 
|
|
 |
 |
| |||
|
|
Back to Women
Islam The choice of Thinking Women 5
Ismail Adam Patel
Monday, May 29, 2006 Register and Join our Online Community & Forums for Free.
A Great way to meet lots of muslims and learn about Islam. RADICAL FEMINISM The New York Feminist Manifesto of 1971 declares:4 “Radical feminism recognises the oppression of women as a fundamental political oppression wherein women are categorised as an inferior class based upon their sex. It is the aim of radical feminism to organise politically to destroy this sex class system. As radical feminists we recognise that we are engaged in a power struggle with men, and that the agent of our oppression is man in so far as he is identified with and carries out the supremacy privileges of the male role. For while we realise that the liberation of women will ultimately mean the liberation of men from their destructive role as oppressor, we have no illusions that men will welcome this liberation without struggle. Radical feminism is political because it recognises that a group of individuals - men · have set up institutions throughout society to maintain this power”. Radical, or extreme, feminism regards men as evil, benefiting from their power over women in every way, from ego-satisfaction, economic and domestic exploitation, sexual domination and political power. Many radical feminists argue that in order to make a complete commitment to feminism, a woman has to be or become a lesbian. A leading radical feminist, Bunch believed that only lesbians can be serious feminists, and that lesbianism is best understood as a revolutionary rejection of all males and male-defined institutions. Adrienne Rich suggested that compulsory heterosexuality is the central social structure perpetuating male domination.3 A refusal of heterosexuality acts as an underground feminist resistance to patriarchy. She defines a lesbian as a woman bonded primarily to women who is sexually and emotionally independent of men. Rich’s “lesbian continuum” proposes that all women are lesbians, insofar as they want to identify with other women. She makes two basic assumptions in her defence of the lesbian continuum as a construct for understanding female resistance to patriarchy. First, she assumes that compulsory heterosexuality is the key mechanism underlying and perpetuating male dominance; second, she implies that all heterosexual relations are coercive in nature. Radical feminists allege that marriage is at the root of women’s subjection to men because through it, men control both a woman’s reproduction and her person. Marriage is thus seen as slavery for women, without the abolition of which freedom for women cannot be won. A prominent feminist philosopher, De Beauvoir stated, “Women pay for their happiness with their freedom”. She insisted that this price is too high for anyone because the kind of contentment, tranquillity and security that marriage offers a woman drain her soul of its capacity for greatness.l The effect of removing men from the scene altogether is not only weakening traditional male/female tie, if not destroying it altogether, but the bond between father and child is eliminated. Meanwhile, the tendency for men to become merely temporary sexual partners and to lose their parental role increases. Instead of making men responsible and share in the duties of nurturing children, women are inadvertently freeing men of all responsibilities, no doubt to the great delight of capricious men. Radical feminism’s main aim is the destruction of patriarchy, which Ruth Blair defines as: “the historic system of male dominance, a system committed to the maintenance and reinforcement of male hegemony in all aspects of life - personal and private privilege and power as well as public privilege and power”. Gerder Lerner defines it more clearly: “Patriarchy means the manifestation and institutionalisation of male dominance over women and children in the family and the extension of male dominance over women in society in general..”. Patriarchy is a system of structures and institutions created by men in order to sustain and recreate male power and female subordination. Such structures include institutions such as law, religion and the family; ideologies which perpetuate the naturally inferior position of women; socialisation processes which ensure that women and men develop behaviour and belief systems appropriate to the powerful or power group to which they belong. Patriarchy also has a materialistic base the economic systems are structured so that women have difficulty getting paid labour in a society which values only paid labour and in which money is the currency of power. Women without economic independence cannot sustain themselves without a breadwinner: they cannot leave a brutal husband, they cannot withdraw sexual, emotional and physical servicing from men, they cannot have an equal say in decisions affecting their own lives, such as where they might live. Radical feminism has therefore stressed the necessity of women exercising economic power in their own lives. Charlotte Buch has emphasised the importance of class analysis in radical feminism. In her words: “Women’s oppression is rooted both in the structure of our society, which is patriarchal, and in the sons of patriarchy: capitalism and white