[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> snip....snip....
>
> debivort....
>
> Nothing wrong with burkas, Keith -- except that the Western feminist
> movement has labelled them oppressive. I haven't heard any feminist say
> 'Ooooops, maybe we were wrong. Maybe our Afghani sisters really DO like to
> wear burkas,
Not by any means all of them!
Burqas are the outward and visible sign of portable imprisonment.
Surely you have read about the Taliban not allowing women to
even leave their houses to see a doctor without a male relative to
escort them? Etc.
But the true potential of the burqa has not yet been
exploited: The Islamic People's Stealth Technology: The Burqa Bomber!
And where there are burqas, the question arises whether the
infibulators with their razor blades to "perfect what
nature left not quite finished" can be far away?
http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/womenululating.ram
\brad mccormick
> in the same way that we Western women have our own clothing
> habits, rules and taboos. Hmmmmm," our enlightened feminist would go on to
> say, "I wonder what our Afghani sisters say about our high-heels, our
> display of skin, our make-up, our tight-clothing.....is it possible that
> they don't see, whith all these things, how advanced and sophisticated we
> western women are???"
>
> cordell....
>
> I think the issue is choice. Westerners can wear anything (or nothing, in
> many cases) but the the others must wear burkas. Most Westerners would
> find the lack of choice oppresive. Perhaps some Moslem women as well bridle
> at the lack of choice.
>
> > This is particularly so in Saudi Arabia where, indeed, the present Saudi
> > royal family came to power by mounting a jihad in 1902 with the assistance
> > of the Wahhabi sect, and have been indebted to them ever since.
>
> 1922 perhaps? It wasn't a jihad -- it was a tribal war vs. the Hashemites.
> The Saudi tribe WAS Wahhabi -- they didn't do it with the assistance of such
> a 'sect'-- it is simply a desert tribal Arabian school of Islam.
>
> And, yes, Wahhabism is a strong social and moral force in Saudi Arabia, and
> does stand in variance to modernizing -- meaning, for better or worse --
> westernizing forces
>
> Generally, the oil-rich countries -- and not just the Arab ones -- have
> tended to become dependent on foreign labor, manual and professional. Oil
> revenue money is distributed freely, in effect, to nationals of the country,
> and they do not have to do any work. So the nationals become dependent on
> the foriegn workers, and fail to develop as a work force of their own. This
> is the reality behind many of the symptoms you point to. This is a very hard
> nut to crack. Saudi over-spending has left them in debt, and so this pattern
> is being severely challenged -- and for simple economic reasons and not
> religious ones. Will Saudi Arabia and the others, find a way, despite their
> wealth, to evolve a competent diversified indigenous workforce? This is,
> IMHO, the number one issue before them. I did a detailed study (including a
> large public opinion survey) several years ago of this stuation in one such
> country (not SA) and was impressed by how hard it was going to be.
>
> With this inmind, I have renamed our thread.
>
> Best regards,
> Lawry
--
Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
<![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
