It started off with such promise, but the revolution in Egypt will fail because the right to political and social equality for half of the population is held in contempt by the vast majority of its populace. The archaic anti-enlightenment belief directly supported by islam that women do not and should not have the same political and social rights as men has not been overthrown.
A demonstration on International Women’s Day by 300 women advocating for equality reveals this truth. The group was attacked and broken up by a much larger group of men who reportedly groped and beat and chased these women from Tahrir Square. But this depressing result should not be surprising. PEW polling data reveals the scope and breadth of beliefs held by the vast majority of Egyptians that stand diametrically opposed to establishing political and social equality for women. And without equality in law for all citizens, the revolution is simply a period of time between being ruled by different strongmen.
Move along, folks. Nothing new to see here.
tildeb
Questionable Motives 
“And without equality in law for all citizens, the revolution is simply a period of time between being ruled by different strongmen.” (tildeb)
The premise is right and women’s rights have to be addressed if the movement to true freedom for Egypt will be achieved.
However, I feel much of the problem is the replacement of the strongman will be with another strongman puppeted by the money of the West (ie: over oil). Is the problem in that country or it’s economic influencers?
Comment by SocietyVs — March 10, 2011 @ 5:20 pm |
I agree. I think it’s makes perfect sense for different leaders of the West to want someone in a position of authority who will help rather than hinder their policies and goals. So would you. So would I. And whether we want to admit it or not, economics is a powerful influence for everybody. That doesn’t necessarily make it a bad influence but it does make it an important consideration.
Comment by tildeb — March 10, 2011 @ 8:55 pm |
“So would you. So would I.: (tildeb)
Problem is, I don’t. I want Egypt to control its own country and the way it wants to function, aside from Western and Political interference…it’s called self determination…which is a concept I agree with.
I think because the world has become ‘globalized’ the West thinks it can still retain that type of global control – usually economically and politically. It’s a form of bullying and I am pretty sure none of us like it when the gov’t tries to control our personal lives…why should we respect it when they try to do it in Egypt?
Comment by SocietyVs — March 11, 2011 @ 11:58 am
BTW, love the blog – added you as a link – even the topics are pretty interesting!
Comment by SocietyVs — March 11, 2011 @ 11:59 am
In general, we’re in agreement. But it’s in the particulars where the differences become problematic.
What is the political basis for self determination? I happen to think it lies at the very root of the population: the individual. Unless the political authority comes from the individual, I don’t think it has legitimacy. And the only way I can see the individual having the necessary authority to legitimize governance is through law that recognizes the base as the individual in law. This means in practice that individuals must have the same rights and responsibilities in law as all others.
When a populace doesn’t recognize this common basis in law then I think something else has to be used, and it is here where we find so much trouble. Self determination morphs into some kind of group determination where one group’s rights differ in some important and meaningful way than another. Governance of all groups becomes an exercise in favouritism and special exemptions from common law. This makes governance illegitimate for some and rightly so.
When the populace refuses to accept full and equal rights of citizenship for some under the law, then the very idea of self determination is directly undermined and it is into this vacuum where a strongman finds his niche.
I understand your anger at economic imperialism – from the local to the global. It is both a necessity and an enemy to the individual. It can be a great tide that raises all boats and a disaster able to cause vast destruction. It is easy to argue economic imperialism as one side or another but I suggest a middle way is the only way: although it’s the worst idea possible, it’s the only one that seems to work. We must control it but that’s a different topic.
What’s happening in Egypt may turn out for the best and I sincerely hope it will, but I doubt it is possible because the necessary enlightenment values of what self determination actually looks like in practice has yet to take hold. There are too many social and cultural and religious impediments for these values to gain a foothold.
Comment by tildeb — March 11, 2011 @ 4:03 pm
BTW, love the blog – added you as a link – even the topics are pretty interesting!
I think they’re interesting too, but then… I’m pretty biased!
Comment by tildeb — March 11, 2011 @ 4:06 pm
Wow, everything with you is about religion. Dont you realize that some people just like MONEY a lot more than their god. Oil and Money buddy, its pretty simple.