supremacy. Patriarchy includes not only male rule but also heterosexual imperialism and sexism; patriarchy led to the development of white supremacy and capitalism. For me, the term patriarchy refers to all these forms of oppression and domination, all of which must be ended before all women will be free”. Arguments from within the feminist group state that absolute separatism from men is neither feasible nor desirable. It is not desirable because “women will destroy patriarchy by confronting it, not by isolating themselves from it”. One of the first radical feminists to gain prominence was Shulamith Firestone, who wrote: “The end goal of feminist revolution must be not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself. Genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally. The tyranny of the biological family would be broken and with it the psychology of power”. For Firestone it is from sexual differences that women’s subordination sprang, in part, as reproductive biology condemned women to a fearful existence of bearing children, to be oppressed, in squalor and in pain. Firestone states: “Nature produced the fundamental inequality which was later consolidated and institutionalised in the interests of men”. In this account, the reproductive bond is not even remotely pleasing; it is wretched. Firestone then draws the logical conclusion to such an opinion she proposes freeing women from their long ordeal by means of changes in reproductive technology that would allow women to avoid pregnancy and childbirth just as is happening now: “Until the taboo is lifted, until the decision not to have children or not to have them naturally is at least as legitimate as natural childbearing, women are being forced into their female roles”. Therefore, according to this way of thinking, women must rebel. Women must control fertility. Women must own their bodies and new technology. Above all, women must control childbirth and childrearing. In Firestone’s view, this “natural” inequality can only be overcome when there is a complete separation of reproduction from women’s lives, so that women and men are made equal through technological innovations. Technology that will allow artificial reproduction outside women’s bodies must be developed. Whilst some radical feminists like Firestone want to free women from biological maternity, there is another version of feminism that wants to free maternity from male domination. This thesis describes and deplores the transfer of maternity care from women (midwives) to men (male obstetricians) that has occurred in the West over the past century or so. This liberation of maternity from male domination entails the return of childbirth to the care of women themselves, but for many feminists it also includes the progressive removal of the rights and duties of fatherhood. If men in themselves were the enemy, as many radical feminists believe, then the solution could well come to be the abolition not only of marriage or even of the family, but of men themselves, whether by their exclusion from women’s society or by more extreme means. It is not likely that many women in the movement envisaged the physical destruction of men, and certainly it is difficult to see this as a practical possibility. Many feminist theories suggest that men have conditioned women and have taken control over them. Feminists thus ignore the views of the majority of women by assuming that women have let their minds be manipulated by men and are not capable of deciding what is best for themselves. But if feminists believe that women are weak and stupid enough to be conditioned by men, then it follows that if women follow their ideologies, then they have merely exchanged one type of coercion for another. Feminists object to the allocation of gender roles, and complain if men and women are expected to do different sorts of work solely on the basis of their sex. But if, like the feminists, we go to the extreme of assuming that we have not rid ourselves of tyranny until men and women are doing the same sort of work, we risk a different problem, that of forcing them to do the same things although the majority may have the inclination to do different things. Feminists object to sexism although the majority of people see gender as relevant. When there are fewer women in certain positions on the career ladder, it is the feminists who are quick to point out sex differences. Firestone’s suggestion that reproduction must take place outside of women’s bodies before women are liberated is senseless. If any advances in “test tube” reproduction are made, the technology will no doubt be under the control of males. It is true to say that radical feminism is not practical and would not survive for long if it were implemented: If heterosexuality were halted, this would prevent the production of a new generation and the human race would come to an end. Some might suggest that children could be produced by means of artificial insemination or cloning. For women to totally succeed in this they will no doubt be confronted by men, who will rightly fight for their survival. It cannot be envisaged even by the most ardent feminist, that the battle of sexes should led to the battle herds of war. It is in fact absurd to regard men as the core of evil, because there