In some cases it is. i can’t stand those work environments (or environments in general) where women and men mix, and women are deceived to believe that her Independence is via this means, whilst ill minded men look and flirt with her and she’s just brainwashed to believe that its “all in good fun” and sits there enjoying it actually believing that he has good intentions. It if we are all for equality, and that’s what the man’s gets from her, what is he giving back to her?
It’s called sublimity ladies it is a term used by psychologists to describe a situation where, due to a certain thing being morally unacceptable, one finds/refers to a more morally acceptable means to express it. I don’t think women would find being flirted with and treated like that fun, if it wasn’t for the “funny” and clever way the male shows it.
Btw I don’t have a problem with women working, however it’s this guise of independence and the likes, but in reality she is really being exploited-this is what this rant is about.
Oh and I also despise males who insist women stay home because they can’t control themselves-also very dislikeable.
its really funny how some people go around and accuse women in Islam as being enslaved to their husband yet advocate that women work despite the fact that 8/10 times, her boss (i.e someone in authority over here) is most likely to be a male. reeks of hypocrisy.
this is what i like about Islam because it is known what males are like and take zero responsibly and care for her, but in the case of marriage where he is ordered to financially provide for her (that is one of her rights over him), it allows for respect for her.
i find it interesting in Islam how the wealth is the husbands responsibility and find myself wondering if the reason for that is because for the most part, you don’t really care or know the true worth of something until and unless you spend your wealth on it. just my 2 cents
format_quote Originally Posted by Lynx
Well I am not sure why it's exploitation when a woman has to work to pay the mortgage. If she does not want to work (and she is free not to work) then she can just buy a cheaper house. Women (and all people in general) voluntarily trade their time for extra money in order to have a life that they want to. Asking the state to provide for women at home will have consequences (if this is what you're suggesting).
the man is the hunter gather.
Moreover, there are plenty of women who work because they enjoy their careers and this is definitely not exploitation in any sense of the word.
true that and i don’t believe there is anything wrong with women working- the only real problem i have is the deception of independence where it leads men to disrespect her and be negligent of their own responsibly (of hunting and gathering) that i can’t stand, as i said.
Last edited by Ummu Sufyaan; 07-08-2010 at 03:32 AM.
...desperate for husnul-khitaam...
please make dua that Allah grants me a good end (to my life). please make dua that Allah guides me.
Since circumstances have changed and societies have evolved and ideas have emerged according to which men who stop women from working outside are despised and since women can earn, maybe scholars can do qiyas and determine that husbands dont really have to provide finances to their wives anymore. I know the Quranic verse says that men are providers of their wives but this can mean they provide anything. Now let the husbands just provide love, time and intimate words, and not money, since women can go outside and work for their own selves. After all its hard for men to buy everything that they desire in this economy (that watch, that car, that gadget, that toy, that cologne, that suit), then throw the responsibility of another human being if he is to get married. Just a passing thought.
Last edited by CosmicPathos; 07-08-2010 at 03:36 AM.
Help me to escape from this existence
I yearn for an answer... can you help me?
I'm drowning in a sea of abused visions and shattered dreams
In somnolent illusion... I'm paralyzed
In some cases it is. i can’t stand those work environments (or environments in general) where women and men mix, and women are deceived to believe that her Independence is via this means, whilst ill minded men look and flirt with her and she’s just brainwashed to believe that its “all in good fun” and sits there enjoying it actually believing that he has good intentions. It if we are all for equality, and that’s what the man’s gets from her, what is he giving back to her?
It’s called sublimity ladies it is a term used by psychologists to describe a situation where, due to a certain thing being morally unacceptable, one finds/refers to a more morally acceptable means to express it. I don’t think women would find being flirted with and treated like that fun, if it wasn’t for the “funny” and clever way the male shows it.
I understand what you're trying to say and there's no doubt that in a lot of cases women are exploited by their bosses or co-workers. I don't think that *just because* a woman goes to work is exploitation which was the comment I was responding to in the previous thread. However, I don't think flirting is exploiting. People flirt when they work in a mixed environment and you can think that it's immoral but I don't see how flirting is exploitation unless you have a case where a woman is being sexually harassed.
Btw I don’t have a problem with women working, however it’s this guise of independence and the likes, but in reality she is really being exploited-this is what this rant is about.