Comment by Titfortat — March 10, 2011 @ 7:12 pm |
Regarding the post I wrote, the attack on the women was not motivated by oil and money; it was motivated by faith-based belief that is present both in the religion of islam as well as the local cultural customs about the acceptable role gender plays in public action. As long as these practicies remain unchallenged by the vast majority of the general population, then the ‘revolution’ is just a transition period from what was to more of the same under a different name.
It seems to me that you sometime apply your bias about the west too quickly before actually comprehending the thesis of the post.
Comment by tildeb — March 10, 2011 @ 8:52 pm |
Regarding the post I wrote, the attack on the women was not motivated by oil and money; it was motivated by faith-based belief(tildeb)
And you know that how? Because you saw a news report stating that? Must be a scientific one Im sure.
Comment by Titfortat — March 10, 2011 @ 11:19 pm
The faith-based belief is misogyny, meaning it forms a central part of sexist prejudice and ideology and, as such, is an important basis for the oppression of females in Egypt’s male-dominated society. It is a faith-based belief in that it is not formed on reason and evidence of women’s inferiority caused by gender but its assumption that such inferiority is true resulting in civil and legal discrimination. To hold and maintain this belief in the absence of evidence is a matter of faith, the same kind of faith that empowers religious belief and held to be a virtue. What we see being played out on the streets of Cairo is what this faith looks like in action: misogyny. And I don’t think belief in the absence of evidence is a virtue whatsoever but a clear and definitive fault that reveals poor thinking and unfounded conclusions that have no merit to be claimed as true but possess the power to inflict unnecessary suffering when the belief is exercised.
How do I know the anti-demonstrators were exercising their faith-based belief? From multiple sources:
“As upwards of 300 marchers assembled late Tuesday afternoon, men began taunting them, insisting that a woman could never be president and objecting to women’s demands to have a role in drafting a new constitution, witnesses said.
“People were saying that women were dividing the revolution and should be happy with the rights they have,” said Ebony Coletu, 36, an American who teaches at American University in Cairo and attended the march, as she put it, “in solidarity.”
You assume TfT that whenever I write the term faith-based belief that I am referring solely to religion itself. I’m not. I’m referring to the same kind of belief that informs religious claims – the kind not based on evidence and a sound, reliable, consistent epistemology that can be independently verified but assumption and assertion that is exempt from having to show that it is true.
Faith-based beliefs are ubiquitous. They are the result of a broken epistemology. The kind of belief that assumes the truth of its conclusion without doing the heavy lifting required to arrive at that conclusion stands in conflict with the method we call science and we find faith the central pillar of such fine results like pseudo-science, anti-vaccine proponents, conspiracy theories, homeopathy, chiropracty, raiki, faith-healing, superstition, complimentary and alternative medicine, astrology, alchemy, dowsing, phrenology, numerology, and so on as well as long-standing social biases and discriminations that equally have no bearing in fact, on no evidence BUT belief that something is true, that some state of being is simply so. This is the same kind of belief that is held up to be virtuous in religions: assumptions of truth. Science holds faith-based beliefs to be a fault because of unreliable epistemology that produces inconsistent results and I have to agree, perhaps explaining why the score remains 100% in favour of scientific claims versus religious one so when a faith-based belief comes smack up against a scientific claim, smack up against a human right, smack up against a human freedom, smack up against human dignity let’s remember that supporting any particular faith-based belief is really a vote of approval and sign of confidence for the general epistemology that is also used to smack legitimate human concerns in the face.
Isn’t it high time that those of us who know better than to trust the truth of faith-based beliefs smack back at those who promote them and use whatever tone is required to go after and find fault with expressions of faith-based beliefs wherever we find them? Isn’t that the very least we can do for people everywhere?
Comment by tildeb — March 11, 2011 @ 8:04 am
As upwards of 300 marchers assembled late Tuesday afternoon, men began taunting them, insisting that a woman could never be president and objecting to women’s demands to have a role in drafting a new constitution, witnesses said.(tildeb)
Talk about bias. I wish you would use your science based view of the world. For if you did then you would know that eye witness accounts of crime is one of the least accurate. But dont take my word on it, ask a cop. I have no doubt there are misogynists in Eygpt just like there are in North America but sometimes I wonder how much of your “feelings” get in the way of the big picture.
