And that’s the point. To focus on A without addressing B, approving B, or putting B in context is a valid challenge to the questioner. When equivalences can be found between A and B, and the suggestion that A is horrible while B is not mentioned means that a generalization is not possible, or a person is disinterested in the generalization. The latter may speak to your point; but what I want to determine is if the alternative forms of alleged bias are construed as banal or not. If not, then speak in terms of generalizations, and let us see how far we get with them. Already, you seem to accept the socio-economic stratification as somehow natural…misconceptions my fault alone, of course.
Ravage. the point wasn’t that there was a bias. The point was that the bias implied a hatred, dislike, or something like that, of women. If that were true, then why not in other circumstances? What is the reason for this inconsistency? The claim does not fit in compartmentalized circumstances. It is perceived that this is a suggested trait of the faith proper.
[quote]
I think the question raised, that women are not considered economically equal follows quite naturally from that.
[quote]
Economically equal…hyperbole. Entitled to half a share of inheritance, which is not earned by the way. No, it’s not as natural as you think. As we’ve discussed, economic disparieties arise naturally, and for a wide variety of reasons. That, I argue, does not devalue one’s life. Now, if one’s belief system is that their worth to humanity in general, society in particular, and to themselves, is directly proportional to their assets, then I can only disagree. That, in the end, is a value judgment - a faith - I don’t share.
The value proposition for “equality” is questionable, if there are other instances of inequity which are considered normative. It’s not equity in general, but the audacity to define gender roles and infer entitlements based on these roles.
It’s very much different than disadvantaged ethnic groups, and more akin to disparities within an ethnic group, if anything. Inheritance is done within a familial unit, with understood roles and obligations. Women do not form a cohesive societal unit in this context, the only common attribute being shared, for this particular case, is being entitled to half a share of inheritance. This is about the difference between sons and daughters, not men and women…sole sisters, or sole sons are not a factor. In one case, a daughter may receive full inheritance, in others, little. In one case, the son and daughter of a rich man will get vastly more inheritance than the son and daughter of a poor man. To take the family out of the equation and make this strictly a gender argument is a canard.
Again, it’s not the actual amount. It’s simply the audacity of differentiating.
Cop-out. A question was asked, rhetorically, and proclamations made subsequently. Second, it’s perfectly valid to assault the very premise of a question to begin with.
Second, the questions asked would be natural to those who are inquisitive. It’s quite easy to ask a question, and not remunerate on it’s implications. If the questions posed have been considered, respond. If not, address them. This is how discussions move forward.
I have considered such questions in the past, and time and time again the questions I have posed in return are simply ignored, or not deemed relevant without any further discussion or even an attempt at a rationalization. So if my method of response seems unorthodox to you, I assure you it’s probably because I’ve experiences you simply haven’t shared.
If one is going to jump to conclusions as soon as they pose a quiestion, then the other questions they had not considered need to be brought up.
So, what is the questioners position on the immutability of this particular issue? Is there an opinion at all, has it been considered? Historical context? What are the actual affects of this mode of distribution? Was it considered? Is it worth considering? Does it not make sense, if so why? And no, simply stating it’s ‘not equal’ doesn’t cut it, unless one is open and declaring such an axiomatic value they will not compromise on, regardless of real world consequence (or lack thereof). These are important things to consider. What matter is it if these points are brought up in the form of a question or answer? Is it not fair to ask the questioner to elaborate, to refine their question, to address perceived disparities in the line of questioning?
If one feels that power makes one a better person, in the eyes of God no less, then I can’t address the point because I don’t agree with the premise.
What do you mean about valuing of identity? In terms of worth as a human being, in terms of usefulness of a skill set, in terms of ability to perform a task?
Is the fact that women inherit less then men meant to suggest that women are worth less in the eyes of God? In your words, prove it. Prove that that is the intent. And no, the disparity in and of itself does not prove it. And do consider things like why Islamic rituals, rites and responsibilities are not assigned based on wealth. If there is a notion of worth which involves personal means, in the financial sense, why is it not demonstrated elsewhere?