Oh and I also despise males who insist women stay home because they can’t control themselves-also very dislikeable.
Well I suppose you're overgeneralizing on purpose to illustrate your feelings towards the topic. Not all women are exploited & having the right to be able to pursue any career a woman wants to is necessary for her independence but not sufficient.
its really funny how some people go around and accuse women in Islam as being enslaved to their husband yet advocate that women work despite the fact that 8/10 times, her boss (i.e someone in authority over here) is most likely to be a male. reeks of hypocrisy.
When people say women are enslaved to their husbands I think they are generally talking about places where women have little to no rights like tribal regions of Pakistan, Afghanistan under the Taliban, Iran, etc. where women can be killed or beaten for the smallest things and where women cannot freely get rid of their husbands. In the case of working for a man, people voluntarily exchange their time & labour for money. There's no such thing as a slave to a boss. The comparison is not quite accurate!
i find it interesting in Islam how the wealth is the husbands responsibility and find myself wondering if the reason for that is because for the most part, you don’t really care or know the true worth of something until and unless you spend your wealth on it. just my 2 cents
sadly i don't think this is the case in many parts of the world.
the man is the hunter gather.
i am not sure what this has to do with the section of my comments you quoted.
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.
-Plato
In the modern world, though, there is no need for a hunter gatherer. Nobody has to hunt their food anymore unless they want to, and women can do 90% of jobs in the world as well as any man. There are some jobs better suited for men, and some for women, but most can be accomplished equally well by either sex.
In the modern world, though, there is no need for a hunter gatherer. Nobody has to hunt their food anymore unless they want to, and women can do 90% of jobs in the world as well as any man. There are some jobs better suited for men, and some for women, but most can be accomplished equally well by either sex.
Whilst this is true, the female still remains the only one that can give birth.
Someone said to the Prophet, "Pray to God against the idolaters and curse them." The Prophet replied, "I have been sent to show mercy and have not been sent to curse." (Muslim)
Originally Posted by Lynx
Well I am not sure why it's exploitation when a woman has to work to pay the mortgage. If she does not want to work (and she is free not to work) then she can just buy a cheaper house. Women (and all people in general) voluntarily trade their time for extra money in order to have a life that they want to. Asking the state to provide for women at home will have consequences (if this is what you're suggesting). Moreover, there are plenty of women who work because they enjoy their careers and this is definitely not exploitation in any sense of the word.
The family system in the Western World has collapsed because of Women being taken out of the House to work. and as you said they "enjoy" lets see how dangerous such enjoyment can be... just to let you know that majority of women do NOT enjoy working....
The mortgage your referring to brother is not right in the 1st place... how ? Because the House that women and men and families buy on Loans of hundreds and thousands of dollars, while not having that amount with them at that time, keeps them in Slavery and Debt for years and years.... rather if they are not able to pay some payments, they are taken out of their Houses in which they have lived and also the collateral which the bank keeps SEIZES as well.... so buying an expensive House which is unaffordable in the 1st place and becoming a slave to a bank, is NOT the right way to go about in ones life in the 1st place, whether man or woman..... this is how banks take advantage over you, all they do is issue a Loan and sit and relax and your work your whole life trying to pay for something for which there is NO guarantee that you would own it after 20 or 25 years.... and so Women have been FORCED by expensive loans and buying things on Credit which has made their Husbands income not sufficient and so they have to get out of the House and Work...
2nd Point. ... Capitalism which gave birth to Industrialization, has increased Production at a MASSIVE rate like never before in the World. The manufacturing is booming and never stops and people because of Capitalism, are able to buy those things which they could not afford before, JUST Because they have a Credit card with amount of money... and once they do purchases, they keep making payments for something which they don't own..... such Massive production made Capitalists want more population to work and so in this case also , females were brought OUT of the houses while leaving their Children in the hands of others... and nowadays, since the feminist revolution, its Baby Sitters....
Do you really think that a Baby Sitter or a Child Day care Facility will take care of the Child or have feelings for the CHild like his/her mother would have for them ?!?
The Child day cares and Baby sitters cannot do the Job of a Mother.... they have too many of their OWN problems to think of... and it is because of this that family system is being taken apart... thanks to Feminist Revolution... women are being told ... "you are just like men".... while women without understanding , with no one to guide accept whatever they are told and follow whatever comes their way.... thinking its Freedom ! while actually they are being Lured in to work force, while the women are NOT to be burdened by work as, the nature of Man is to work and women are the weaker sex (biologically proven as well) and they are to be Protected! thats the Message of Islam for Family system...