Comment by Titfortat — March 11, 2011 @ 9:26 am |
But I am using my science based method, TfT. I am using multiple sources – fully understanding that eye-witness testimony is the weakest kind. But the more eye-witness testimony from multiple sources there are that shows consistency, the higher the probability that the sources are reliable. Is it possible that the disruption of the march occurred because a group of people were searching for muppets beneath the clothing of the women in the march? Sure. But is it likely?
If you find that my ‘feelings’ get in the way of respecting what’s true, then by all means please point this out to me and I shall endeavor to do better. As for my feelings altering the big picture, I try to use ALL the evidence available to inform it as best I can. Again, I will continue to strive to do better because I miss stuff, too.
Comment by tildeb — March 11, 2011 @ 10:32 am |
tildeb
Any chance you could email of picture of yourself?
Comment by Titfortat — March 11, 2011 @ 9:27 am |
No.
Comment by tildeb — March 11, 2011 @ 10:32 am |
thought so.
Comment by Titfortat — March 11, 2011 @ 11:20 am
Death threats and actions have a way of putting personal requests for information into perspective. None of us, after all, is an island. The ideas expressed by all participants should be able to stand or fall simply on their own merit beyond the context of who says what. After all, it’s the internet and who knows if what individuals claim is true about personal stuff is in fact so. That’s why I keep it to the issues at hand and let people participate as much or as little as they choose. I hope you realize that my refusal to your request isn’t personal.
Comment by tildeb — March 11, 2011 @ 4:13 pm
But I am using my science based method, TfT(tildeb)
Ok, have you read much on why the middle east seems to have so many dictators? Do you ever wonder how they keep themselves in power? Do you ever think that the media that you watch and read has a vested interest in letting you believe that most of the unrest is about misogyny or fundamentalist religion? After all who owns the bulk of the media that we watch. Do you not think its just a tad biased, left or right? My beef with your post is the first paragraph. Freedom and democracy in the middle east would rise or fall because of anti enlightenment or misogyny or religion. It will or will not fail because of power and money and who the west decides to back, plain and simple. If you want to read an interesting book on the middle east and how our enlighten values help try this. American Raj by Eric Margolis. Amazing how accurate he was considering he wrote 3 years ago.
Comment by Titfortat — March 11, 2011 @ 11:28 am |
that should read “will not rise or fall because of anti enlightenment or misogyny or religion.”
Comment by Titfortat — March 11, 2011 @ 11:30 am |
It’s not just the Middle East that has dictators. According to the democracy index (pdf here), only 30 countries in the world have functioning democratic systems defined as national elections that are free and fair, voters are free to vote in safety, there is no manipulative influence by foriegn governments, and the civil cervice is capable of administering polices effectively.
It is rather strange that you would grant such incredible power to the ‘media’ to cause such a global situation to be. I see a complex evolution of situations and influences that have led to this point. But then I’m not a fan of assigning agency to direct and manipulate evolution (as you’ve probably gathered).
Comment by tildeb — March 11, 2011 @ 4:22 pm |
tildeb
Its not the ‘media’, its who is behind it. I know the complex things that go on in regards to power and money. We as a species can be very creative. You need look no further than ‘hanging chads’ to see that voting rights may not be quite as free(from complication) as you believe. I think we have left the point I was trying to make about your post. You stated that.
“It started off with such promise, but the revolution in Egypt will fail because the right to political and social equality for half of the population is held in contempt by the vast majority of its populace. The archaic anti-enlightenment belief directly supported by islam that women do not and should not have the same political and social rights as men has not been overthrown.”
I stand by the factual reality that anti-enlightment has very little to do with whether democracy stands or falls in the Egypt. The factual reality is it has more to do with money and power.
As far as the pic goes, I just like seeing the whites of the eye’s of the person Im bantering with. 😉
Comment by Titfortat — March 11, 2011 @ 5:08 pm |
“I stand by the factual reality that anti-enlightment has very little to do with whether democracy stands or falls in the Egypt. The factual reality is it has more to do with money and power.”
And that is the point of religion, it is a tool to keep people in their place – so long as people believe that women cannot hold offices of authority, run businesses, think freely then the money and power goes to the men who push the ‘religious truth’ of the Koran over and above the truth that human rights apply to all regardless of their sex, sexuality, ethnicity and personal medical needs.
