burka are two things that I really avoided in the paper due to the religious connotations.

I did however use various stats about abuse, what is reported, and what various organizations estimate to actually be taking place around the world. I did use various inverviews of families from those areas, who were asked why their women and children were denied an education, and I did discuss the various international agreements that various countries in the Middle East have signed, talked about, but have done nothing with, to grant more freedoms to women in those countries.

Frankly, it breaks my heart to see so many women oppressed, denied freedoms, and in many cases abused. Because of the deeply entrenched feelings of religion and tradition there, it will be hard to create any real change.

__________________
"Philosophy is a walk on a slippery rock
Religion is a smile on a dog."

The point is that if it is the law, her choice is not free, even if she agrees with the law, and even if she would freely choose to wear hijab in the absence of the legal regulation.

I agree that the existence of the law does not in itself substantiate a charge of abuse, but it does remove the possibility of free choice.


Good choice. Such things as lack of protection from physical abuse or denial of education opportunities are really of much more import than culturally determined dress codes.

I did touch on the fact that it removes her free will to have such things made into law, but didn't use it as an example of abuse. It just doesn't seem to qualify. I will say that it was a hard paper to write because of the religious implications.

__________________
"Philosophy is a walk on a slippery rock
Religion is a smile on a dog."

Middle East is basically divided into 2 region, 1 is Gulf and the other is
Western Arab(lebanon,Jordan,Syria,Palestine and Isreal) and the Gulf region includes Saudia Arabia,Oman,UAE,Qatar and some other small countries.

Middle East is no doubt a country which follows the Islamic tradition and culture and the womens there have a special Islamic dress code especially in Saudia Arabia but this condition of women cannot be generalized in the whole middle east since in UAE women are almost as liberated as in West.
UAE especially Dubai is the most modern and advance state in Middle East where you will see even Arab girls wearing shorts and blowses and same is the case in Saudia Arabia.

Let me tell you frankly, these Arab girls and ladies wear lot of jewlleries and also do lot of make up and they have access to more luxuries life than you can't even think of. But in Saudia Arabia most of these ladies cover themselves under Hijab but inside they wear jeans and skirts.

In Saudia Arabia, it a state law(not Islamic law) that women cannot drive car and they should be covering themselves according to dress code of Islam.

The same is the case in Lebanon,Egypt and Syria, the ladies there are as liberated as the women in Dubai(UAE).

The Western Media takes cases that take place rarely and tries to show it to the world that women in Islamic Countries donot have rights and cannot raise there voice although this is the manufactured propoganda against Islam and fabricated news.

The women in Middle East although living under Islamic rule in Islamic Countries have more rights than the liberated women of West.

The women in Saudia Arabia or any Middle Eastern Country has more rights over her husband than the women in West. A husband has to look after fooding,lodging and other stuff of his wife and if he doesnot full fill her desires,then she has the right to complain in the court and the court looks into the matter. She is not forced to work just like in USA and UK where a women buys everything for herself from her own money instead of husband buying anything for her wife.

Islam wants to create a bond of love and affection between the married pairs and want husband to look after her wifes demands and vice versa inorder for both of them to live happily and in peace.

This is the main reason why you find the lowest divorce ratio in Arab and Muslim Countries as compared to West where mostly there is conflict between husband and wife and on small issues both take divorce.

A Muslim women even has right to take (Khula) which is a part of divorce on women side which a women can take if the husband is not good to him or any problem with him.

If an individual man treats his wife badly it doesnot mean that it is the teaching of Islamic law but it is a bad action of an individual.