Equality of man and woman in today's context

[magra]

The earlier post where we were discussing whether a man and a woman are supposed to have equal rights got closed for replies before I could answer to people who wrote to me.

@jamahir @Cash GK @xeuss @HalfMoon @Goenitz @gulli @Indos @GHALIB @newb3e @UDAYCAMPUS

Happy to discuss here if you want.

 

[HalfMoon]

The earlier post where we were discussing whether a man and a woman are supposed to have equal rights got closed for replies before I could answer to people who wrote to me.

@jamahir @Cash GK @xeuss @HalfMoon @Goenitz @gulli @Indos @GHALIB @newb3e @UDAYCAMPUS

Happy to discuss here if you want.

Your thread and question is stupid.

A man is a man and a woman is a woman.

They will never be equal because they both are different.

I had already responded to you on the earlier thread.

what is the point of this thread?

 

[Goenitz]

I suggest if you have questions, are curious or student of religions/islam then you should continue. Else, if you want to prove any superiority or asking for the sake of argument, then I suggest it is not healthy.

Anyway, this topic is very wide and general, if you have any specific question, then ask here or in some religious forums. There was a guy here, if not banned, he had a good command at giving references. I will tag him if I find him.

 

[Goenitz]

@MuhammedAli

 

[magra]

Your thread and question is stupid.

A man is a man and a woman is a woman.

They will never be equal because they both are different.

I had already responded to you on the earlier thread.

what is the point of this thread?

The point of the thread is not to say that man and woman are equal in all respects.
Obviously, a man has more physical power. Only a woman can give birth and breast milk. So there are differences.

My point is that should a man and a woman get equal rights.
In medieval times, it was generally not safe for a woman to go out and work due to security reasons.

Today, in most parts of the world, security situation has improved to the extent that individual women do not need constant physical protection of men. Also, uniform education has given them the opportunity to earn their income and not be dependent on men for financial security.

Ofcourse, there are many developing countries where women are still lagging behind financially. But in terms of a global religion, which has adherents in developed world as well, should we not think of updating the law or updating the interpretation of the law to modern setting.

Why should a successful and more earning wife not get the same right to polyandry.
Either allow both polyandry and polygamy, or ban both.

 

[HalfMoon]

In medieval times, it was generally not safe for a woman to go out and work due to security reasons.

Today, in most parts of the world, security situation has improved

A woman is raped in Delhi every 5 hours.

How many men are being raped?

Zero.

There is your answer.

Why should a successful and more earning wife not get the same right to polyandry.
Either allow both polyandry and polygamy, or ban both.

Does Hinduism allow polyandry? If not why not?

 

[nang2]

Your thread and question is stupid.

A man is a man and a woman is a woman.

They will never be equal because they both are different.

I had already responded to you on the earlier thread.

what is the point of this thread?

He said equal rights, not equal bodies or equal mentality or whatever else you think should be next to the word "equal".

 

[HalfMoon]

He said equal rights, not equal bodies or equal mentality or whatever else you think should be next to the word "equal".

That is what I call nonsense.

This is like arguing since Area of a square is Pi R squared, it should be the same for a square. Guess what, the square has sides not radius.

Will you get a angioplasty on your liver because liver is also an organ like your heart?

 

[magra]

A woman is raped in Delhi every 5 hours.
How many men are being raped?
Zero.
There is your answer.

So a woman getting raped is your justification for giving woman lesser rights to a man.. wow.

Does Hinduism allow polyandry? If not why not?

Historically, there were no laws surrounding it. Draupadi (from Mahabharat) had five husbands.
Today, Hindu marriage act in India bans both polygamy as well as polyandry.

 

[ummarz]

The earlier post where we were discussing whether a man and a woman are supposed to have equal rights got closed for replies before I could answer to people who wrote to me.

@jamahir @Cash GK @xeuss @HalfMoon @Goenitz @gulli @Indos @GHALIB @newb3e @UDAYCAMPUS

Happy to discuss here if you want.

Interesting topic. The problem really gets stuck around the word equal. Let me explain.

In some ways men and women should be equal. Both should have equal opportunities to education, job opportunities and the law should apply to both equally. There are also some things in which they may not be equal. Such as choosing whether to do an abortion is solely the mothers decision, the husband can't force her one way or the other. Similarly the law regarding maternity leave makes more sense for women. Another is that they are clearly not equal in terms of anatomy and physiology.