Ponder over this article and this Might help understand what i am saying....
if you try readiing the article of just one City in Europe where women are forced to work... and i call it forced because having Expensive loans and not being able to pay for them or the husbands cheating and leaving them and government not supporting them, or their kids becoming 18 or 19 and leaving them alone and then they have to carry their own burden, makes them choose professions and leave their homes which they would NOT have if they were given the Option! ... so this article clearly shows how Women are being torn apart in their Lives... the Exploitation which takes place of the women, is NOT only by making them bare their skin in the Public, but also because of this... read how women are going through because of the Problems and pressure due to work...
"Elaine Smith, marketing manager for Florette Fruit, which surveyed 3,000 women said: "Women today are so busy trying to have it all - the job, the family, the social life - that somehow we've ended up with nothing.
Four in ten said they hated their job while another four out of ten said they would be happier with life if they could take more holidays.
"A huge part of that interference is a 'but', whether it's 'I wish I could say yes to that invite, but I don't have the energy' or 'I wish I could relax but I need to get this done.'
... Islam on the other hand CLEARLY mentions the Role of a woman and makes it clear to the Men, that NOT to make women or force them to work, rather take care of them and if their families are not able enough to take care of them, that is the single females, then the Government issues a monthly stipend for them so that they are not exploited ....
"And they (women) have rights Similar to those (of men) over them, and men are a Degree above them." (Al Quran 2:228)
The word... 'Degree' ... many hostile critics of Islam , point that means "Superiority" of man over woman.... NO ... rather this Degree means Maintenance and Protection! The natural difference in between the Sexes makes the stronger sex protect and take care of the weaker sex. It implies no superiority! Niether does it mean dictatorship by man over woman.... rather the Quran elsehwhere clearly mentions that both are required to make decisions pertaining to family matters....
So just clearing the Islamic Point of View as compared to Western Secular way of Dealing with Women.... and so i agree with Sister H-N that women are being exploited in many ways in the Western world in the name of ..."freedom"..
I understand what you're trying to say and there's no doubt that in a lot of cases women are exploited by their bosses or co-workers. I don't think that *just because* a woman goes to work is exploitation which was the comment I was responding to in the previous thread. However, I don't think flirting is exploiting. People flirt when they work in a mixed environment and you can think that it's immoral but I don't see how flirting is exploitation unless you have a case where a woman is being sexually harassed.
Peace Lynx,
Is there anything you find immoral excluding an act that harms someone?
Those who believe and obscure not their belief by wrongdoing, theirs is safety; and they are rightly guided. (6:86)
Behold! verily on the friends of Allah there is no fear, nor shall they grieve. (10:62)
Is there anything you find immoral excluding an act that harms someone?
Atheists do not find anything immoral unless it physically harms someone
He it is Who sends blessings on you, as do His angels, that He may bring you out from the depths of Darkness into Light: and He is Full of Mercy to the Believers. [Quran {33:43}] www.QuranicAudio.com www.Quran.com
Atheists do not find anything immoral unless it physically harms someone
While I may be a deist, I am affectively an agnostic/atheist because I don't subscribe to a religion. I disagree with your statement and, given my outlook, my opinion holds more weight when it comes to views of atheists. Speaking for myself and several atheists that I know, I've never heard an atheist qualify immorality as strictly physical harm.
While I may be a deist, I am affectively an agnostic/atheist because I don't subscribe to a religion. I disagree with your statement and, given my outlook, my opinion holds more weight when it comes to views of atheists. Speaking for myself and several atheists that I know, I've never heard an atheist qualify immorality as strictly physical harm.
Well I have and they're on this forum. All I ever hear from atheists commenting on immoral things is: 'It doesn't hurt anyone so I do see any problem'
He it is Who sends blessings on you, as do His angels, that He may bring you out from the depths of Darkness into Light: and He is Full of Mercy to the Believers. [Quran {33:43}] www.QuranicAudio.com www.Quran.com
While I may be a deist, I am affectively an agnostic/atheist because I don't subscribe to a religion. I disagree with your statement and, given my outlook, my opinion holds more weight when it comes to views of atheists. Speaking for myself and several atheists that I know, I've never heard an atheist qualify immorality as strictly physical harm.
