And it wasn't that long ago that some Muslim sects forbade their women from working and from getting an education. Just to keep them down.
And being forced to cover themselves? That's to ward off being tempting to other men, right? Well, who's frickin' fault is it if a guy gets aroused looking at a woman? It's the guy's issue - not the chick. What? These guys can't control themselves if they see a thigh? That's what's pathetic: not the women, the men. All these directives are aimed at making the woman null - because the men there need strict legislation to keep their women with them.
Remember that cartoon a few years back satirizing the prophet Mohammad that had the Islamic world up in arms? Well, that's the same mentality at work. They would rather deny YOU the right to free speech and censor you to assure compliance to their own particular religious views. Just like they want to deny food to their wives to assure compliance in the bedroom.
I’m a Muslim, who was born in Afghanistan, so I’m just going to share a different spotlight, and educate some of you folk who have no knowledge of Islamic law, Afghan culture, and other misinformation related to the new Afghan law.
There are no Muslim sects that forbid Muslim women from working and getting a education.
No one is being forced to cover themselves. Its not the woman either, men follow the same guidelines except the face is shown.
How can you not get aroused, you might not get an actual blood pumping erection, but your mind goes on overload and your testosterone starts to get ready.
The assumption of strict legislation to keep their women with them is a ludicrous assumption.
The problem with the satire about the Prophet wasn't the satire, it was the fact that you can't draw the Prophet, you can draw his body, but not his face. Also, I'm sure you didn't read the comic, because it was really insulting. It was beyond a satire.
Fundamental muslims are AFCs.
Care to explain?
More proof that marriages are pure bullsh1t from the other side of the planet.
The women in Afghanistan have it really bad over there. They are forced into arranged marriages and also are forced to be attracted to men who will probably beat the sh1t out of them sensley if they aren't pleased. Those women also don't own sh1t plus asking for divorce would probably mean potential death for them or being kicked into the streets like a dog with no laws to protect you. Also by covering up the women, not allowing them to walk alone on the streets, having arranged marriages and honor killings pretty much ensures that a Don Juan would not thrive there.
Meanwhile in North America we got the powerhungry feminists who are never satisfied despite the scale being tipped favouring women in marriages and these feminists would only be satisfied when married men would be treated like married women in Afghanistan (complete emasculation of men and masculation of women).
The root of all evil here are marriages because the majority of the time it doesn't work for most and the sh1t ends up hitting the fan in the end.
No they are not forced into arranged marriage. The women see the guy, the guy sees the women without the burkha. They feel the other family out, and if everything is good to go, then the couple gives the go ahead, then the parents. No women gets beat, unless she’s committed a major sin. If she displeases her husband, he is not allowed to lay a hand on her, and the only thing he can hit her with is a Miswak, the original toothbrush. So imagine beating your girlfriend with a toothbrush.
Honor killings happen because again of a major crime. It’s a third world country, if you rape my sister, my family will personally kill you.
Are you saying in Afghanistan, the men are emasculate and the women masculine?
This is true, but there is no moral equivalence between how women are treated in Islamic fundamentalist dictatorships and they way men treated in an open, democratic society, especially in which they have a voice to effect change to the laws of the land.
While men may get the short end of the stick when it comes to marriage and divorce, men in the west are still free to avoid completely that hornet's nest, if they choose. And whether or not our women are happier, they ARE liberated, sexually speaking, to a point where a man no longer has to endure societal pressure to sacrifice his freedom just to sleep with one, let alone several, women.
And I see what you're saying that women's lib has created plenty of misery for females, and that is what they were asking for. But do you honestly want to live in a world where females are covered in burkas and treated as walking, breathing vulgarities, subject to f*cked up gang-rape sentencing if they so much as glance the wrong way at the wrong guy?
I’ve never heard of a gang rape sentencing.
I don't think it should be a zero-sum game where shoddy treatment of females around the world makes up for shoddy treatment of men in the US. And I don't think there is anything "DJ" about needing a law to compel your wife to fukk you every four days. After all, we're talking about the same p*ssies who flew planes into buildings on the promise of 72 virgins in the afterlife.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but I'd rather call b.s. on both situations than use one as justification for another.
Are you so ignorant you lump a whole country together by the actions of a few, many of whom were not even Afghan?