As you can see some laws only pertain to women. So even laws can't apply equally.

Men may have an advantage in one field, where as women have an advantage in a different field. So men and women hold equally important role in society, and in the world. They are equal in their own ways but are not equal to each other.

The point of the thread is not to say that man and woman are equal in all respects.
Obviously, a man has more physical power. Only a woman can give birth and breast milk. So there are differences.

My point is that should a man and a woman get equal rights.
In medieval times, it was generally not safe for a woman to go out and work due to security reasons.

Today, in most parts of the world, security situation has improved to the extent that individual women do not need constant physical protection of men. Also, uniform education has given them the opportunity to earn their income and not be dependent on men for financial security.

Ofcourse, there are many developing countries where women are still lagging behind financially. But in terms of a global religion, which has adherents in developed world as well, should we not think of updating the law or updating the interpretation of the law to modern setting.

Why should a successful and more earning wife not get the same right to polyandry.
Either allow both polyandry and polygamy, or ban both.

What rights do you believe the women should receive that they are not receiving yet? Other than what you already mentioned ie polyandry.

The thing about polygamy is that the 2nd wife knows that you are already married. Why does she choose to marry still. There are plenty of men out there, she could easily choose somebody else. Just because it is allowed, doesn't mean its forced. This is important. And these women are choosing to marry an already married guy, they are not being forced!

Similarly, if you allow polyandry, I seriously doubt that most guys will marry a girl already married to some other guy (with minor exceptions).

Its not the laws, its the psychology of how humans have developed. Through out human history, even before Muhammad PBUH came with he final message of Islam, powerful men have always had a selection of concubines. Similarly, here in the west, you can live with your partner without being formally married. Nobody is stoping women from having two boyfriends yet on the whole and for the majority it doesn't happen because men don't choose it.

 

[HalfMoon]

So a woman getting raped is your justification for giving woman lesser rights to a man.. wow.

Lesser or greater is your biased view.

Muslim woman feel safe in their burqas and they deserve the right and freedom to wear their burqas. What right do you have to take away that right from them?

Historically, there were no laws surrounding it. Draupadi (from Mahabharat) had five husbands.
Today, Hindu marriage act in India bans both polygamy as well as polyandry.

So you mean to say that since Hindu marriage act does not support Hinduism, you want to apply such nonsensical act to Muslims as well?

Thanks but no thanks. Muslims are happy with Muslim personal law and we do not want any part of your nonsense called uniform civil code.

 

[magra]

Lesser or greater is your biased view.

Muslim woman feel safe in their burqas and they deserve the right and freedom to wear their burqas. What right do you have to take away that right from them?

A woman has a right to wear or Not to wear a burqa. It is her right to decide. A man does not have a right to impose his will on a woman regarding this matter.

So you mean to say that since Hindu marriage act does not support Hinduism, you want to apply such nonsensical act to Muslims as well?

You asked me about Hinduism so I answered. My question was irrespective of what is allowed in Hinduism or what is the current law. Got it?

 

[Goenitz]

Why should a successful and more earning wife not get the same right to polyandry.
Either allow both polyandry and polygamy, or ban both.

I argued before that we cannot change the law on rarity. Like, if some women are earning more than their spouses, we cannot imply different law for them. Again, Islam is not customer specific.

Plus, polygamy is not a compulsion, but emphasised after a war when Muslims lost too many men. There were widows with many children. So, for their protection and care, Holy Prophet (SW) emphasised that.

So in Pakistan for second marriage, you need wife permission. Hence, it is not banned but impossible. In UK, you cannot register 2 wives so it kills the possibility there. However, we cannot ban polygamy in Saudia if it is banned in UK.

Now equality. Marriage is an institution. By Islamic social laws, man is the CEO of that institute. A CEO can have 4 managers.

Lets assume you want to make women CEO of the institute, and apply in UK. or any modern society. It will create 2 different Islam. So for homogeneity and universality, Muslim practice one type of Islam, at least on major issues.

There can be a philosophical/scientific answer too. Naturally, all animals dominate clan, group, ride etc if they have power. As men are generally stronger, so its harder to keep them in subordination. Suppose a woman is having multiple spouses, and all men are living peacefully with her raising children. In summary, a happy family.

The amount of resources in terms making men that educated, controlling their fiances so that they keep in line, etc is too much. Such a system is bound to fail. As you need tremendous effort by the woman (mentally, monetary, psychologically) to subjugate a person with more physical power. Sooner or later or someday, that person animal instinct will overpower his rationality and he will revolt. So you need a constant pressure.

 

[HalfMoon]

A woman has a right to wear or Not to wear a burqa. It is her right to decide. A man does not have a right to impose his will on a woman regarding this matter.

Huh! Did you watch the videos that I posted on the other thread? Watch this video and tell me who is forcing them

You asked me about Hinduism so I answered. My question was irrespective of what is allowed in Hinduism or what is the current law. Got it?

Change the law. Modi has been on a spree changing laws left and right. Why is not changing Hindu marriage act to support Hindu belief system?

 

[magra]

What rights do you believe the women should receive that they are not receiving yet? Other than what you already mentioned ie polyandry.

The thing about polygamy is that the 2nd wife knows that you are already married. Why does she choose to marry still. There are plenty of men out there, she could easily choose somebody else. Just because it is allowed, doesn't mean its forced. This is important. And these women are choosing to marry an already married guy, they are not being forced!

First of all, let me thank you for keeping an open mind about this topic.

Equal marriage is one such area where woman in certain religion (would not name it to avoid ban) has an inferior right.
In most polygamous households, the man is the primary earning member and his wives are dependent on him financially. Do you think the first wife has the courage in many cases to deny the husband his wish for a second wife when she is financially dependent on his husband. She might fear that saying no might provoke his husband to divorce her leaving her without any financial and soceital support.
This is where a govt law banning polygamy would have forced the husband to not raise such a question in the first place.

You raised a question from 2nd wife's perspective, whereas I am more worried of the rights of the 1st wife and her independent decision making to say NO to a 2nd wife.

Similarly, if you allow polyandry, I seriously doubt that most guys will marry a girl already married to some other guy (with minor exceptions).

Its not the laws, its the psychology of how humans have developed. Through out human history, even before Muhammad PBUH came with he final message of Islam, powerful men have always had a selection of concubines.

I am not seriously advocating polyandry. I merely raised this point to highlight that if polyandry is supposedly such a taboo than why does society accept polygamy so readily. In a modern society, both should be seen in the same context.

In medieval times, there were lot of wars leading to a lot of widows and orphans. Then polygamy may have made sense. But it does not make sense in modern setting.

I argued before that we cannot change the law on rarity. Like, if some women are earning more than their spouses, we cannot imply different law for them. Again, Islam is not customer specific.

Plus, polygamy is not a compulsion, but emphasised after a war when Muslims lost too many men. There were widows with many children. So, for their protection and care, Holy Prophet (SW) emphasised that.

So in Pakistan for second marriage, you need wife permission. Hence, it is not banned but impossible. In UK, you cannot register 2 wives so it kills the possibility there. However, we cannot ban polygamy in Saudia if it is banned in UK.

Now equality. Marriage is an institution. By Islamic social laws, man is the CEO of that institute. A CEO can have 4 managers.

Lets assume you want to make women CEO of the institute, and apply in UK. or any modern society. It will create 2 different Islam. So for homogeneity and universality, Muslim practice one type of Islam, at least on major issues.

There can be a philosophical/scientific answer too. Naturally, all animals dominate clan, group, ride etc if they have power. As men are generally stronger, so its harder to keep them in subordination. Suppose a woman is having multiple spouses, and all men are living peacefully with her raising children. In summary, a happy family.

The amount of resources in terms making men that educated, controlling their fiances so that they keep in line, etc is too much. Such a system is bound to fail. As you need tremendous effort by the woman (mentally, monetary, psychologically) to subjugate a person with more physical power. Sooner or later or someday, that person animal instinct will overpower his rationality and he will revolt. So you need a constant pressure.

All your arguments regarding polygamy make sense in war time when there are a lot of widows who are financially insecure and need support. Do you feel that is the case today?

As explained in another post, a financially dependent 1st wife might be scared to deny a dominating husband his wish for a 2nd wife. Hence I feel polygamy gives an unjust power in the hands of the man to satisfy his lust.

You mentioned that since man is physically more powerful, it is easier for him to control 4 wives than vice versa. Now this can happen only if the man abuses his physical power to control his wives. In an ideal happy family, disputes between man and woman should be resolved through dialogue without resorting to physical fights. So I cannot agree that due to superior physical power, man should be allowed to satisfy his lust and a woman should meekly accept.