Do you as a Muslim believe in women's equality?

[SomeRandom]

That statement is not based in reality.

So I was imagining all the great Father figures and their great parenting skills in my life then? And do not think them new age, these are men. Blokes blokes as they say. They come from the old days with the old ways, as I like to call it.
Yeah I love my ma with all my soul. But my father, mate he was a role model. He was someone to look up to, someone who took care of me, someone who protected and nurtured me. In equal measures of my ma. He was a real man, sir. Who stepped to the plate and faced life head on, who had an old world dignity about him and above all had respect. A man, who unlike you, thought so highly of women that he was always an unfaltering gentleman around them. Like the real men of old, who still had chivalry and tipped their hats to ladies passing on the street. Who held the door open for them, who stood up at the table when they left, who held their hand as they walked down the stairs in heels (seriously, now that is dangerous!) Yeah, I like old school chivalry, sue me. But you know the strange part? Despite growing up in the era when men went to work and ladies stayed home, he always encouraged his daughter to stand on her own two feet. To not take any **** from men, to treat them with respect and expect the same (provided they proved worthy of respect, of course.) He did not want me to be some simpering demure bored housewife, but a strong independent woman. A person, first and foremost, who followed whatever dreams they had. What a *******, amirite?
/rant.
Christ if men cannot handle kids as you suggest, then perhaps they shouldn't be so irresponsible as to have sex and help create them in the first place. It takes two to tango, you know? You seem to think men incapable of being good role models for their kids, are incapable of raising their own flesh and blood and incapable of being a good parent. Well, quite frankly sir, I do not think so lowly of men. I see everywhere, everyday, wonderful caring strong manly men, stepping up and actually raising the kids they fathered. They do not shrink away from their responsibilities like a bunch of irresponsible wimps, like you suggest they do. Nor do a lot of working women, just FYI.

Any idiot can donate their sperm to create a kid (regular sex or insemination.) But it takes a true man to be a father. We call men who sleep with women (or just a woman) only to leave the kids to them, scumbags and dishonorable cowards. I presume you call those dropkicks "men?"

I don't get it. You rail against broken homes and single parents as being "not as efficient" or not as good for the kids. But then equate the parenting skills of men to that of sociopaths not fit to even be called animals. At least in the animal kingdom, many males of various species actually raise their offspring. Then claim women are the only ones suited to parenting, thereby giving the kids ONE parent only. So why rally against single parent households, when according to your own statements, there's only one efficient parent in the house regardless?

 

[dawny0826]

Like other feminists generally think, there is always an over reaction to do with procreation for some reason, insecurity I would say, and also it appears an insecurity in their own worth, which is apparently judged by what they do out of the house in a man's role and not what they do in the house in the role of a woman. This role seems to be looked down on. Perhaps that is the fault of men in the past. Either way, I think you judge youself incorrectly, if you are saying you are of no value unless you have a job and make money, which seems to be what you are saying.

This hasn't been my observation.

I'm not saying that I'm of no value unless I work. I'm saying that I deserve the opportunity to work if that's what I need to do and/or desire to do.

 

[dawny0826]

Again I think there is an insecurity there for you to think that being dependent on a man (if that is what you are saying) means somehow you are of no worth. If that is what you are saying then it is wrong . Women generations ago always helped their husband in their business. That does not mean that you have to think less of yourself. That is a lack of inner belief in yourself I think.

How are you coming to such a conclusion based upon what I've posted?

What have I said to suggest insecurity?

Clearly, I've no probably depending on a man, as I've explained to you that my husband and I support (depend!) on each other. I've also told you that I'm quite content with my personal circumstances.

 

[Parsimony]

I don't think we will agree on this. I say the mother brings then up. You could just as equally say leave them in the shed with some food and let them bring themselves up. Whatever you think is right. I don't think it is right for a woman with a God given right to bring up the human race, should throw that away just because at the end of it she has no power and money.

