Fundamental Feminism

Thursday, July 29, 2010


I finished both Infidel and Nomad by Ayaan Hersi Ali. She argues strongly that people who are Muslims believe in the absolute literal truth of the Quran and so are easy to turn to violence in defense of their religion. Her argument is that the Quran says, “Kill the infidels” and” if you suspect your wife will be disobedient, beat her”. She maintains that a large number of them will follow those directions when pushed.

My basic belief has been that only about 4-6% of the people are sociopaths. The rest love and care for others and will take a moderate stance about killing others. That is the basic framework. Of course people are also given to prejudice, grouping together while dehumanizing others especially in times of war. They have negative impulses like hate, defensiveness and the talionic impulse (revenge). My hope is that even though people do go to war, in the long run they will arrange for moderation to win out and violence to take second place.

Still, Ali gives lots of examples of people using violence to get their way. Also, it was true that in Afghanistan the suppression of women went to extremes. You could say that it goes to extremes in many Muslim countries. The counter argument is that the countries about which she writes are backward dictatorships. So it could be argued that violent actions in more advanced countries are done by immigrants from those backward countries or are aberrations. Also, another Ali point is that arranged marriages and using of the veil are ways of keeping women in their place and happen in most Muslim countries.


In the end I think I will find that the discriminatory practices against women are widespread with Muslims but are not universal. I think that there are many enlightened Muslims who will resist the fundamentalist movement. Apparently there is an increase in fundamentalist Islamic thinking and practices throughout the world’s Muslim cultures. The question is how far it will go before it reaches a high point and begins to recede. I could also note that there has simultaneously been an increase in other kinds of fundamentalism too, such as Christian fundamentalism. I think that as the word becomes more influenced by technology and globalization people become overwhelmed fearing there is too much they don’t understand and embarrassed that the world is changing too fast for them to catch up. Then with instant communication they see that their kids and everyone else will know about their inadequacy. Turning to the simple answers of simple religions is a relief. There is less to have to think about and less to decide. They see simple, clear, permanent answers that give them a feeling of security, closure and resolution. As they learn those simple answers they are back in charge and it feels wonderful. The man is back in charge of his woman and has at least the moral advantage over his children. Interestingly, in some Muslim countries where the women do not have the right to choose their husbands, have no influence over money, and don’t even control their own bodies sexually, many women are turning to fundamentalist Islam. There was no explanation in the report I read. I suspect that having a firm grasp on the female role somehow gives them a sense of control. Of course there are no simple answers that really work in the long run so the solution they find in religion is not permanent after all. But they don’t realize that now and even if they suspected it, it would be a worry for another day


Nevertheless I wonder how far primitive attitudes toward women will go. None of the advanced countries in the world is Muslim. The more advanced countries are Turkey, Egypt and perhaps Saudi Arabia. My measurement would be average income and levels of education. But in Saudi Arabia there is Wahhabism and women with no political power-- or even the ability to drive. In Egypt there is much violence and 97% of the women are genitally mutilated. Turkey I know less about. But it does have a secular government and is a democracy. There is Morocco but I know even less about it.


I’ll continue my education and see if I can learn more that will either give me more hope of less hope.

7-23-2010 The Suffer-for-Joy Principle

Today, after a long period of inactivity, I exercised and practiced the organ. Those are the two activities that get my brain working. So now, late in the evening, my brain is jumping. What I write here should be brilliant. It will also be subtle in its brilliance--written on two or more levels simultaneously. Some of my duller readers won't pick up on the brilliance and will think it ordinary. Only those who are themselves quite cleaver will appreciate the gems herein.


Lorri got her hair permed today and it worked well. Now she'll be able to swim in Hawaii without having to worry much about her hair. I started feeling a little of the restless feeling in my legs so I took about 22 oz. of Gatorade which worked well. However I didn't pee after drinking it so I was more dehydrated that I knew. The exercise might have contributed to drying me out. There have been many times when I felt off-center and took Gatorade or water and felt much better. I need to remember to do that more often. The other thing that can help me feel better is yogurt. When I take just one cup per day it makes me feel better. Since that works well it is amazing that I don't remember it more often.

This line of thought leads me to an unfortunate principle in the world. It is the notion that when problems are avoided by taking measures, sometimes simple measures, sometimes difficult measures-- a person gets little or no credit for preventing the problem. If a problem happens and a person steps in and fixes it he does get credit for it. I first became aware of this phenomenon when people were explaining why god put suffering in the world. They would explain that we could not know happiness unless we had unhappiness with which to contrast it. Only when we suffered pain, or loss or failure could we really appreciate the opposite state. And that is true, at least to some extent. Bad things do make us appreciate good things more. Let's call this principle the suffer-for-joy principle. But when people argue that god had to put bad in the world so that we could appreciate good they forget that god is supposed to have been an omnipotent creator. She made the world and all the rules or laws--or principles-- by which the world operates. He could just as easily have made people so that we were thrilled with good things even there were no bad things for contrast. Instead we are forced to suffer with bad things in order appreciate the good. If there were a god and she were kind, there would be no suffering. I won't even start to deal with the old cop-out of "we just don't understand God's plan and if we did it would all make sense". Such bullshit. We are the smartest critters in the universe--so far as we know-- and we’re pretty smart when we are at our best. If we can conceive of a world without the need for a suffer-for-joy principle why couldn’t an all knowing god?

Anyway, since I encountered that adolescent sophism I have always rebelled against the suffer-for-joy principle. But I have taken it beyond that and rebelled at the idea of taking preventative action to avoid problems. This is not so much suffer-for-joy as work-to-avoid-problems. I know, I know, my approach is not a smart way to live. A concrete example is that I like to rescue plants that are on death's door--shriveled and brown. I take painstaking care of them and before long they are thriving. It makes me feel as though I've accomplished something. But then I gradually forget to water them and they start a slow downhill decline. It ends up as a vicious cycle. I could avoid that cycle with consistent watering and fertilizing, but for some perverse reason I don't enjoy that so much. For one thing, I figure that much effort and energy can be taken to proactively avoid problems. But if the effort is successful you never know if you really needed to take so much trouble.