Comment by misunderstoodranter — March 13, 2011 @ 4:17 am |
rant
Somehow I doubt Mubarak and Gadaffi get down on their knee’s five times a day. Now if you want to ‘Believe’ that then far be it for me to think your delusional.
Comment by Titfortat — March 13, 2011 @ 9:48 am |
MUR claims religion is a tool of power and money used especially by men… men like these two dictators. You assume that this must mean that the two dictators are religious themselves in order to wield this power. No. It just means they use the religious tool for power and money.
Comment by tildeb — March 13, 2011 @ 3:38 pm
tildeb
Ok so its used as a tool. So 300 women were stopped by more men(1200 maybe). But to insinuate that
“the revolution in Egypt will fail because the right to political and social equality for half of the population is held in contempt by the vast majority of its populace.”
is a bit of a stretch, dont ya think? Or are you being scientific now?
Comment by Titfortat — March 13, 2011 @ 7:13 pm |
If you bothered checking out the polling data I linked to, you could answer your own question. But because you have obviously failed to make the connection as it relates to whether or not a large group of men attacking and assaulting a group of women protesting for equal social and political rights is to be expected, then I will spell it out for you.
With only 2% of the population against islam playing a vital role in the political future of the country, and with over 85% strongly in support, what do you think are the chances that the populace will accept half of their population having equal social and political rights?
Don’t hurt yourself.
Comment by tildeb — March 13, 2011 @ 8:38 pm |
Now here we are at the end of 2012. You tell me which scenario has played out – yours or mine – to doom the revolution? Egypt is embroiled in a war between those who want individual rights to be based on secularists and the Muslim Brotherhood under Morsi who has rushed through a constitution that establishes sharia as the authority for law:
““This is not a fight for an individual, this is not a fight for President Morsi,” the speaker declared. “We are fighting for God’s law, against the secularists and liberals.”
But no doubt you will continue to search (in vain) to find something – anything! – from this doomed revolution in order to blame the West for its demise not because it’s true but because that’s what you believe. Give your head a shake.
Comment by tildeb — December 6, 2012 @ 10:41 am
Doesnt part of that 85% have to be women? I dont remember seeing you put that in.
“The group was attacked and broken up by a much larger group of men who reportedly groped and beat and chased these women from Tahrir Square.”
You fail to point out how many women were involved in the situation(you know the ones groping). And if that isnt VALID then the rest of the numbers arent worth SHIT.
Comment by Titfortat — March 13, 2011 @ 11:14 pm |
Yes I did fail to mention that. And if I did once again provide you with an answer that you care nothing about, then you’d just come up with another asinine point. Oops, I see you did in your next comment.
Moving on…
Comment by tildeb — March 14, 2011 @ 12:21 am |
Of course I care about misleading statements. Numbers do matter, especially when you use them to make a point about whether or not democracy or freedom will rise or fall in the middle east. What you provided was incomplete or at least it did not indicate all the variables.
Comment by Titfortat — March 14, 2011 @ 9:32 am
Even more interesting is the fact that there are more women than men in the world. Hmmmmm, how do we do the math? My brain is hurting over that one. Though I do have the hope or faith that you will show me the way with your science.
Comment by Titfortat — March 13, 2011 @ 11:18 pm |
Yes, science is mine. Oh look, you’re using many of its products that have the audacity to work in the real world to send along these pseudo-comments. Yeah, let’s degrade science; it’s so… arbitrary.
Why be such a nit?
Comment by tildeb — March 14, 2011 @ 12:25 am |
Im a nit when you use vague insults such as “Dont hurt yourself”. I think science is awesome, if fact when used properly(stats) it can be very revealing.
Comment by Titfortat — March 14, 2011 @ 9:33 am
The insult you infer is from not bothering to look over the links, not bothering to examine the connection I spell out between faith-based beliefs about the god-sanctioned social and political biases maintained against women that we see played out in action in this case, and so failing to address the issues I raise except by repeated questions meant as jabs that in fact you can answer for yourself if you actually cared about what was true. My thesis remains intact that as long as the populace refuses to put aside neolithic beliefs about gender roles, the revolution to create a democracy is doomed to failure. Nothing you have written alters that obvious but absent necessary connection to bring democracy and the oft touted ‘Freedom’ into political being.