Since us Muslims we use Divine Revelation to guide us towards what Halaal (legal) whats Haraam (Illegal) and so we use it as our Criteria to determine what is Immorality... and how to save one from Immorality and how to do things Morally and how to act Morally and also whats Modesty (haya)... it is all defined for us... as we Humans , our minds are not equipped to determine what is Right and What is Wrong , what is the definition of what is right and what is wrong...in atheism how do you determine ?
Because every time mankind has used their own Head to determine, has come up with a Ideology or an 'Ism' which has lead to more problems...
Well I have and they're on this forum. All I ever hear from atheists commenting on immoral things is: 'It doesn't hurt anyone so I do see any problem'
When an atheist says "do no harm to others", he/she means don't do harm to others of either a physical, psychological, economical, or any other nature - it isn't just about physical harm. A crime like murder is clearly physical harm among other things, a crime like theft is clearly economic harm among other things, slander would be psychological harm, etc. When the term harm is defined this way, I agree that most atheists hold such a view.
I personally take this idea further than most atheists to also mean "do no harm to yourself". By that, I mean it's morally wrong for someone to do something that will harm him/herself either physically, psychologically, economically or otherwise. In addition to their adverse social effects, I say that drug and alcohol abuse, suicide, immodesty, spending beyond means, ignorance, poor diet, lack of personal hygiene and many other things are wrong by the harmful effects to oneself.
Since us Muslims we use Divine Revelation to guide us towards what Halaal (legal) whats Haraam (Illegal) and so we use it as our Criteria to determine what is Immorality... and how to save one from Immorality and how to do things Morally and how to act Morally and also whats Modesty (haya)... it is all defined for us... as we Humans , our minds are not equipped to determine what is Right and What is Wrong , what is the definition of what is right and what is wrong...in atheism how do you determine ?
Atheism is not a religion nor a system of ethics, it's merely the lack of belief in God and religion. There is no prescribed atheistic definition of right and wrong. Many atheists adhere to moral systems, prescribed via some ideology, but there is no one morality intrinsically linked to atheism. Nevertheless, there seems to be an agreement among many such people that, if there were some universal doctrine of morality, it would at it's heart prescribe the golden rule.
Atheism is not a religion nor a system of ethics, it's merely the lack of belief in God and religion. There is no prescribed atheistic definition of right and wrong. Many atheists adhere to moral systems, prescribed via some ideology, but there is no one morality intrinsically linked to atheism. Nevertheless, there seems to be an agreement among many such people that, if there were some universal doctrine of morality, it would at it's heart prescribe the golden rule.
Thats surprising why would you follow such a Concept in which you have to go looking and search in each and every Ideology to find solutions for different problems of yours.... so in my example in Islam... there are laws pertaining to business dealings as well as taking care of my mother, how to deal in regards to Marital issues as well as how to distribute Property if i am about to die....for me its ALL in ONE... and even if you do find solutions to the problems of your life in different ideologies, then are you sure that one might not Conflict with the other ?? and if yes then what makes you so sure that one ideologies concept might not conflict with the other ?
In Islam everything is in Harmony with One another, rights of your Wife, do not conflict with the Rights of Your parents...
And example...
Islam teaches me to deal with justice when it comes to dealing with peoples money, and give them their due share and be honest, and if you owe someone, you have to pay them even after your death, and that is tell your children or brothers/sisters/parents to pay from your share , if you know you wont be able to pay in your life time.... and so there is a way of dealing with all situations concerning ones life... and why would i care to pay that person off ? Because i will be held on the Day of Judgment for any money i owed to any one in this World...because of My Fear of Allah that person can get the money who might be waiting for me to give him, so may be he could get a debt payment paid or get his treatment in Hospital for some illness he had and was not able to pay.... so just because of Fear of Allah led me not only observe Justice but also help and care other person even though i am leaving the world....
Nevertheless, there seems to be an agreement among many such people that, if there were some universal doctrine of morality, it would at it's heart prescribe the golden rule
There exists a Doctrine of Morality, a Universal one for all mankind...... just one thing i would like you to look in to...