is no real benefit for men as a whole in suppressing women. Men have to co-habit with women, and most sane human beings of either gender would prefer to live in peace and harmony with their spouses, the “battle of the sexes” makes no sense at all. Research has shown that the majority of lesbians go under the banner of feminism and that they represent around 10% of active feminists.” In this case it appears that some women have used feminism as a guise to fulfil their deviant sexual desires. Homosexuality is completely forbidden in Islam, and there is no room for “gay” religious movements such as those that have emerged in Christianity. Homosexuality represents something which is at odds with the natural order and endangers the stability of human society. Would you really approach men in your lusts rather than women? Nay, you are a people (grossly) ignorant! [al-Naml 27.55] The Qur’anic view (which, by the way, coincides with that of the Bible, e.g. Leviticus 20:13) is that homosexuality is an abomination and that those who indulge in it are “committing excesses”. This includes both male and female homosexuals, or “gays” and “lesbians” as they are known. Radical feminists assume that all marital relations are coercive. This undermines women and implies that they are not capable of taking care of themselves, but need a “big sister” in an ivory tower to think for them. Radical feminism gives women less credit than they deserve. To propagate a complete ban on marriage would throw the world into disarray. Even if all individuals did not become homosexuals, we would find ourselves with a completely promiscuous society. An individual is not always attracted to a person who likes him or her, so with no moral restraints, those who are physically, economically and socially strong would fulfil their carnal desires at the expense of the weak. Incest and paedophilia would become rife. It would be a nightmarish society in which exploitation of women would be the order to the day. Most of those who have examined the development of radical feminism are agreed that it has been seriously weakened by internal disputes, by its lack of formal structure, and by the inherent weaknesses of its theories. Its heyday was in the late 1960s, but since the 1970s it has fallen into a decline with its most committed followers retreating into communes where they could practice no more than a kind of personal redemption. SEXUAL LIBERATION Mitchell suggested that women’s status and function are jointly determined by her role in production, reproduction and the socialisation of children and sexuality. To determine which of these factors most oppress women, Mitchell came to the conclusion that women are making progress only in the area of sexuality. Taken to extremes, sexual liberation becomes merely another form of sexual oppression. In the past, women were condemned for being whores; now they are condemned for being virgins. Curiously, a British newspaper report on female converts to Islam asked “Why are British women funding true sexual freedom in Islam”? This sensationalist piece of rhetoric turned out to refer to the refreshing freedom from the sexual pressure which is so prevalent in Western society. Not everyone concerned with human liberation welcomed the liberation of sexuality. Marxist philosophers argued that it was a device to distract people from more serious political and economical oppression. Other feminists said that the liberation of female sexuality brought a reinforcement of the image of creatures of a separate and powerless sphere. The Victorian stereotype of feminine purity at least had the merit of rendering women special in the eyes of men. In the pursuit of equality and freedom even this dubious moral advantage was lost, and the way was opened for a new and less advantageous stereotype. It was no accident that the most ardent supporters of the “playboy” style of sexual liberation were men! A woman may say that she diets, exercises and dresses for herself, but in reality she is most likely to be shaping and adorning her body for the benefit of men. A woman has little or no say about where, when, how or by whom her body will be used, because it can be appropriated through acts that range from standing on the corner “watching all the girls go by” to the extreme of rape. In contrast, women’s progress in the area of reproduction, production and socialising of children has, according to Mitchell, ground to a halt. Islam finds the whole idea of promoting sex for pleasure to be totally distasteful - as do many rational individuals who live in the West. Casual approaches to sex, such as “cruising” or using pornography are identified as being male oriented, since they focus on sex for physical pleasure rather than as a means of deepening emotional intimacy and affection.4 Seeking sex only for physical pleasure is dehumanising, because it treats people only as sexual objects and fails to tap the potential of the act for a deeper meaning, which is an intimate knowledge of and commitment to another human being. The feminist drive towards sexual liberation has had catastrophic consequences for women’s social status. As we have already seen in Chapter II, the push for women’s equality in the West has been accompanied by an increase among females of all the