And then you continue to pretend that you think science is awesome when you are willing to avoid using the method responsibly if it suits your intentions to throw stupid questions you are too lazy to answer at me. Well, bully for you.
Comment by tildeb — March 14, 2011 @ 12:33 pm
I think tildeb is probably onto something about what Egypt and other Middle East states will look like when this is all said and done – as far as political set-up and rights for the citizens.
It is hard to believe women there will get all the same rights as the men (total equality) – since this may not be even on the docket of concerns in the first place in the revolution. I hope they address the inequality of women in Egypt, but I don’t think that will happen (call me…pessimistic).
However, I think Egypt needs to exert their right to self-determination and not have a type of leader they find questionable to criminal. I also think they should have all the right in the world to determine their own country’s future and agenda, not that this won’t involve the West in their after-thoughts, but that the West should not make it tough on Egypt if they don’t like what transpires.
Comment by SocietyVs — March 14, 2011 @ 4:29 pm |
Jason
I am leery of anyone when they make statements about the future such as tildeb has. A great book on this is called “Future Babble” by Dan Gardner, you and tildeb should check it out. Im sure you would find it interesting.
Comment by Titfortat — March 14, 2011 @ 4:55 pm |
I’m sure I would:
“It’s rare for a book on public affairs to say something genuinely new, but Future Babble is genuinely arresting, and should be required reading for journalists, politicians, academics, and anyone who listens to them. Mark my words: if Future Babble is widely read, then within 3.7 years the number of overconfident predictions by self-anointed experts talking through their hats will decline by 46.2%, and the world will become no less than 32.1% wiser.”
– Steven Pinker, Harvard College Professor of Psychology, Harvard University, and author of How the Mind Works and The Stuff of Thought
All I’m saying, TfT is that we shouldn’t be surprised that this kind of thing occurs in practice (the women demonstrators being met with gender-based violence) when the culture itself is so gender-biased to begin with. And one of the major contributors and sustainers of this gender-based bias is islam itself, again, a widely popular element of the culture. When a populace undergoes a revolution with calls for democracy and freedom to overthrow a tyrant, I don’t think it is a matter of future babble to predict that these two are completely disconnected, which will result in 1) either an overthrow of islam or 2) a failure to implement democracy and freedom. I am putting my bet on the failure to implement democracy and freedom.
Comment by tildeb — March 14, 2011 @ 5:09 pm
In the United States if I remember correctly, didnt women only get the right to vote in 1920(19th amendment)? Yet democracy was born WAY before that. Now that is pretty interesting, wouldnt you agree? I would put my money on the fact that democracy wont rise or fall based on anything gender at the present moment. Thats my offering of Future Babble. 😉
Comment by Titfortat — March 14, 2011 @ 11:11 pm |
Yes, and if I recall correctly we used to call Aristotelian physics ‘science’.
Comment by tildeb — March 15, 2011 @ 9:30 am |
“In the United States if I remember correctly, didnt women only get the right to vote in 1920(19th amendment)? Yet democracy was born WAY before that. Now that is pretty interesting, wouldnt you agree?”
Yes it takes a while for fairness to be seen through the bias of unjustified belief.
Comment by misunderstoodranter — March 15, 2011 @ 5:17 pm |
tildeb
Had to look that one up, Thanks for the lesson. 🙂
Comment by Titfortat — March 15, 2011 @ 10:50 am |
More official gender contempt. It ain’t gettin’ any better any time soon.
Comment by tildeb — June 7, 2011 @ 4:49 pm |
allah approved misogyny is one of many severe problems with islam which is dangerous no matter how it is packaged…
the twin fogs of political correctness & ignorance must be dispersed before western society better understands this menace. even a brief review of islamic theology & history quickly exposes the deadly roots of this evil ideology.
see the links in the pdf version below for more accurate info about islam
==========
islam is a horrible ideology for human rights
5 key things about islam
1. mythical beliefs – all religions have these (faith) because its part of being a religion: having beliefs without proof until after the believer dies. the problem is people will believe almost anything.