When did all the Human Rights which are spoken of in Conferences of United Nations, when were such Human Rights ever given in the History of Man kind... or where did the World suddenly come up with such Rights and Laws regarding , Men, Women, and Children ? If you dwelve deeply, you WONT find ANY Pre-Islamic Civilization giving such Rights.... all of those came to the view of the World after the Coming up of Islamic Civilization... and West of today, did NOT learn any thing about rights and laws untill Constantinople fell to Muslims .... and Cordoba Spain was taken over and Muslims were expelled forced in to accepting Christianity AND all their Books regarding knowledge on all subjects, which numbered in Thousands were seized by King Ferdinand and Isabella.....
So search and you'll find out whether if there is any Universal Moral Law on Earth ...
even if you do find solutions to the problems of your life in different ideologies, then are you sure that one might not Conflict with the other ?? and if yes then what makes you so sure that one ideologies concept might not conflict with the other ?
Since Atheism, Agnostism and Deism are quite different from systematic ideologies, it sometimes doesn't make sense to refer to these non-religious people by such terms, especially when discussing values. Many non-believers would refer to their moral system as Humanism or Secular Humanism although those ideologies aren't just for non-believers. Of course, there are other atheists who subscribe to Communism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Christian values, Hindu values or even Islamic values. I'd expect that most would stick to one ideology, but I'd also expect there to be a lot of overlap between systems just as there is in religion.
Yes, Islam is a complete system, not only for ethics but for all areas of society and life. It's great that you can embrace the whole package, no questions asked. While this system may indeed be the most wonderful and consistent thing on earth, the fact remains, non-believers are unlikely to pick it up if they are also expected to believe the theology.
and why would i care to pay that person off ? Because i will be held on the Day of Judgment for any money i owed to any one in this World...because of My Fear of Allah that person can get the money who might be waiting for me to give him, so may be he could get a debt payment paid or get his treatment in Hospital for some illness he had and was not able to pay.... so just because of Fear of Allah led me not only observe Justice but also help and care other person even though i am leaving the world....
For the most part, I think I agree with what Islam considers moral or immoral. Other non-believers may think otherwise so I can only speak for myself. I guess one difference between a Muslim and a non-believer is that a Muslim is motivated by the fear of God while a deist like me is motivated by the desire to be content in this life. Acting with integrity tends to make you happier than acting immorally. Do you know any truly happy people who lie, cheat and plunder?
When did all the Human Rights which are spoken of in Conferences of United Nations, when were such Human Rights ever given in the History of Man kind... or where did the World suddenly come up with such Rights and Laws regarding , Men, Women, and Children ? If you dwelve deeply, you WONT find ANY Pre-Islamic Civilization giving such Rights.... all of those came to the view of the World after the Coming up of Islamic Civilization... and West of today, did NOT learn any thing about rights and laws untill Constantinople fell to Muslims .... and Cordoba Spain was taken over and Muslims were expelled forced in to accepting Christianity AND all their Books regarding knowledge on all subjects, which numbered in Thousands were seized by King Ferdinand and Isabella.....
I'll have to catch up on my history reading but I am aware that your Prophet's society was one of the first (if not the first) socialist state. The Islamic empires of old were very progressive societies compared to the rest of the world at that time.
Atheism is not a religion nor a system of ethics, it's merely the lack of belief in God and religion.
Just a quick digression, this defintion has come up time and time again on this forum (and many others) but its open to question.
Heres an answer to this question from a Christian perspective, Im not sure what the Islamic position is.
Subject: Definition of Atheism
In my discussions with atheists, they are using the term that they "lack belief in God". They claim that this is different from not believing in God or from saying that God does not exist. I'm not sure how to respond to this. It seems to me that its a silly word-play and is logically the same as saying that you do not believe in God.
What would be a good response to this?
Thank you for your time,
Steven
Dr. Craig responds:
Your atheist friends are right that there is an important logical difference between believing that there is no God and not believing that there is a God. Compare my saying , “I believe that there is no gold on Mars” with my saying “I do not believe that there is gold on Mars.” If I have no opinion on the matter, then I do not believe that there is gold on Mars, and I do not believe that there is no gold on Mars. There’s a difference between saying, “I do not believe (p)” and “I believe (not-p).” Logically where you place the negation makes a world of difference.
But where your atheist friends err is in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.
There’s a history behind this. Certain atheists in the mid-twentieth century were promoting the so-called “presumption of atheism.” At face value, this would appear to be the claim that in the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist. Atheism is a sort of default position, and the theist bears a special burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists.
