Bengal71
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2018
- Messages
- 4,535
- Reaction score
- -11
- Country
- Location
Someone: Hitler, why are you putting Jews in camps?
Hitler: wth this is 1940 ok!
where does this fascination for placing women in traditionally male fields come from? like seriously?
i'll probably agree some value is attached to women's medical background in the Bangladesh and Pakistani marriage market. but if that translates to very high salaries and stressful work, like it always is for a young doctor in the West, it's repelling rather than attractive to a male suitor. not sure why anyone would have a problem with a woman dropping out of the labor market to deliver and raise children, besides looking after husband.
in any case, a Muslim shouldn't measure their success on something that is not even aligned with their values. female empowerment/emancipation implies a concerted male effort to oppress women that goes against some of the basic tenets of Islam, and not to mention, the concepts of gender role reevaluation, and LGBT wrapped up in that. but all that warrants a whole different forum probably. anyways, just my two cents - the progress of a nation should be measured on how little it's affected by feminism
this is a distinction made in the composition of subcontinental Muslim society. ones with more foreign blood vs ones with more native blood. it's more for observing a happening phenomenon rather than initiating the phenomenon itself i.e. people classified themselves on those lines in social life, whether these terms were ever invented or not. since longer time has elapsed since those migrations, and because of intermixing, the classifications do not matter as much now. but, it might still be beneficial to learn our ancestries and it's connection to our collective behaviour and culture.
so nothing wrong using these. plus @Hakikat ve Hikmet is most probably is just critical your pro-India/anti-Pakistan stance and drawing parallels with an atrap class which historically often came from non-elite Hindu backgrounds and seen as lacking the refinement of either Persianized settlers from Central Asia or the Indo-Aryan Brahmins of the subcontinent.
Those distinctions are not relevant in Bengal because Bengal has a rather more open minded and intellectually oriented society. Just look at marriages within Bangladeshi Muslim society, nobody gives two hoots about who is Khan, who is Chowdhury and who is Syed when it comes to marriages, only thing they care about is education, socio/economic status, Job/career etc. However, that is not the case within the Muslim societies in the rest of subcontinent, specially in Pakistan.
Also, the Islamic caste system in the Indian subcontinent is more pronounced in the sense that "scholarly" edicts are available to justify such things like the works of Al Barrani. In the rest of the Islamic world it is also practiced in different ways, specially in Arabia whereby they live pretty much a segregated life vis a vis non-Arab Muslims, effectively subscribing to Arab supremacy. Examples are widespread in Saudi and other GCC countries.
That guy Abal Ve Ahammok has much more problems than you know. He was been writing a lot of trash about Bengal for a long time.