2. totalitarianism – islam has no seperation of church and state: sharia law governs all. there is no free will in islam: only submission to the will of allah as conveniently determined by the imams who spew vapors to feather their own nests. there are no moderate muslims: they all support sharia law.
3. violence – islam leads the pack of all religions in violent tenets for their ideology & history: having eternal canonical imperatives for supremacy at all costs and calling for violence & intimidation as basic tools to achieve these goals.
4. dishonesty – only islam has dishonesty as a fundamental tenet: this stems from allah speaking to mohamhead & abrogation in the koran which is used to explain how mo’s peaceful early life was superseded by his warlord role later.
5. misogyny – present day islam is still rooted in 8th century social ethics: treating females as property of men good only for children, severely limiting their activities, dressing them in shower curtains and worse.
conclusions ??
there really are NO redeeming qualities for this muddled pile of propaganda.
islam is just another fascist totalitarian ideology used by power hungry fanatics on yet another quest for worldwide domination and includes all the usual human rights abuses & suppression of freedoms.
graphics version
1 page pdf version – do file/download 6kb viewer doesn’t show fonts well, has better fonts header footer links, great for emailing printing etc
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B_UyNP-72AVKYWNiNTFlYTEtMTA1ZC00YjhiLTljMDUtMDhhNDE0NDMzNmYz
Comment by ecks why — July 10, 2011 @ 3:06 pm |
So, XY, I take it you’re not a fan of islam!
I happen to like this Hitchens quote:
On fundamentalist moslems: If you want to avoid upsetting these people you have to let Indonesia commit genocide in East Timor, otherwise they’ll be upset with you. You’ll have made an enemy. If you tell them they can’t throw acid in the faces of unveiled women in Karachi they will be annoyed with you. If you say we insist, we think that cartoonists in Copenhagen can print satire on the Prophet Muhammed you’ve just made an enemy. You’ve brought it on. You’re encouraging it to happen. So unless you’re willing to commit suicide for yourself and this culture get used to the compromises you’ll have to make and the eventual capitulation that will come to you.
The problem, of course, is that there is no line between fundamentalist and liberal muslim as there is in christianity and judaism: there is either a fully practicing muslim or one that isn’t… yet. For as long as the Quran is the immutable word of god, there can be no liberalization of the faith. And that’s a problem of considerable scope because many of the central tenets are in direct conflict with those values that make a democracy sustainable. That’s why this revolution and others throughout the Middle East will fail to achieve their goals of freedom from oppression: their faith is already an acceptable tyranny and beyond change.
Comment by tildeb — July 10, 2011 @ 4:53 pm |
i’m not too happy about any religion that claims authority from silent gods, silent meaning that some appointed people have to speak for these gods, compared to science where the gods clearly speak to all of us thru repeatable experiments that can be validated by independent observers and the fact that engineers can build bridges that stay up, planes that can fly, radios, tvs, internet, all miracles
of course, i too will die someday and find out for myself whether all these religions are just spewing self drivel and/or myths, or not and 1 or more of them are speaking the truth
sadly it is all too easy for us weak humans to fall prey to scamsters and history is full of them in all arenas especially religion & politics
Comment by ecks why — July 12, 2011 @ 12:16 pm |
imo what happens in Egypt now is more or less what happened in Iran in 1979. I’ve met a few muslims and they’re mostly nice, open minded and not easily offended, but they’re also all students in a elite research university so that’s probably not saying much. As to liberalizing Islam, many liberal/feminist theologians have tried over the years, don’t know if there’s any success though.
Comment by xdyj — September 5, 2011 @ 7:22 pm |
If you notice any, please let us know. In the meantime, it’s interesting how so little has been accomplished politically in Egypt except the attack on Israel and the demonstrations against the Israeli counter attack. Meet the new boss, same as the old one.
Comment by tildeb — September 5, 2011 @ 11:35 pm |
http://smf.planetlol.de/index.php?phpsessid=ce25hh2mtco24tfvo7r6r86g90
Why will the Egyptian revolution fail? | Questionable Motives
Trackback by Ebay shop — January 13, 2018 @ 12:42 pm |