So understood, such an alleged presumption is clearly mistaken. For the assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. It is the agnostic who makes no knowledge claim at all with respect to God’s existence. He confesses that he doesn’t know whether there is a God or whether there is no God.
But when you look more closely at how protagonists of the presumption of atheism used the term “atheist,” you discover that they were defining the word in a non-standard way, synonymous with “non-theist." So understood the term would encompass agnostics and traditional atheists, along with those who think the question meaningless (verificationists). As Antony Flew confesses,
the word ‘atheist’ has in the present context to be construed in an unusual way. Nowadays it is normally taken to mean someone who explicitly denies the existence . . . of God . . . But here it has to be understood not positively but negatively, with the originally Greek prefix ‘a-’ being read in this same way in ‘atheist’ as it customarily is in . . . words as ‘amoral’ . . . . In this interpretation an atheist becomes not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God, but someone who is simply not a theist. (A Companion to Philosophy of Religion, ed. Philip Quinn and Charles Taliaferro [Oxford: Blackwell, 1997], s.v. “The Presumption of Atheism,” by Antony Flew)
Such a re-definition of the word “atheist” trivializes the claim of the presumption of atheism, for on this definition, atheism ceases to be a view. It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who hold various views or no view at all. On this re-definition, even babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists! In fact, our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she has (to my knowledge) no belief in God.
One would still require justification in order to know either that God exists or that He does not exist, which is the question we’re really interested in.
So why, you might wonder, would atheists be anxious to so trivialize their position? Here I agree with you that a deceptive game is being played by many atheists. If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of the burden of proof to support this view. But many atheists admit freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof. So they try to shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such makes no assertions. They are really closet agnostics who want to claim the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities.
This is disingenuous and still leaves us asking, “So is there a God or not?”
Just a quick digression, this defintion has come up time and time again on this forum (and many others) but its open to question.
Heres an answer to this question from a Christian perspective, Im not sure what the Islamic position is.
...
Again sorry for the (hopefully) slight derail
Salaam Junon,
Bill Craig is such a clever wordsmith. I've always enjoyed his God discussions but as soon as he gets into Jesus, I start rolling my eyes. Unlike atheists, I actually believe in God but I identify with atheists with respect to religion. I think it's the New Atheist, Richard Dawkins, who invented a seven-step scale of beliefs where:
Means you know that God exists
Means you think it's highly likely that God exists
Means you are not sure but leaning towards the belief in God
Means you are torn on the issue of whether God exists
Means you are not sure but leaning towards believing God doesn't exist
Means you think it's highly likely that God doesn't exist
Means you know that God doesn't exist
Dawkins, one of the most staunch of atheists, says he's a 6.5 on that scale. Even he contents that it would be foolish to assume the dogma of 7. Typical atheists are probably at around 5 or 6. Now, you might prefer to call them agnostic because they aren't completely certain of no God but, if you wanted to do that, then you may as well say that those at 2 and 3 are agnostic too by virtue of their lack of complete certainty that God exists. 4 would be a true agnostic but generally there are theistic-leaning agnostics and atheistic-leaning agnostics.
The family system in the Western World has collapsed because of Women being taken out of the House to work. and as you said they "enjoy" lets see how dangerous such enjoyment can be... just to let you know that majority of women do NOT enjoy working....
I don't think most men enjoy working either but some men do and some women do as well and they should be able to pursue this enjoyment.
The mortgage your referring to brother is not right in the 1st place... how ? Because the House that women and men and families buy on Loans of hundreds and thousands of dollars, while not having that amount with them at that time, keeps them in Slavery and Debt for years and years.... rather if they are not able to pay some payments, they are taken out of their Houses in which they have lived and also the collateral which the bank keeps SEIZES as well.... so buying an expensive House which is unaffordable in the 1st place and becoming a slave to a bank, is NOT the right way to go about in ones life in the 1st place, whether man or woman..... this is how banks take advantage over you, all they do is issue a Loan and sit and relax and your work your whole life trying to pay for something for which there is NO guarantee that you would own it after 20 or 25 years.... and so Women have been FORCED by expensive loans and buying things on Credit which has made their Husbands income not sufficient and so they have to get out of the House and Work...
slavery is when you are forced against your will to work or serve someone for no compensation. when a couple of a woman or a man buys a house he/she willingly trades their money for the house. They know that they won't be able to pay off the house right away but they voluntarily step into the credit cycle because the added interest + the principle is less than their expected marginal benefit (i.e., enjoying the house). There's no slavery when the market is free and people choose what to buy or not buy. if they don't want to be paying off a bill for years then they can rent until they save up enough to buy all at once or buy a cheap house that won't require them to pay their debt off. and i don't see anything wrong with claiming a house in which the would-be owners failed to pay their debt.