vices formerly associated with men. Alcoholism, smoking, gambling and criminal activity have all increased and are as likely to be found among females as among males. In early 1996, it was announced that the female prison population in the UK had increased by 30% in the previous year alone. For many women, their new “freedom” has brought the dismal experiences of exploitation, abandonment by men, abortions, financial hardships, single parenthood and isolation. The sexual liberation movement has resulted in increased social, financial, health and economical hardship. Overall the greater sexual freedom is being acknowledged as working in favour of men rather than women. APPRAISAL All branches of feminism have their shortcomings, and the movement has essentially failed to address issues facing all the women throughout the world. Marxist theory has ignored the issues of oppression of women via pornography, prostitution and sexual harassment. Radical feminism has only served the interests of a few women living in Western suburbia, and its theories are inherently weak, as has been shown. Sexual feminism has only served to wet male appetites and has plunged the women of the West into the worst form of oppression since the Jahiliyyah. The failure of feminist ideologies to truly liberate women should come as no surprise, since these are based on theories which have been devised by humans for humans: as such they will undoubtedly contain factors that will please some, displease others, and ignore the majority. The solutions to human problems can only come from the Creator of humans. It is to Him that we must turn, and it is in His teachings alone that we will find true liberty for all human beings. The feminists have given women laws against sexual discrimination and equal opportunities in the fields of education and work, which are undoubtedly deserved and which Islam would certainly condone. However, as feminism succeeded in freeing women from the oppression of law and domesticity, a more sinister form of oppression, in the form of the tyranny of “beauty”, took over. This phenomenon is described by Naomi Wolf as the “beauty myth”. THE TYRANNY OF “BEAUTY” The “Rites” of beauty are able to isolate women so well because it is not yet publicly recognised that the devotees of beauty are trapped in anything more serious than fashion and a private distortion of self-image.” The Rites took over women’s minds, in the wake of the women’s movement, because oppression, like nature, abhors a vacuum; they gave back to women what they had lost when faith in God died in the West. The swift spread of this new “religion” was ably assisted by the capitalist industries. Now, rather than being assessed on their personal, intellectual and professional merits, women are judged by their physical attributes. This abhorrent attitude is diametrically opposed to Islam, which directs people’s attention towards an individual’s character by asking them to base their respect on the level of a person’s piety. Until recently, pornography was only for male consumption. However, the feminists have fallen into the trap that was carefully laid by those who had a vested interest in making women believe it is normal for a liberated women to enjoy pornography. Pornography, which never depicts legal, intimate love between married couples, has the pernicious effect of planting notions of the acceptability of adultery, fornication and rape in idle minds. Film, TV and printed media find themselves in direct competition with pornography, which is now the biggest media category worldwide, so the images of women and beauty in those media become more extreme. Incredibly, pornography generates an estimated $7 billion a year, more than the legitimate film and music industries put together. Pornographic films outnumber other genres by three to one. Researchers report that pornography worldwide is becoming increasingly violent 4 and “snuff” movies which record the ordeal of real victims are not uncommon. Beauty became the currency of exchange and, like money, was highly sought after by women. However, it was more elusive than pound notes or dollar bills, as men kept devaluing the “currency”. There are no universal standards: “beauty” is an imaginary idol created by the Western male, who raises and changes its standards at whim, thereby making it impossible for his mother, sister or daughter to attain it. Women’s beauty has nothing to do with women: it is all about men’s institutions and power. In the West, the man’s right to pass judgement on any woman’s appearance without himself being subjected to scrutiny is regarded as God-given. As the white middle-class women threw away their aprons and marched out of their front doors in pursuit of liberation, they fell straight into the trap of the capitalist beauty parlour. The capitalist market has manipulated women to spend over $33 billion a year on diet products, $20 billion on cosmetics, $300 million on cosmetic surgery, and over $7 billion on pornography. The consequent burden of oppression borne by women is immense, of which the following represent only the tip of the iceberg:
* The most obvious effect is the vast amount of time, effort and money which women are expected to devote to their appearance whilst no such demands are made of men.