I never said she should throw it away. The mother could bring them up or the father could bring them up. As long as the parent in question can do the job properly, and there is agreement between the two spouses on the issue, I see no reason to look down upon it.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I think I know where that mother/father argument is coming from. I think a woman by nature is kinder than a man and more patient (in normal cases). Not to forget that a mother is the one that can breast feed, men cannot (really ). I know there are alternatives a man can use, but by all means, they are never ever as healthy and passionate as natural breast feeding. It is more possible for a man to snap and scold than a woman. I also notice clearly that younger children of caring families (e.g. don't use nannies) are more attached to the mother then later on when they get older they get attached to the father for some reason. Dunno, maybe it is just me.

Yes, exceptions are always there, but they are no close to the normal cases.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I am speaking of society.

No; you are saying you are speaking of society. You are not; you are actually speaking of your own sefish ideals.

If we are all judged upon what we can best individually contribute rather than have assumptions forced upon us by those expecting everyone to fit into stereotypes, we can be more efficient as a whole. With everyone doing the job they are best suited for and helping society run smoother.

Okay, let us assume that suddenly men change, and they become far more superior than women at bringing up children becuase they take it seriously , so men take the kids off the women because the women are seen as incapable and too emotional. How do you think women are going to react? Take it okay will you? So long as you have your job? I don't think so for a minute, that is why women normally always get custody of the kids.

Let me give you an example. Man and woman split up. Woman gets kids. Man wants to see kids. Woman lets him for a while, and then decides she can't stand the sight of him seeing HER kids so won't let him; okay, in steps the magical UK law and they go to court; the woman is told she must let him see them; so she does; but now she is being controlled more she feels so she stops letting him; so in steps the courts again; but this time the judge sees the instability of the woman and he puts the kids first; guess what? the man is not allowed to see his own kids because if he does the woman will be unhappy and might take it out on the children. Guess who loses, other than the kids? Yep, you guessed it, that half of the world your not bothered about, men.

Let's do this equality thing then shall we, and if she is too emotianal, take the kids off her. If she goes insane, but her is a home. After all, would we not deal with men in a similar manner? But of course men (don't tell any one will ya) are the stronger gender, so they just have to take it, somewhere around the place on their forehead where it says ''doormat''.

 

[oldbadger]

I think I know where that mother/father argument is coming from. I think a woman by nature is kinder than a man and more patient (in normal cases). Not to forget that a mother is the one that can breast feed, men cannot (really ). I know there are alternatives a man can use, but by all means, they are never ever as healthy and passionate as natural breast feeding. It is more possible for a man to snap and scold than a woman. I also notice clearly that younger children of caring families (e.g. don't use nannies) are more attached to the mother then later on when they get older they get attached to the father for some reason. Dunno, maybe it is just me.

Yes, exceptions are always there, but they are no close to the normal cases.

Hi...SG!

Interesting point there, about children polarising to their mothers' natural love and care, during and after infancy.
This is often shown in the memories of veteran combat soldiers, whose memoirs are recoded by film directors. For instance, the dying soldiers on the action scenes in 'Saving Private Ryan' are mostly calling out to their Mothers.

Interesting.....

 

[Robert.Evans]

You did,

No I did not, that is what you read in.

when you flat out said that a mother is not a mother if she dares to hold a job.

Outside of the house! I would have thought that was obvious. You cannot look after a baby or young child whilst driving a digger can you.
I am not saying you don't work! You work, but there should be separation in the genders. And no, before you say it, you can still come out of the house and ask what that big bright think is in the sky.

(Perish the thought! A woman providing her kid with a life!)

Oh I see, it's HER kid is it. How enlightening.

I mean, a mother, nay a woman is no more than a baby making machine stuck at home 24/7 after the kid is born (never mind that the kids don't stay at home) and if she dares to hold down a job and provide money for her family to survive, according to you, she is not a "real" mother. Which in itself is right ****ing insulting.

Typical over eggareation from a woman in this subject. You just can't talk about it can you. To you, if your not working and just bringing up children, your nothing, perhaps less than nothing. I have no idea why you would think that. Perhaps men have made this rod for their own back not valuing you when you did use to keep your role, which you now don't.

I would regale you with some of the language my fellow Aussies might use towards you, in response to such a callous statement, but such language is not allowed on the forums.

