Maarodi;936622 wrote: Things didn't turn around for Blacks in the South until the late 70s. You'd be amazed to hear the stories from people who lived in Mississippi and Alabama. The South is still under supervision by the federal government when it comes to Voting Rights and the disparity between the races is quite stark. But nonetheless I would've still loved to live in that time and visit the US like the former Somalis of that time did. It would've been quite an experience. Very true, and you can argue things have actually gotten worse in some ways. I read something recently about how Mississippi's (or was it Alabama?) current and growing numbers of disenfranchised African Americans (having lost their voting abilities because they've spent time in jail) are approaching the numbers close to before the Voting Rights Act. I think mass incarceration will be the civil rights issue of our time, and I saw a pretty moving on it a few months ago that's worth watching. DoctorKenney, I don't mind 2013 either, but I'm a huge history geek and it's fun to think about other eras I would have liked to live through

Chimera;936607 wrote: 1960s Somalia yeah, but nowhere near America or Europe, I think they were still lynching black people back then. I hesitate to say not quite, because lynchings definitely happened in the 1960s (and still do from time to time)... but it was also the decade that saw the end of segregation in the South because of these movements, which is why I think I would have loved to be around then to see everything change for the better. The worst time in US history to be a black person was the turn of the 20th century, the height of Jim Crow and the KKK and a level of racial terror worse than slavery (at least black people weren't killed as slaves when they were another white person's property).

1960s for me... the hope and promise of African nationalism and decolonization, the rise of third world politics and the non-aligned movement, all of the social movements including the civil rights movement, black power, women's liberation, anti-Vietnam war, etc. It would have been an exciting time to be in the world

Great, now I'm on a 90s YouTube binge lol

... and I still know ALL the words.

How could I forget this, I had their cassette in 1999

SomaliPhilosopher;936571 wrote: So when is the wedding Wadani and Safferz? Who said I'm interested in the patriarchal bondage of marriage? Jk

AfricaOwn;936567 wrote: All sensible Men and Women can agree to that. What's a feminist anyways? Can men be feminists as well? What are some examples of gender inequality for SOL posters to think about? I was explaining the difficulties of defining what a feminist is (and what feminism entails) in my last few posts in this thread, and that of course affects the type of political agenda and issues these organizations work around. A black feminist in the US may see mass incarceration as a feminist issue because of its destructive impact on black families and how it increases financial burdens on black women who have to support their families. A Muslim feminist in Canada may see access to the mosque as a feminist issue, given the lack of adequate, clean and quiet prayer spaces for women in the mosque. An African feminist in South Africa may see sexual health education as a feminist issue because women may not understand their options for birth control and pressured not to use it by their partners, contributing to the HIV/AIDS crisis in the country. There's a lot of debate over whether men can be "feminists" as such, but their role as allies in feminist movements have always been important, because none of these things can be done by women alone.

Wadani;936559 wrote: I prefer Maramduke Pickthall's translation and feel it's closer to the original Arabic. Anyway, in real life im not the neandrathal you've probably pictured me to be. I just like taking positions and having them challenged, and would even want my sisters and daughters to be closet feminists (a form in line with Islam) so no man can take advantage of them hahaa. lol I don't think you're a neanderthal at all, I think you're quite intelligent and could get beyond the "feminazi" stuff if I pushed you a little bit

Wadani;936543 wrote: The Quran is explicit when it says 'Men are in charge of women , because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other , and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient , guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded.' (Surah Al-Nisaa, verse 34). Only one who is ambivalent about their relationship with Islam will try to rationalize or explain away such an explicit text. Yes, how they are in charge and how they have been made to excel woman may be subject to interpretation....but their being placed above woman by Allah cannot, or else one just doesn't believe in the Quran. Miyaanay ahayn dee walaal That's a poor translation and proves my point, so here is Yusuf Ali's translation: "men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because God has given the one more (strength) than the other and because they support them from their means. Therefore righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what God would have them guard. It takes intentional, out of context distortions of the Arabic words qawwamun, qanitat and nushuz to interpret this verse as Allah saying men are superior to women and that they are "in charge" of women, and that "obedience" here means to the husband. Forgetting the verse that says men and women are appointed each other's awliyah (mutual protectors)? Anyway I think Quranic exegesis is beyond the discussion or anyone here's expertise, but my point is that much of what Muslims take for granted about women's rights is in fact cultural or derived from particular readings and interpretations of religious texts.

Wadani;936535 wrote: I haven't undertaken an academic study of feminism. But from the little I know it seeks to create social, political and economic equality between men and women. Also, it views the differences between the two sexes through a social constructionist lens and does not give much credence to the differences rooted in biology. I asked because I don't believe feminism can be so easily defined, and the more I study histories and theories of feminism (even the word "feminist" is contentious among some theorists, "womanist" is used by some African American women who feel feminism is not inclusive enough for them), the more difficult and complex it becomes. So you certainly can't reduce it to tenets. But I think you're right to say that what they all have in common is political organizing and thinking around questions of women's equality (how "equality" is defined differs), and that most agree that gender is socially constructed.