This is what feminism has achieved, instead of protesting against male demands that women should essentially be sensual and pleasing to men. The feminist movement has found its greatest support among capitalist corporate companies and “playboy” type men. The demands of the beauty myth are destroying women, morally, psychologically and spiritually. Women need to emancipate themselves from this unjust demand made by male driven society. In order to achieve this it is not lobbying or government bills that are needed but a need to revert to a philosophy that frees them from the tyranny of fashion and role models, a philosophy that appreciates a woman for herself and judges her on her character, and not for her beauty or bank balance, a philosophy that will reinstate her personal identity and self-respect. This is to be found only in Islam. The sociologist Deborah L. Sheppard states: “Women perceive themselves and other women to be confronting constantly the dualistic experience of being feminine and businesslike at the same time while they do not perceive men experiencing the same contradiction”. Women are encouraged by advertisers to wear clothes that express their femininity yet maintain business-like looks. By this they mean women wear clothes that reveal their breasts, thighs and lace-lined lingerie. Women are caught between the conflicting ideals of “businesslike” and “feminine”, and suffer as a result. Over 75% of women experience harassment that they blame on themselves and their poor control over their appearance. Five studies on sexual organisation have found that “a woman’s behaviour is noticed and labelled sexual even if it is not intended as such”. Women’s friendly actions are misinterpreted as sexual.’ This is substantiated by the fact that 38% of men have been found to abuse their power in the work place to rape women. Islam clearly teaches Muslims to avoid creating or entering such freely-mixed environments in the first place, which prevents such misery and suffering from occurring. The fashion industries dependency on survival by exploiting women can be assessed by the reaction of the industry to John Molloy’s best seller book, Women’s dress for success, advocating women to wear a uniform at work. This minor observation made by Molloy led the New York Times magazine, whose financial survival depends on the advertising revenue of the beauty industry, to publish an article declaring Molloy’s views as passe. Other media, who received a sizeable portion of their advertising funds from the fashion industry quickly followed suit. From all of this, one can understand why Islam, which preaches moderation and simplicity in dress and lifestyle is facing such hostility from the capitalist world. If working women did not dress up like models, the secret pleasures enjoyed by their male colleagues may decrease. No doubt if women followed Islamic standards of dress and conduct, the incidence of sexual harassment would be negligible and women would be spared a major source of oppression. Above and beyond that women’s character would not be passed on sexual appeal but her intellect and ability. From the 60’s onwards the fashion industry, with capital growth interest at heart, have used the media to manipulated women in thinking nudity and low weight are an expression of liberation. -Between 1968 and 1972, the number of diet related articles rose by 70%. Articles on dieting in the popular press soared from 60 in the whole year of 1979 to 66 in the month of January 1980 alone. By 1984,300 diet books were on the shelves of bookstores. The lucrative “transfer of guilt” was achieved just in time. The paranoia with weight in women has began to appear at a very early age and consequently claims many victims. Anorexia and Bulimia are overwhelmingly female maladies: between 90 and 95% of sufferers are women. America, which has the greatest number of women who have “made it” in the male world, also leads the world with regard to rates of female Anorexia. The American Anorexia and Bulimia Association states that Anorexia and Bulimia strike one million US women every year. Every year, 150,000 American women die of Anorexia. Brumberg reports that between 5 to 15% of hospitalised anorexics die during treatment, giving this disease one of the highest fatality rates for mental illness. The UK now has 3.5 million anorexics or bulimics, with 6,000 new cases yearly. Another study of adolescent British girls shows that 1% are now anorexic. According to the women’s press, at least 50% of British women suffer eating disorders. As the females began to integrate with the males, in all the spheres, women’s body shape and size began to play a prominent role in an oppressing way to the women. A generation ago, the average model weighed 8% less than the average American woman; today she weighs 23% less. A 1985 survey showed that 90% of respondents thought they weighed too much. Although today’s girls have inherited the gains of the women’s movement, in terms of personal distress they are no better off. Fifty three percent of high school girls are reported to be unhappy with their bodies by age 13, and by age 18, over 78% are dissatisfied. The feminist movement has created the hunger cult which is striking a major blow against women’s fight for equality. In the West, female bodies have become public property and female “fat” is the subject of intense public debate. Women feel guilty about female fat because they are made to believe that their bodies belong not to them, but to society. Thinness is not a private ascetic but a hunger, a social concession exacted by the community. A cultural fixation on female thinness is not an obsession about female beauty but an obsession about female subservience. Women’s images in the media and magazines are glamorised by “retouching” or “computer imaging” so that a 50 year old woman looks 30 and a 65 year old looks 45. Bob Ciano, an art director at Life magazine, says that, “no picture of a woman goes unretouched… Even a well known older woman who doesn’t want to be retouched… We still persist in trying to make her look like she’s in her