You mean they would misunderstand it as well I suppose. Either way we are the masculine and feminine of God and as such we are supposed to do what is pleasing to him, and in that way benefit us.

And you did imply that women's pursuits were pretty useless or at least not as worthy in comparison when you said that men have to pretend that women can do the same as they can. Which must be a surprise to people like Madam Curie, the first person to win 2 Nobel Prizes in two different Scientific Disciplines no less, whilst supporting a family mind you. During the 1800s. Or more recently all the women I know who can drive mining trucks or just "regular" trucks better than most blokes.Christ some of the female truckies I know I sure as hell wouldn't want to bloody mess with, mate. Or say anything that you have espoused in this thread to their face. They and their fellow truckies (both males and females mind) would probably pummel you!

Thank you for the threat. Just shows again that you cannot discuss it and that you have ungodly values. And that is probably half of the problem. Violence and aggression is seen as a plus in the world is it not. Being peaceable and having good interpersonal skills is not.

But regardless. When you say or imply that the "proper" place for women is in the home, why would a woman in such a position even try to learn, try to better themselves, try out work? I mean, the working world is for men, right? So why should a woman even bother, if she is stuck at home all the freaking time? What has she to gain from bettering herself if she is stuck at home?

Again you show your insecurities that if you are not outside in the man's world, you are somehow of no value. Very telling I think.

Perhaps if you read a little bit more carefully you might see I am not saying what you think I am saying. Women should work, but there should be a separation of the genders. And their primary goal should be bringing up the human race so we don't have gangs and violence and you so called trucker friends with their aggressive outspoken rude violent ways. That is the very thing I am fighting again/....falling on deaf ears of course.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I did. I called you out for being deliberately obtuse towards Mystic for no real reason.So I ask again. Are you suggesting, because you said you did not understand Mystic's question, that you do not understand basic English? Or are you just being a royal ******* for no reason? That in plain enough English for you, mate?

You show more about you than you do about me. When someone does not understand what the question means they ask. But apparently not to you two.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I never said she should throw it away. The mother could bring them up or the father could bring them up. As long as the parent in question can do the job properly, and there is agreement between the two spouses on the issue, I see no reason to look down upon it.

It has nothing to do with looking down on things and more to do with what is God given. We have roles, and they have worked well for generations. Now men largely have made the world an easier place to live in, women want a slice of it, because, for some reason, they don't seem to value themselves as women unless they dress and act like men.

 

[oldbadger]

Okay, let us assume that suddenly men change, and they become far more superior than women at bringing up children becuase they take it seriously , so men take the kids off the women because the women are seen as incapable and too emotional. How do you think women are going to react? Take it okay will you? So long as you have your job? I don't think so for a minute, that is why women normally always get custody of the kids.

Let me give you an example. Man and woman split up. Woman gets kids. Man wants to see kids. Woman lets him for a while, and then decides she can't stand the sight of him seeing HER kids so won't let him; okay, in steps the magical UK law and they go to court; the woman is told she must let him see them; so she does; but now she is being controlled more she feels so she stops letting him; so in steps the courts again; but this time the judge sees the instability of the woman and he puts the kids first; guess what? the man is not allowed to see his own kids because if he does the woman will be unhappy and might take it out on the children. Guess who loses, other than the kids? Yep, you guessed it, that half of the world your not bothered about, men.

Hi Robert...... the above example is not an accurate 'take' for the general situation after a split up. You can't cherry-pick the odd sitatuation like that and then call it the normal.

Let's do this equality thing then shall we.........................?

Yes..... let's.
40 years ago, when my wife was almost permanently in hospital, and I had to look after the two infants, earn a living and keep on going, the lack of equality caused the system to apply unreasonable pressure upon me to let my children go into 'care'. District nurses, Health visitors, social worker... mostly treated 'father-children' situations as untenable. They wren't interested in supporting, but fragmenting at that time.

Today, with Equality law, Equality mindsets and an Egaliterian society, all those professional people would have been dedicated to helping me keep the family together, indeed, many of thos professional health workers, district nurses and social workers are now men!

Don't knock Equality, Robert..... it cannot be beaten to 'Best'!