Wadani;936533 wrote: I agree with a lot of what u said. But theres no way around the fact that Islam and the other two Abrahamic faiths (in the form true to their scriptures) are against the equality of men and women when it comes to their roles and their rights. Islam only recognizes their inherent equality as human beings and their spritiual equality. Am I wrong? Islam is not a monolith either, so it's not that black and white -- in the same way religion can be interpreted to curtail women's rights by some people and in some places, it can be read as liberatory as well.

Wadani;936524 wrote: I wouldn't go as far as making takfir on them, but there is no denying that many of the tenents of feminism (in its western form) are un-islamic. What are the tenets of feminism?

Wadani;936511 wrote: Yes they are quite racist with their euro-centric standards for freedom and progressiveness. As for their tactics, it's nothing but reactionary shock tactics that ultimately serve a purpose opposite to their objectives. It's akin to al-shabaab's draconian methods meant to usher in an era of Islamic piety paradoxically leading to a sizable growth in Somali secularists. It's basic physics, the harder u swing the pundulum in one direction the further it will swing in the opposite direction. Right, and unfortunately it's a common problem with white feminists and their treatment of women of colour (including Muslim women) -- the old colonial "white saviour" mentality to "save" non-white women. It obscures the activism already happening within these communities by assuming women are passive, silent and oppressed, and it fails to take social and historical context into account for an analysis of power and patriarchy by assuming gender oppression operates the same way and in the same form(s) as it does in Western societies. I also have to be specific and say *white women* because even "Western feminism" is not a monolith -- when Betty Friedan wrote 50 years ago about "the problem with no name" and the image of the unhappy and economically dependent suburban housewife helped launch second wave feminism, black women started to challenge its implicit whiteness and talk about how it was black women's labour (as maids, nannies, etc) in the household that enabled many white women to be "homemakers." That said, I don't agree with anything else you've said here, Wadani. Feminism is really only an umbrella term for diverse (and often conflicting) movements, organizations and modes of thinking about gender equity, and its history is characterized by critical self-reflection and an awareness of its heterogeneity. No one organization defines what feminism is or what a feminist should be or should look like, and Femen has seen an even bigger backlash from other feminists, including Muslim feminists.

AfricaOwn;936427 wrote: Be careful there, these heathens don't like the idea of gender roles. And I suggest you be careful and stop playing around with takfir.

I actually dislike Femen, but not for the reasons you do. I think they're quite racist and I don't agree with their tactics. But patriarchy, violence against women, sexism, etc are all very real issues that need to be dealt with.

Great thread! Will have to download all of these in case they disappear

Wadani;936182 wrote: What's ur beef with mary harper? I'm reading her book this weekend so I can't comment on that... but she writes very similar voyeuristic articles for the BBC. I'm thinking of two in particular, an article where she's surprised Addis Ababa is modern and has cupcakes, and an article about Somali women going to the gym.

Surprised Mary Harper didn't write this, because the coverage and captions are awful.

DoctorKenney;936134 wrote: I gave you the exact reason why the economy collapsed. I told you it was caused by the Fed's monetary policy as well as Government inflating the housing bubble and you chose to ignore my point, not even responding to what I said, nice job I didn't ignore your comment, I responded to it directly by asking if you if you really believed that government doesn't enact neoliberal economic policies, the same way I asked you if you were serious about the IMF and World Bank not being neoliberal institutions. I had to confirm whether I was really reading something so inane. You have no facts.

DoctorKenney;936100 wrote: Governments should be neo-liberal. But the problem is the US Federal Government is far from being this way. Alan Greenspan and Barney Frank caused this economic collapse. But yet everyone refuses to see this. I think low taxes, low government spending, minimal regulations and free trade is something we should all agree on. But you completely dodged the point and ignored my contention. Nice job safferz I'm just fascinated by your ability to classify things as "not really capitalist" or "not really neoliberal" when they don't fit your ideal-type model of what you imagine neoliberalism to be. It's stuff that would get you laughed out of any economics department anywhere. You're just not being serious, and it's impossible to debate someone who either can't or refuses to grasp the basic contextual information and facts about economics from which we could then have a productive discussion.

DoctorKenney;936070 wrote: When the Federal Government is guaranteeing home mortgage loans and lowering lending standards, then that's a distortion of capitalism. This knowledge is so basic that I'm wondering if you're deliberately being dishonest here. So in the same way you don't consider the IMF and World Bank neoliberal institutions, you don't think that governments can be neoliberal and enact neoliberal economic policies? lmao!

Wadani;936008 wrote: Safferz, ur undoubtedly an intelligent and well-informed person who brings a lot of value to Sol's intellectual environment. But at times, like in the above post, u come across a tad bit condescending in your choice of words. Such a style will only shift the debate from an honest exchange and critique of ideas and positions, to one where egos reign supreme as each person becomes defensive and tries to reinforce his/her superority at whatever cost, sacrificing objectivy and the pursuit of truth in exchange for a perceived victory. I match my tone with what's already been directed towards me by a particular person. Take a look at xabad's posts in this thread.

Alpha Blondy;936001 wrote: yes, of course! i'm so infatuated with you, ma istidhi? P.S thanks Raula. You are clearly just too stubborn to admit when I've taught you something, but I appreciate the slip lol