fifties”. The effect of this censorship according to Heyn is clear: “by now readers have no idea what a real woman’s 60 year old face looks like in print because it’s made to look 45. Worse, 60 year old readers look in the mirror and think they look too old, because they are comparing themselves to some retouched face smiling back at them from a magazine. Women’s culture is an adulterated, inhibited medium”. How do the values of the West, which hates censorship and believes in a free exchange of ideas, fit in here? This issue is not trivial. It is about the most fundamental freedoms: the freedom to imagine one’s own future and to be proud of one’s life. Airbrushing age from women’s faces has the same political echo as making black people look white: it is condescending, insulting and offensive. To make women look younger, thinner and more curvaceous is to erase women’s true identity, worth, power and history. This is the most damaging type of oppression and women in the West are slowly waking up to it.3 This is one reason why young educated women in the West have found the sincere teachings of Islam to be so attractive. Magazines and other media are under pressure to project the idea that looking one’s age is undesirable because their survival in the capitalist society depends on their advertising revenue. In the US alone, 65 million dollars’ worth of advertising revenue comes from companies who would go out of business if looking one’s age was acceptable or desirable.4 It is in the interest of companies that reap wealth from women to make them feel inferior about their bodies. Through the media the message is hammered in daily. As women spend millions of Pounds and hours worldwide, on ‘beauty’ products and go through dangerous and painful procedures to look like the way they have been indoctrinated by the media. If only women wake up to their own worth, which Allah has favoured them with, the companies via the media, will continue to exploit them and the problem is going to escalate. Young women’s oppression is one story, but as women get older their miseries in the West simply multiply. Old women are not only poorer, but they are also neglected, by the state and by their own children. Western culture is such that helpless older people are left out of sight in public nursing homes, and young children are kept out of their parents’ sight in nurseries and day care centres. The West is rapidly moving towards a system where it is only worth living if you are able to fend for yourself in all aspects. Thus the value of individuals is only measured in terms of supplying society either with surplus labour or beauty. Hence the young who cannot provide the capitalist economy with surplus value and the old who are no longer aesthetically pleasing are excluded from mainstream society and locked away in nurseries and old peoples’ homes respectively. Old age carries such a stigma in the West that adult children may be reluctant to be seen with their ageing and ailing parents in public. The very parents who nursed us and wiped our bottoms when we had no faculty of reasoning have now become a burden. In contrast, Islam urges those who are strong and in good health to take care of the infirm, and specifically makes it a duty upon the children to take care of their ageing parents and not even to speak to them in a loud or angry voice. Thy Lord hath decreed that ye worshOOip none but Him, and that ye be kind to parents. Whether one or both of them attain old age in thy life, say not to them a word of contempt, nor repel them but address them, in terms of honour. [Banu Israil 17: 23] We have enjoined on man kindness to his parents: In pain did his mother bear him and in pain did she give birth. [Al-Ahqaf 17:23] (see also Luqman 31.14 quoted earlier and Al Ankabut 29:8, AlAhqaf 46:16, 17, 18) The average American old woman’s income is half that of an old man. In Britain, old women outnumber old men by four to one, and of those twice as many old women as old men rely on income support (government assistance). Signs of ageing are viewed by Western women as a calamity, and women are constantly harangued in the media about the awfulness of wrinkles, grey hair and sagging breasts. The solution offered is: beauty parlours and plastic surgery, which is so risky and painful that it may be placed on a par with slavery. Modern cosmetic surgeons have a vested financial interest in a social role for women that require them to feel ugly. The cosmetic surgery industry in the US grosses $300 million annually, and is growing at a yearly rate of 10%. Between 200,000 and 1 million American women have had their breasts cut open and sacs of chemical gel implanted. The effects of feminism have been so devastating that women would do themselves a great favour if they were to abandon it and begin enjoying the pleasures that the Creator has given them. Food is a bounty from Allah from which women may eat what is good for them and enjoy it. Women’s bodies are for themselves, not for public display: they should stop pandering to society’s pleasure and bowing to the demands of the fashion industry. Women should bear the signs of ageing with pride, as marks of seniority and wisdom. ... These are the limits ordained by Allah; so do not transgress them. If any do transgress the limits ordained by Allah, such persons wrong (themselves as well as others). [al-Baqarah 2:229] CONCLUSION Islam forbids the one thing that modern men and women have excelled in: a laissez-faire society. In contrast, Islam commends chastity, marriage, reproduction and upbringing of children, all of which the “modern, liberated women” has been encouraged to abandon, at her peril. Sex, in Islam, is permitted only within wedlock, a measure which protects women from being used and abused. This also puts sex into its proper place in relation to other human needs such as social comfort, security and companionship. In Islam, sex is not the be all and end-all of life, but it is an important ingredient for a harmonious, caring and mutually supportive relationship between a married couple. It is a means of deepening love, affection