 

[Robert.Evans]

Are you equating the care a father gives to throwing children in a shed and neglecting them? Because that's what you just did there.

No I did not.

Insult all fathers.

You trying to get men on your side are you? What a surprise. Then you can attack the one you think is the danger. Primordial.
[/QUOTE]
Are you a father? Do you actually think that lowly of your parenting skills and your ability to love, care for, and guide your children?[/QUOTE]
Women should be feminine not masculine. They do not have to act like men to be of value; they are of value feminine; they do not have to wear trousers to be of value; they do not have to dry trucks or cut down trees or work in an office or live by themselves or walk down the street without a man, to be of value.
It is a great shame that modern day western women are so aggressive, and I personally fear for the children of the generations to come. It is a known fact that children without fathers often have problems in many aspects of life, including the law; to which a gave a link and you ignored.

 

[Robert.Evans]

So I was imagining all the great Father figures and their great parenting skills in my life then? And do not think them new age, these are men. Blokes blokes as they say. They come from the old days with the old ways, as I like to call it.
Yeah I love my ma with all my soul. But my father, mate he was a role model. He was someone to look up to, someone who took care of me, someone who protected and nurtured me. In equal measures of my ma. He was a real man, sir. Who stepped to the plate and faced life head on, who had an old world dignity about him and above all had respect. A man, who unlike you, thought so highly of women that he was always an unfaltering gentleman around them. Like the real men of old, who still had chivalry and tipped their hats to ladies passing on the street. Who held the door open for them, who stood up at the table when they left, who held their hand as they walked down the stairs in heels (seriously, now that is dangerous!) Yeah, I like old school chivalry, sue me. But you know the strange part? Despite growing up in the era when men went to work and ladies stayed home, he always encouraged his daughter to stand on her own two feet. To not take any **** from men, to treat them with respect and expect the same (provided they proved worthy of respect, of course.) He did not want me to be some simpering demure bored housewife, but a strong independent woman. A person, first and foremost, who followed whatever dreams they had. What a *******, amirite?

haha.... now that is funny. I am pleased for your parents and that they were good; but you in your love on the old world, should be in line with what I am saying, but it seems you want all the good part of old, but you don't want the part you think is bad. haha.... how hypocritical.
I suppose your father (with greatest of respest) in saying that you should stand on your own two feet, was protecting his own interests. Think about it.

/rant.
Christ if men cannot handle kids as you suggest,

That is blasphemy, not that I suppose you are bothered. After all, you seem to have a problem doing your own role.

then perhaps they shouldn't be so irresponsible as to have sex and help create them in the first place. It takes two to tango, you know? You seem to think men incapable of being good role models for their kids,

No

are incapable of raising their own flesh and blood and incapable of being a good parent.

No

Well, quite frankly sir, I do not think so lowly of men.

You're talking to one now. I think you do, IF you can't control them.

I see everywhere, everyday, wonderful caring strong manly men, stepping up and actually raising the kids they fathered. They do not shrink away from their responsibilities like a bunch of irresponsible wimps, like you suggest they do. Nor do a lot of working women, just FYI.

In other words they have to do because women, the mothers, do shrink away from the responsibilities..haha. Funny. Men have to give up their jobs for you. Then we have to do your work in the house for you. Now we have to bring up the kids for you. Fine. I think men have made the world too easy. If we got rid of this false soceity that we live in, I wonder if you would say the same? I guess not. The feminine was waiting for the right time to strike eh, and boy as she found it .

Any idiot can donate their sperm to create a kid (regular sex or insemination.)

But should'nt

But it takes a true man to be a father.

And it takes a women to be a mother.

We call men who sleep with women (or just a woman) only to leave the kids to them, scumbags and dishonorable cowards. I presume you call those dropkicks "men?"

No. I call them part of the society we have created in this ungodly country that I live in, changed largely through aggressive feminism which has basiclaly told men where to go. Guess what? We are a bit slow, but it seems we are catching on. There are always cosequences for actions.

I don't get it. You rail against broken homes and single parents as being "not as efficient" or not as good for the kids. But then equate the parenting skills of men to that of sociopaths not fit to even be called animals.

