itiraaz

I often see comments in the vein of:

"The vast majority of women are heterosexual/religious/natalist so how can you tell women x y and z?"

"How will you get the majority of women onboard with feminism if you criticize x y and z?"

"You need to compromise more because the vast majority of women will not do x y and z."

So, I made this poll to gauge how many of you genuinely think we need the majority of women to be feminists in order for feminism to work.

By feminist, I mean willing to do some feminist action in real life.

Formal education in radical feminist theory is not a requirement! Women in rural india fighting to save the lives infant girls who would otherwise be killed may not have formal education in radical feminism but they are still working in support of women and girls.

I have made a seperate post with examples of feminist action if you want to see that here.

To have a significant impact on society, not that many.

Women tend to get credit for making ceramics and basketry, which appear in the archaeological record about 10,000 years ago. Why do women get acknowledged for these but not for stone tools? I suspect it’s because much of the labor-intensive work of ceramic and basket manufacturing is typically sedentary, thus conceptually tethering women to the home fires.

As I noted in a previous column on gender archaeology, archaeologist Margaret “Meg” Conkey once said to me, “We know that women and children existed in prehistory.” It’s a truism, but I repeat it often in conversation because it’s a useful reminder. Many people, including archaeologists, still assume that stone tools are strictly the domain of men.

[Edited 11th Dec 2012 I apologise for the length of this post. The interpretation I present here is very different to traditional ones and may be disagreeable to many Muslims.  I do not claim to have a correct understanding of the Quran, but offer this as a small contribution to the wider discussion.] ————————————————- The issue of homosexual relations and Muslims revolves around two broad issues: the interpretation of the story of Lut in the Quran and whether same-sex marriages are possible. An excellent book to read on the subject is Scott Siraj al-Haqq Kugle’s Homosexuality in Islam (Oneworld Publications, 2010) where he interprets the story of Lut in a way that shows it is not a condemnation of consensual homosexual relations.  He also draws on fundamental principles of traditional shariah law to argue same-sex marriages should be made possible. My understanding is a bit different. Bring forth in desire 26/165 and 27/55 are verses that have been traditionally used to condemn homosexual acts.  27/55 Do you bring [tatu] the “men” [l-rijāl] eagerly/in desire [shahwatan] besides the “women” [l-nisā]? Rather, you are an ignorant people [qawm]! The word tatu (plural of ata - ‘brought’) does not mean sexual approach. In 26/16 Prophets Musa and Harun were commanded to “bring [ati] Phirawn and say…” Obviously, they were not approaching Phirawn for sex.  The verb tatu is also found in a very common phrase of the Quran: “wa-aqīmū l-ṣalata wa ātū l-zakata” - “and establish the ṣalat and bring the zakat.”  No one “approaches” their zakat, sexually or otherwise. Secondly, see 3/14, 4/27 and 19/59 where the word for ‘desire’, shahwatan, is not sexual. 3/14 Beautified for mankind is love of the (things of) desire [l-shahawāti]… of the horses and the cattle… Mankind has a sexual desire for horses and cattle?  A useful comparison can be made with 12/24 in the story of Yusuf - a passage most definitely about sex and sexual desire.  The word used in reference to sexual lust is ‘hamma’ and not ‘shahwatan.’ 12/24 And certainly she desired [hammat] him, and he desired [hamma] her.  Had it not been that he saw the proof of his Lord; it was thus We directed from him the evil and the immorality. He is of Our loyal servants. Thirdly, Lut addresses the community [qawm], not the men. If the crime was of male homosexuality we would have expected Lut to address the criminals exclusively, not the entire people. The sex angle is not found in 26/165 either, especially when considering 6/139: And they say, “What is in the bellies of these, the cattle, is only for our males [dhukūrinā] and forbidden upon our partners [azwājinā]. But if it is dead then they in it are associates.” He will recompense them their attribution! Indeed He is Wise, Knowing. Note how there is no mention of females [ināth], the males are contrasted with their partners/kind [azwāj], so the people are treating the ‘males’ with favour and mistreating their ‘partners’. This verse is certainly not about sex, yet the language is very similar to what we find in the Lut story. 26/165 Do you bring [tatūna] the males [l-dhuk’rān] from the worlds [l-ʿālamīn], 26/166 And forsake [tadharūna] what created your Lord for you of your partners [azwājikum]? Rather, you are a people [qawmun] transgressing! The community (not the men exclusively) of Lut were forsaking those who by rights had equal status with them.  So why read this ‘forsaking’ as a reference to sexual practices?  The discrimination in these verses, 27/55 and 26/165-166, could be about economics, access to education, legal rights, or any number of injustices where one section of society are brought forth in desire at the expense of another.  It also makes no sense to say the community of Lut were guilty of homosexuality when we see that his wife was to be punished too: 11/81 So travel with your folk in a part from the night and do not look back, anyone of you, except your consort [im’ra-at].  Indeed, it will afflict her what will afflict them… The Quran makes it a point to highlight that what will afflict his people will afflict her as well.  Unless she was also having gay relations behind Lut’s back, or something to that effect, it’s obvious the crimes had nothing to do with homosexuality.  We can see this most clearly in 29/29: “Indeed you bring the “men” [l-rijāla], and you cut the way, and bring [tatūna] in your assemblies the evil?” But not was the response of his people [qawm] except that they said, “Bring upon us the punishment of God if you are of the truthful!” Cutting of the way can be understood when looking at 26/69, where it says that “those who strive for Us, We will surely guide them to Our ways [subulanā], and indeed God is surely with the doers of good.”  Cutting the way [taqṭaʿūna l-sabīla], therefore, is to prevent people from doing good and improving their situations. “You bring the men” is not qualified with “in desire” or “besides the women” like in 27/55 because the bringing forth is not sexual.  If we understood it as referring to sex then the women who “bring the men” would in fact be acting lawfully.  There’s clearly something about bringing the rijāl in this context which is inherently bad, irrespective of which gender is doing it. This is about elitism and class domination.  Committing evil in their assemblies is the practice of the elite, assemblies that do not include the voice of those they dominate.  Cutting the way [taqṭaʿūna l-sabīla] of God, preventing people doing good, is also the trait of an elite social class; exploiting those below them and and creating structures that keep them subjugated.  When you bring l-rijāl and forsake l-nisā, you end up with a ruling elite that commits evil, and it’s only when you treat both equally do you achieve a just society. Lut’s guests and his daughters In 29/33 we see the Quran says, “came [jāat]* Our Messengers to Lut” and that they informed him his people would be destroyed. 11/78 And came to him his people [qawm], hastening to him, and from before they had been doing the evil. He said, “My people [qawm], these are my daughters [banātī], they are too pure/purer [aṭharu] for you, so be aware of God and do not disgrace me regarding my guests [ḍayfī]. Is there not among you a man right-minded?” Traditional interpretations of this verse depict the men coming in joy to see and rape the handsome male guests [ḍayfī]. In response, Lut offers his daughters [banāt] instead. Scott Kugle argues it is inconceivable that Lut would genuinely offer his women to be gang raped; no sane man would do such a thing let alone a Prophet of God. He goes on to suggest Prophet Lut was being sarcastic:

Would anyone believe that a Prophet would offer his daughters to assailants intent on rape, as if their raping women would make the act “pure”? Rather, Lot makes a sarcastic comparison to show his assailants how wrong it is to rape guests over whom he has extended protective hospitality.  Both he and his tribe know that it is far from pure to take his daughters, whose dignity he protects; Lot argues that assaulting his guests is even worse in his sight than fornicating with his daughters.  Far from giving them license to rape his women, he is expressing, with sarcasm born of despair, that vulnerable strangers are as valuable to him as his own children.

Although I think this is a possible interpretation (far more reasonable than the traditional ones), some may find the point about sarcasm unconvincing.  Consider the way the Quran describes a related event involving Prophet Ibrahim: 11/69 And certainly came [jāat]* Our Messengers [rusulunā] to Ibrahim with tidings. They said, “Peace!” He said, “Peace!… And,   51/24-25 Has the narration been brought to you of the honoured guests [ḍayfi] of Ibrahim? When they entered upon him then said, “Peace!”, he said “Peace!”… The two sets of verses are speaking of the same event but the wording is slightly different in each. The guests [ḍayfi] are the Messengers [rusulu]; they are one and the same. The Quran often uses this style and may help explain Lut’s response to his people: 15/68 He said, “Indeed, these are my guests [hāulāi ḍayfī], so do not shame me!” And, 15/71 He said, “These are my daughters [hāulāi banātī], if you are doers.” The use of the same pronoun, hāulāi, in both verses suggests the guests are the people being described by Lut as his “daughters” (interestingly the Quran does not say til’ka banātī, ‘these are my daughters’ in 15/71 where both words would have been feminine). He was not offering his banāt to be raped over his ḍayf, rather he was referring to his ḍayf as his “daughters.” But why daughters?  What’s the significance of referring to them in this way?  There are some interesting entries found in the Classical Arabic dictionary, Lane’s Lexicon, under banāt where the meaning is not daughters.  One being:

“kāna iḥda banāti masjidi l-lahi” - He was one of the pebbles of the mosques of God.