and consideration towards one another. The prominent feminist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir considered the roles of wife and mother to be a hindrance to women’s freedom, and believed that women could only escape the trap of femininity by assuming the role of a professional career women. But it turns out that even the career woman cannot escape the cage of femininity, indeed she has it much worse because she faces pressure to appear and act feminine as well as to succeed in her chosen career. Many feminists seek to steer women away from marriage and childbearing, as if women were unable to find happiness in these. It is a sign of arrogance on the part of feminists to make such assumptions. Even worse, they contend that those women who have found happiness and security in marriage are only fooling themselves. Although in the early part of the twentieth century, feminist efforts focused on the campaign for women’s suffrage and its consequences, a much greater impact on women’s lives came from changes that had less to do directly with the women’s movement, and everything to do with a loosening of morals and manners. After the First World War, there was an increase in literature on female sexuality and premarital sex, which had an effect on society. Whereas it had previously been the males who were immoral, women now- instead of demanding moral behaviour from the males - began to follow the male lead in immorality, to the delight of many men. The feminist movement, which supposedly liberated women, gave men the greatest pleasure. Not only has feminism allowed men to satisfy themselves sexually, but they are now in a position to demand that women look the way they want them to, based on the fantasy pictures spewed out by the media. The effect of sexual liberation has far from liberated women. Rather it has become a snare into which women are led for the greater benefit of men’s sexual gratification and irresponsibility.
Islam, in contrast, commands humans to marry, which is first and foremost an act of piety. Marriage further brings benefits of emotional and sexual gratification, cohesion between families, and social stability. And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that you may dwell in tranquillity with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts): verily in that are Signs for those who reflect.
There are feminists who advocate and eagerly anticipate technological advances that will replace the woman’s role in childbearing. No doubt their wait will be in vain, because even if such technology were to be developed, it would surely be in the hands of men. Instead of becoming liberated, women would be rendered useless and be placed at the mercy of males. The feminists see the main causes of women’s oppression as lying in the political and legal system, especially English common law which has its roots in Christianity (religion in general); marriage, childbearing and the family. Islam’s response to these concerns may be summed up as follows: 1. The rise of feminism in the West was due to the high level of social, legal, political and economic suppression of women. The first suffragette movement in Britain was established to address the political and economic inequality suffered by women, especially those who were married. Throughout the twentieth century, women have fought in the home, the workplace and the street for equal legal and political status. Women in Islam, unlike their Western counterparts, did not need to embark upon any such campaign. Every individual in Islam, male or female, is considered to be an independent person who is responsible and accountable for his or her own actions and is answerable only to Allah. A Muslim woman has equal status in business; if she commits a crime, her punishment is no more or less than that of a man. If compensation is due to her, she is dealt with on equal terms with a man in a similar case. Marriage does not affect her legal status, her property or earnings, or even her name. Thus the demands of the Western women, which have been only partially won after much bitter struggle, were handed on a plate, as it were, to the Muslim women, fourteen hundred years ago. 2. Feminist fears surrounding marriage, childbearing and family as a means of oppression have been discussed in the previous chapter. The following points may be noted by way of summary:
a) Marriage in Islam is a means of obtaining contentment, but if a union is not successful, then the marriage can and should be dissolved. The Qur’an commends marriage in several places (see al-Nisa ‘4:1; al-Nur 32-33; al-Rum 30:21). For a Muslim who has freely accepted Islam and is a sincere believer, marriage entails rights and responsibilities, but is not seen as restrictive. Individuals who enter wedlock must comply with Qur’anic injunctions; any failure to do so brings the threat of divine punishment in the Hereafter. Professor Lois Lamya’ al-Faroqi listed the purpose and benefits of marriage as follows:!
+ For an individual who has freely submitted to Islam, marriage is an act of piety. + Marriage is a mechanism for the moral and mutual benefit of controlling sexual behaviour and procreation. + Marriage provides a stable atmosphere for the rearing of children. + Marriage ensures crucial economic benefits for women during their childrearing years. + Marriage provides emotional gratification for both men and women. + Marriage acts as a protection from sin and as an interdependent institution.
b) In Islam, children are seen as a bounty from Allah, and their birth is a joyous occasion. According to the sunnah, the newborn infant should be given a good name on the seventh day; his or her head should be shaved and the weight of the hair in gold or silver should be given in charity as a sign of gratitude to Allah. It is also recommended to sacrifice a lamb and distribute its meat among the poor. The Qur’an explicitly states that children should not be seen as reducing wealth or curtailing one’s freedom, and any acts such as abortion or infanticide are strongly condemned. (See al-an ‘am 6:140, 150; al-Isra’ 17:31).