No

At least in the animal kingdom, many males of various species actually raise their offspring. Then claim women are the only ones suited to parenting, thereby giving the kids ONE parent only. So why rally against single parent households, when according to your own statements, there's only one efficient parent in the house regardless?

For the early years, the women is better suited. That is fact. It is not in your interest to say that as you might lose out in the work place. That is just greed orientation. Sad. Then when anyone mention it you hit the roof. Sad.

 

[Robert.Evans]

This hasn't been my observation.

I'm not saying that I'm of no value unless I work. I'm saying that I deserve the opportunity to work if that's what I need to do and/or desire to do.

And if someone says you can't? Then you hit the roof and start the rant about I am not just a baby making machine, yeah I know

How are you coming to such a conclusion based upon what I've posted?

What have I said to suggest insecurity?

Clearly, I've no probably depending on a man, as I've explained to you that my husband and I support (depend!) on each other. I've also told you that I'm quite content with my personal circumstances.

When we try to change situations around us as feminism did, that is not because you are secure with the situation you see. I think it is largley mens fault that they did not make you feel valued enough as the role of mother and teacher, and take that job to its fullest potential, which is a shame. It is back to the baby making machine again. So then you hate men and have to come out of the house to support yourself to show you don't need a man. The family is in demise, and, though it might be okay for those of a more philosophical educated position, it is not for the lower classes, where most violence occurs.

You are not the first generation feminist are you. You are not throwing fire bombs through windows, that has been done.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Hey brothers and sisters (if it is ok with you to be called that), there has been some name calling and it represents a clear violation of rules. This is not a moderator action, but there is danger of posts and people disappearing. The thread may soon go into review or undergo editing, and I'm sure nobody really wants that. Please avoid name calling and provocation.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Hi...SG!

Interesting point there, about children polarising to their mothers' natural love and care, during and after infancy.
This is often shown in the memories of veteran combat soldiers, whose memoirs are recoded by film directors. For instance, the dying soldiers on the action scenes in 'Saving Private Ryan' are mostly calling out to their Mothers.

Interesting.....

Are you calling me bald? Just kidding
Hey, I am bald

Please believe me, I didn't say that to belittle men and their love to their children, I'm only saying (believing) that women are naturally better with the children than men. I'm not implying that men are not loving, caring and passionate. I personally see around me children get scolded by their fathers and they either hide behind their mothers or the mothers try to defend them. I mean the children hide not the fathers of course.

Hey brothers and sisters (if it is ok with you to be called that), there has been some name calling and it represents a clear violation of rules. This is not a moderator action, but there is danger of posts and people disappearing. The thread may soon go into review or undergo editing, and I'm sure nobody really wants that. Please avoid name calling and provocation.

Hey brother

I apologized after my sin. I won't do it again, I promise!

 

[Draka]

No; you are saying you are speaking of society. You are not; you are actually speaking of your own sefish ideals.

I'm not selfish. Selfish people don't volunteer for service. Selfish people aren't charitable. Selfish people believe that they are somehow more deserving of something based merely upon who or what they are, rather than what they do.

Okay, let us assume that suddenly men change, and they become far more superior than women at bringing up children becuase they take it seriously , so men take the kids off the women because the women are seen as incapable and too emotional. How do you think women are going to react? Take it okay will you? So long as you have your job? I don't think so for a minute, that is why women normally always get custody of the kids.

Men change and suddenly take being a parent seriously? Hm, I guess that is because you currently think most men must not take parenting seriously. Again you show disdain for fathers.

Women tend to get custody of children due to the inane idea that they are always somehow better suited to raising children. Because of...your ideas. If a woman is unfit, then she shouldn't have her children. If the father is the more stable parent then he should get custody.

Let me give you an example. Man and woman split up. Woman gets kids. Man wants to see kids. Woman lets him for a while, and then decides she can't stand the sight of him seeing HER kids so won't let him; okay, in steps the magical UK law and they go to court; the woman is told she must let him see them; so she does; but now she is being controlled more she feels so she stops letting him; so in steps the courts again; but this time the judge sees the instability of the woman and he puts the kids first; guess what? the man is not allowed to see his own kids because if he does the woman will be unhappy and might take it out on the children. Guess who loses, other than the kids? Yep, you guessed it, that half of the world your not bothered about, men.

I'm not bothered about? I'm the one here who has been defending men while you, a man, have been putting them down time and time again. I have said that fathers should get custody. I have said that they are good parents. I've known many men that should have gotten custody of their children over the mother and I think it a shame. I've encouraged them to push for custody. If a man is a good parent and the woman denies him seeing his children then she is in the wrong. The only exceptions are in cases of abuse. Otherwise, if she is unstable, if she is using the children as a way of punishing the man,...if she is breaking the court's orders then she should lose custody. I don't see anything wrong with that at all, it is how it should be.

Let's do this equality thing then shall we, and if she is too emotianal, take the kids off her. If she goes insane, but her is a home. After all, would we not deal with men in a similar manner? But of course men (don't tell any one will ya) are the stronger gender, so they just have to take it, somewhere around the place on their forehead where it says ''doormat''.

See, here you outright show your true colors. You have a victim complex. You believe that men have it so bad. That men are trodden on. Put upon. You believe that men should have certain advantages (jobs, freedom) that women shouldn't have. You blame women, women's rights, equality, for your perceived victim status. You have a low impression of men, you think they should be higher in status and aren't being treated that way, and a hatred towards women and equality because of the low impression of men and the lack of a higher status.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I'm not selfish. Selfish people don't volunteer for service. Selfish people aren't charitable. Selfish people believe that they are somehow more deserving of something based merely upon who or what they are, rather than what they do.

Men change and suddenly take being a parent seriously? Hm, I guess that is because you currently think most men must not take parenting seriously. Again you show disdain for fathers.

Women tend to get custody of children due to the inane idea that they are always somehow better suited to raising children. Because of...your ideas. If a woman is unfit, then she shouldn't have her children. If the father is the more stable parent then he should get custody.

I'm not bothered about? I'm the one here who has been defending men while you, a man, have been putting them down time and time again. I have said that fathers should get custody. I have said that they are good parents. I've known many men that should have gotten custody of their children over the mother and I think it a shame. I've encouraged them to push for custody. If a man is a good parent and the woman denies him seeing his children then she is in the wrong. The only exceptions are in cases of abuse. Otherwise, if she is unstable, if she is using the children as a way of punishing the man,...if she is breaking the court's orders then she should lose custody. I don't see anything wrong with that at all, it is how it should be.

See, here you outright show your true colors. You have a victim complex. You believe that men have it so bad. That men are trodden on. Put upon. You believe that men should have certain advantages (jobs, freedom) that women shouldn't have. You blame women, women's rights, equality, for your perceived victim status. You have a low impression of men, you think they should be higher in status and aren't being treated that way, and a hatred towards women and equality because of the low impression of men and the lack of a higher status.

Haha... that is funny. It's I who have the complex hey? funny.
Listen to a women if you like.

1. Feminism partly to blame for family breakdown, says Diane ...
   The Telegraph - Telegraph online, Daily Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph - Telegraph › Women › Women's Politics
   
   4 Jan 2013 - The breakdown of the family can be partly blamed onfeminism, the feminist Labour MP Diane Abbott has suggested. ... Affairs: It's never the wife's fault · Baroness Shirley Williams in Westminster. Baroness Williams has ...

The question then is do you care about the family?

 

[Sunstone]

It has nothing to do with looking down on things and more to do with what is God given. We have roles, and they have worked well for generations. Now men largely have made the world an easier place to live in, women want a slice of it, because, for some reason, they don't seem to value themselves as women unless they dress and act like men.

That would all be absolutely true if it were not actually imbecilic malarkey.

 

[Robert.Evans]

What about this:

1. Children whose parents split are NINE times more likely to ...
   Home | Daily Mail Onlineparents-split-NINE-times-likely-commi...
   
   4 Nov 2010 - Troubled: Two-thirds of young offenders come fromsingle-parent homes ... On crime, he said children from broken homes were more than twice as likely ... He quoted figures from different sources putting the cost to the country ...