2nd Point. ... Capitalism which gave birth to Industrialization, has increased Production at a MASSIVE rate like never before in the World. The manufacturing is booming and never stops and people because of Capitalism, are able to buy those things which they could not afford before, JUST Because they have a Credit card with amount of money... and once they do purchases, they keep making payments for something which they don't own..... such Massive production made Capitalists want more population to work and so in this case also , females were brought OUT of the houses while leaving their Children in the hands of others... and nowadays, since the feminist revolution, its Baby Sitters....
yes you're right capitalism is the most successful economic model ever. it skyrocketed productivity which skyrocketed living standards. capitalism is great.
Do you really think that a Baby Sitter or a Child Day care Facility will take care of the Child or have feelings for the CHild like his/her mother would have for them ?!?
i don't know what you're talking about. parents who work can raise their kids just fine.
The Child day cares and Baby sitters cannot do the Job of a Mother.... they have too many of their OWN problems to think of... and it is because of this that family system is being taken apart... thanks to Feminist Revolution... women are being told ... "you are just like men".... while women without understanding , with no one to guide accept whatever they are told and follow whatever comes their way.... thinking its Freedom ! while actually they are being Lured in to work force, while the women are NOT to be burdened by work as, the nature of Man is to work and women are the weaker sex (biologically proven as well) and they are to be Protected! thats the Message of Islam for Family system...
the first part of what you say requires citations from sociological studies. the part about women being weaker and therefore should not work is a bit weird; what type of strength do women need to work? they aren't lifting weights at work...women seem to do just fine. maybe you should make more women friends?!
Ponder over this article and this Might help understand what i am saying....
if you try readiing the article of just one City in Europe where women are forced to work... and i call it forced because having Expensive loans and not being able to pay for them or the husbands cheating and leaving them and government not supporting them, or their kids becoming 18 or 19 and leaving them alone and then they have to carry their own burden, makes them choose professions and leave their homes which they would NOT have if they were given the Option! ... so this article clearly shows how Women are being torn apart in their Lives... the Exploitation which takes place of the women, is NOT only by making them bare their skin in the Public, but also because of this... read how women are going through because of the Problems and pressure due to work...
"Elaine Smith, marketing manager for Florette Fruit, which surveyed 3,000 women said: "Women today are so busy trying to have it all - the job, the family, the social life - that somehow we've ended up with nothing.
Four in ten said they hated their job while another four out of ten said they would be happier with life if they could take more holidays.
[FONT="]"A huge part of that interference is a 'but', whether it's 'I wish I could say yes to that invite, but I don't have the energy' or 'I wish I could relax but I need to get this done.'
The article is talking about women who are bored in their daily routines. i think you should re-read the article as it doesn't really support your position. i am pretty sure if those women were all house wives they'd still be bored..look at the last paragraph where it shows the top 10s!
...
[SIZE=3]Islam on the other hand CLEARLY mentions the Role of a woman and makes it clear to the Men, that NOT to make women or force them to work, rather take care of them and if their families are not able enough to take care of them, that is the single females, then the Government issues a monthly stipend for them so that they are not exploited ....
sending government checks to people has its problems otherwise welfare would not be such a disputed topic. anyway, i agree no woman should be forced to work and thankfully in the capitalist economies no woman is forced to work. its her choice to live in whatever conditions she wants to live. there's scarcity and you can't give everyone everything they want-there has to be a cost. exploitation is a marxist myth; it simply doesn't happen
Last edited by Lynx; 07-09-2010 at 03:43 AM.
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.
-Plato
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
it is a term used by psychologists to describe a situation where, due to a certain thing being morally unacceptable, one finds/refers to a more morally acceptable means to express it. I don’t think women would find being flirted with and treated like that fun, if it wasn’t for the “funny” and clever way the male shows it.
Originally Posted by Lynx 
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks