What are the implications for a culture that believes that the sexes are distinct opposites (of course, minus the biological anatomy and functions difference)?
An[y](file://\y) one would like to share their perspective on this?
Dushwari
Re: Sexes as opposites?
any one?
Re: Sexes as opposites?
You see it in all sorts of societies all around us. Have you read Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble? I’ve only read some of it, include a densely–written series of introductions, but already she has started to smash traditional views of gender…
Re: Sexes as opposites?
^no i have not read it. i will. thanks for sharing the title.
women and men must learn to determine their own feelings for someone and then not doubt each other in order to be with one and other – things can be dealt with after wards, if only both are honest and committed, unfortunately many people do not see this aspect of having invested in the communication and the time it took to get to realize what a person is about – still much cannot known unless, people realize that their sense of commitment has to be two sided and not one.
such people who negate their own feelings, they might be in for a long loss suffered in the times to come.
it's the society which makes people become uneasy with realizing that women and men, must treat each other with respect.
there are no short cuts to winning someone's trust and once, that is lost, on account of narrow minded ness, confusion and personal weaknesses, the only saving grace is, learning from it, and learning for the life time that one must not neglect the total person.
a couple must have a really strong bonding that cannot be damaged by coaxed verbal manipulations.
so, if a society has self serving expectations from women and men, to be one way or another, in order to control and be controlled unlawfully by each other. that is extremely failing of the ideal of living a content life.
culture is made up by the people who live that culture
distinct opposites mean peoples' nature, their personalities and values are different solely because of the gender being different, so women and men who are respectful of each other, must be held in high esteem, for being forth right and honest and committed.
dushwari
Re: Sexes as opposites?
What are the implications for a culture that believes that the sexes are distinct opposites (of course, minus the biological anatomy and functions difference)?
Any one would like to share their perspective on this? Dushwari
Peace Dushwari
All I can say is that Islam does not consider man and woman opposites. Rather they are considered a 'dual' thing, mutally-symbiotic and complementary. The term 'naas' refers to both men and women.
The presence of something physiological in one sex and it's absence in another does not draw lines of opposition, but merely of exception.
Also, looking at the mathematical model of opposition, male + female = procreation, however, if males and females were opposites there would not be multiplication, there would be annihilation!
Genetically male is part x and part y, female is two parts x ... there is an 'x' shared which means we cannot be opposites. Even the 'y' is a special form of chromosome and cannot be called the 'opposite' of 'x'.
I think language loosley draws opposition when logic dictates a different set of rules for that.
Re: Sexes as opposites?
^ awesome, psyah,
i concur with you totally here.
Re: Sexes as opposites?
I think the best source for this would be from the Holy Quran...
see the Qur'an as aiming towards equality, much as it aimed toward the abolishing of slavery without getting there. (Note: the latter is generally accepted by the Muslim masses while the former is not, but I see them as being the same.)
We have the famous verse 33:35 (to believing men and believeing women, to devout men and devout women, to men who pray and women who pray, to men who fast and women who fast, etc. Allah has prepared a goodly reward.) which sets up spiritual and mundane religious equality between men and women. Same duties, same values/ethics, same rewards.
We have verses which say, "to men a share of what they earn, and to women a share of what they earn" (referring to the fact that men and women both need to pay charity out of their money.)
We have verses which describe muslim men and women as protecting friends of one another.
We have verses which describe muslim spouses as protecting garments for one another.
Those verses are balanced by others which show a lack of equality - the inheritance regulations, the modesty regulations, the one about getting two women witnesses, and so on.
I see a qualitative difference between these verses. The first set speaks to theory, to the ideal of what men and women are supposed to be. The latter one speaks to the conditions on the ground in 7th century Arabia and practical solutions to problems facing that community in particular.
I think that it makes sense that Islam is pragmatic and acknowledges on the ground realities, but it is clear to me that in God's eyes we are all the same.
The question is, as societies change, shouldn't the details of that pragmatic approach also change? If women can no longer expect to have a right over their brother's inheritance should they need it, then should they still get a smaller portion? If women as a group are now as sexually aggressive as men, should men start being a bit more modest in how they dress (say on the sporting ground or at the beach)?
I think so. The ideal does not change, but the consessions to practicality may.
As far as complementary roles go - I think we go way overboard in this, turning what might have some potential benefits in certain circumstances (division of labor within the family for instance) into a downright evil.
People like to see things in black and white, but reality is always, always gray. Thus we like to divide humanity into men and women, rational and emotional, intellectual and instinctive, dealing with the outer world and dealing with the inner world.
Of course, the reality is far, far more complex than that. Men and women both are emotional creatures. We are both rational creatures as well. We all have intellectual, artistic, inner and outer interests. To say that men are one and women are the other is simply to do injustice to both men and women, and to say something that is patently false. We can all observe with our own eyes, extremely intellectual women and extremely non-intellectual men. We can see men expressing deep emotions (whether it be rage, or sadness at the loss of a parent, love and joy at the shenanigans of a child, etc, etc, etc) and women being icy cold (like that NC woman who drowned her boys because her boyfriend didn't want to be bothered by them!) Claims that women aren't interested in certain topics are clearly wrong, as women, when given the chance, have shown they are interested in everything, whether it be politics, business, science, art, etc, etc, etc.
Generally speaking, I believe that the full spectrum of personality, interests, and capabilities is present in both genders and (as said above) that the differences between the genders are far smaller than the differences within the genders.
In order to prop up false oppositions in their depiction of men and women and the roles that they would like to assign men and women in greater society and the family, people say all sorts of ridiculous things like when a woman's pregnant she can't work. Poppycock! Women have forever been working up till the moment they go into labor, (mostly in backbreaking field work or home chores like hand washing laundry...). Similarly we hear ridiculous claims about women not being able to function normally during their periods. Again, poppycock! The vast majority of women in the work force have demonstrated that women can and do function perfectly well during their periods.
So, as you can probably see, I don't buy into a priori complementarity between men and women.
At the same time, I believe that division of labor can at times be useful.
Especially within the family. By this I do not mean, women cook and men sit around waiting to be served. (I was appalled at a family camp I recently attended where one of the women was bragging how she had taught her daughter to serve her son - to heat him up food and bring it to him when he got home from school. What's wrong with him that he can't heat up his own plate of food in the microwave!!) Nor do I mean that men do the repairs and the women pretend not to be able to do things. (I once was advised by someone well-intentioned not to be so competent around the house, because if I did, my husband would end up doing nothing. Ha ha, fat chance that! I may fix the wiring and replace the ceiling fans, etc as needed, but he did his fair share of the diaper changing, dish washing, etc.)
By this I mean that it is a good idea to have a family set up where one parent is home with young children and the other is the primary breadwinner.
I do not think it has to necessarily be women who are at home, although I acknowledge that in certain aspects it is easier (such as nursing, which can be accomplished even if the woman is not home during the day, but that takes a lot of dedication).
But when people take that and turn it into the women's role is only to be a mother and a wife, and to observe the pillars of Islam (praying, fasting, etc), I think we have gone way too far. Women are not exempted from social responsibility - we have a duty to stand up for justice, to help those in need, to be involved politically, socially, and so on. We cannot do so if we are exclusively focused on our family.
Further, if women were only to stay at home, they why would there be verses about us earning money (and why would the Prophet's wives have earned money and then used their earnings for charity?) If women weren't out in society and involved with people, how could Hafsa have advised the Prophet regarding the pilgrimage that was cancelled midway and how to mollify his followers who he was afraid would rebel and go ahead with the Pilgrimage even though he had just made an agreement not to? If women were only to be interested in the home and family, how could a quarter of our hadith have come through Aishah? How could Nusaiba have defended the Prophet so brilliantly if she hadn't been out practicing with a sword? How could Aisah have led an army against Ali if she had no knowledge of warfare, tactics, military organization, etc. Why would the Prophet have said, do not prevent the handmaids of Allah from coming to the masjid, and allowed them to make itikaf in his masjid (like a hermitage in the mosque), leaving their homes for days and days during Ramadan? Why would he have ordered a woman to lead prayers, if our prayers in public spaces really are optional, and we are always to follow the men?
It's pretty clear to me that Islam does not intend vast gender separation or differentiation. It acknowledges some on the ground practicalities, without, I believe, insisting upon one set solution to those issues, especially as societies morph.
Re: Sexes as opposites?
nikaksa,
absolutely right.
thanks for wording equality in these lines the way you did.
this is true that Islam enables women and men to be on equal footing in case of distribution of labor to woman or to man the house hold and livelihood responsibilities.
good relationship among spouses can make life a heaven.
may be it so for all kind and caring couples. amen.
best,
dushwari