+ Family members are there to provide support, sympathy and advice at times of trouble. + Quarrels may be quickly resolved as family members act as mediators and provide counsel. + Parenting problems are reduced as different family members assist in childrearing. + The extended family can assist in matchmaking, thus eliminating any perceived need for “singles clubs” or marriage agencies. + Working parents need not feel guilty about leaving their children, as they will be cared for by family members; this provides ideal support for working women. + Tragedies such as divorce will not be quite so devastating because the peer group within the extended family will cushion the blow somewhat. + Detrimental behaviour towards oneself or one’s marriage will be less likely because the peer group within the extended family will oppose it. + Far from being a burden to women, as the feminists fear, the family is in fact a great asset for the modern woman.
3. Western women who see religion as the cause of their oppression are diametrically opposed to Muslim women who have seen the teachings of Islam and the way of the Prophet as the greatest means of emancipation and attainment of equal status with men. Islam has given the Muslim woman a status which is far above that to which Western women aspire. So Islam has become a haven for today’s educated, thinking women. Muslim women consider their religion to be their greatest friend, not the enemy as their counterparts in other societies see it.
However, even with the shortcomings that exist today, what Islam has to offer women is far better than any other options open to them. The comments made by Western women who embrace Islam are very interesting. A British researcher, Harfiyah Ball, interviewed a number of new Muslims and reported the following comments:
+ “Islam has given me all the answers to my questions. I am at home with the universe. I am at peace and content. I have my guiding light to follow Allah. I seek no more than to continue to be guided by Allah and to surrender wholly to His will. This has the effect of ushering one above pomp, idols and intermediaries. You only do what pleases Allah and that frees you from worldly demands”. (Italics mine). + “No one seemed to care about the family, friends or strangers. Friendship with people was not close. Emotions were superficial, e.g. relationships with women formed only between boyfriends. I felt pressure from society to leave home and live independently”. + “I was lonely”. * “My girlfriends were always looking for boyfriends; all I wanted was friends”. Although there have been many improvements in the situation of Western women and the model of Western liberated women has been promoted worldwide, many Western women have expressed dissatisfaction about attitudes towards women in their own societies. Women feel that they are expected to fend for themselves, to compete for their survival with men. Their society expects them to be self sufficient as well as glamorous and domesticated. Many other pressures in Western society have seen the feminist bandwagon grind to a halt as women come to realise its impracticality and the restrictions it places on women’s freedom and happiness. Young intellectual women have found that feminism has failed them, and they are now looking towards more prudent, sustainable teachings, such as Islam. In “The new Victorians: a young woman’s challenge to the old feminist order”, the author Denfeld states: “Feminism is bogged down in an extremist moral and spiritual crusade that has little to do with women’s lives and it has climbed out on an academic limb that is all but inaccessible”. Her sentiments are not surprising since surveys in the USA have shown that whereas in 1986, 56% of American women considered themselves to be feminists, by 1992, only 29% described themselves as such.
As the feigned concerns of the feminist are becoming apparent. The thinking women are waking up and searching for a more prudent ethos to conduct their way of life. It is greatly regrettably that after one hundred years of feminist dictates, women are as worst off in real terms as a century ago. Poverty is increasingly a women’s problem. Women are made to fend for themselves and their families. In certain areas of Britain a woman heads one in three families’ on her own (compared with one in two hundred headed by men alone). Although English women represent 50% of undergraduates only a negligible few ever reach the top of their career. Western women suffering from mental illness and depression is higher than their male counterparts. The woman in the west has been demeaned so much that her body is considered a public object available for man’s gratification by casually ‘watching girl’s go by’ to sale in pornography, or as a sensual object for advertisers to use in promoting merchandise and prostitution. The consequences of all these is that the woman in the west is portrayed as an object of entertainment, valued for her beauty and a work horse stippling the male with sensual gratification and the capitalist system with surplus profit. The Western woman has been short changed of her integrity, intellect and personality.
|
