From: sarkar@grip.cis.upenn.edu (Nilanjan Sarkar)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bangladesh,soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.indian
Subject: Re: Contradictions in Quaran
Date: 19 Aug 92 00:19:45 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.bangladesh
Organization: GRASP Lab, University of Pennsylvania

In article <dogar.714150767@opal4> dogar@rtsg.mot.com (Haroon H. Dogar) writes:
>sarkar@grip.cis.upenn.edu (Nilanjan Sarkar) writes:
>



First, this has to be my last post in this context. It is really getting
tiresome. 

Now I do not think you can really show one biological difference namely
man can not bear child whereas woman can and then translate that into
the clause that if that is not sexist then some religious regulations
which differentiate between sexes are also not sexist. Although I do not
know of any man who grumbles because of this inability, there is nothing
much, at least as of now, that we can do about it. 

Now, these regulations are something which are not "natural" i.e. these
are not product of evolution - somebody has created those. If both sexes
agree that these are fine and mutually benifitting then there is no problem.
I am willing to believe that when these laws first came into effect, at that
period of human civilization, majority of both sexes thought those were the
best. You may argue that even at present they are the best. No problem so far.
But tell me , how do you ensure that these laws will remain best till 
time= t_infinity ? Can not a modern woman think that these laws are sexist
because not only did it not take her opinion (which of course was not possible
few hundred years back) but also it does not have a provision to take
the opinion of those on whom it will be applicable ? It is this mandatory
nature, it is this "never" clause that no matter what never will the
woman have the right of polyandry makes it sexist. Ask the t=t_present
womenfolk whether they want polyandry or stop polygyny and then decide
what to do does not make it sexist. If the law had a provision that
polygyny in the absence of polyandry was best at that time but future
generation - both man and woman - will decide whether to keep it or change
it and will continue to do so - it would not be sexist. 


Consider all the examples you gave in this light. Man and woman have
different sporting events in Olympic. Present day society recognizes
the strength difference of both sexes and thinks it is unfair to ask
woman to compete with man. But, nowhere does it say that woman will never
be able to compete with man. Say for some reason, due to some weired
evolutionary process next generation woman becomes as strong as man.
Then they may as well compete with man - there is nothing that says
you can never. Today in most places women can not roam topless. True.
That is because present day majority has decided that (although I am
not saying that is not sexist) but in deciding that woman has also
equal say and more importantly there is always provision to change it
through democratic process. If Islam recommends patriarchical society -
no problem. But if it says there can never be matriarchical society
then I think it is unfair. I am not sure whether I am conveying 
clearly what bothers me most - for the last time - it is the
"never" clause and no say of those on whom it is applied.





>

>
>-hd
>Damn. I promised myself I wouldn't post for at least a week.
>Oh well. Time to try again. :-)


Nilanjan


P.S. I am taking off from the net for sometime and won't be able
     to follow up any of my previous posts. Sorry.