While all of us are distracted by the events in Iran, we would do well to pray for the citizens of that great civilisation that have fallen under the thumb of the existing mullahs. Whether or not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is really in charge or is the puppet of others, the form of Islam to which Iranians are forced to submit is criminal in its human rights abuses. Throwing it off, though, runs the standard risk of allowing the pendulum to swing wildly in another wrong direction, but such is human nature.
Kathleen Parker has an interesting essay in the Washington Post that shines a light on the implications for women and it leaves the door open to this exact possibility (which, unfortunately, she doesn't see as problematic).
Beneath the surface of news blasts covering Iran's tainted elections, riots, protester deaths and government crackdowns, a subtext of women's rights is emerging. It is a subtext only to the extent that women's oppression isn't often acknowledged directly -- not even by the leader of the free world. But human rights are at the core of what is occurring now.
A government that oppresses its people can only sustain itself with violence, as the world is witnessing yet again as thousands take to Iran's streets. And, in Iran as elsewhere in the Muslim world, violence against women -- as well as against homosexuals and others considered inferior according to the mullahs' masculinist standards -- isn't only permitted but justified with religious doctrine.
You see, the standard problem with "masculinist standards" (MS) is that they are fought with "feminist standards" (FS) and neither of these are healthy (using shorthand for brevity). Since MS are grounded on power, mysogyny, bullying tactics and insensitivity to the other, those pushing back with FS employ the same arsenal, but simply exchange a "grrl flag" on the top of the hill for the discarded "boy flag."
[A previous illustration of this was the plea by Pope John Paul II to the communist east. He begged them, in their rush to throw off the yoke of their oppression, not to embrace the hedonism and materialism of the west, which was simply another lie -- and yet they didn't listen.]
The existing morality police are horrific bullies, and the oppression of women under Islam is ubiquitous, but scrambling for free sexual expression and homosexual rights is simply a different misguided path that we would beg these women to avoid. The fundamental lie that we attribute to the prophet Mohammad is founded in the marriage bond -- which makes women the property of the men in their lives. Wrong and bad. Only when men and women embrace each other as equals, in a bond that indicates mutual respect and protects the inherent good of each will society prosper.
We don't need one more corner of the globe that castrates its morality police so that it can run full bore down the path of the sexual revolution. The existing MS has installed the former, but a different MS could just as well love the folly of the latter. Neither honour the dignity of the human person, serve the authentic needs of women or create the fabric necessary to a culture of life. We must pray that the feminists who put their trust in a FS have a change of heart and come to see chastity before marriage, and the mutual and exclusive gift of self within marriage as the bedrock of the new Iran.
[No assumptions can be made about this woman's motives. God grant her peace.]
Comments
“People have realized that the complete removal of the feminine element from the Christian message is a shortcoming from an anthropological viewpoint. It is theologically and anthropologically important for woman to be at the center of Christianity."
This is just another of the unintended consequences of the cultural acceptance of contraception and abortion! Men's sexuality has been robbed of its creative essence. It is now viewed as something that imposes a burden on women (when conception happens to occur), something used to control women or something that is purely recreational. Why would men bother?? In taking away their responsibility, we've also robbed them of their significance! In the big picture of humanity, men have been made into nothing more than a nuisance women have to figure out how to control in order to bring about the next generation. Men don't see it as their task to protect the vulnerable because they see themselves as the vulnerable ones. A few well preserved vials of sperm would make men entirely obsolete in the world's ethos today!!
That is astounding Robin, and good for you for standing up. At the heart of that matter, I think, is even worse than a gender mixing message. There is an increased sharper and sharper focus on the "self." Solid Catholic teaching returns our focus away from ourselves to Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The original sin, Eve denied her womanhood when she desired to be like "gods." Since the only god she knew was the Father. Where was Adam? He stood impotent... in other words, they were divorced. There's a young girl at Robin's son's high school who was just told that she is the center of the universe and it's a tragic disservice to her.
Ditto what Mary said! A lot of high schools have very poor math and science depts, for boys and girls. I also am educated as a chemical engineer, but chose to teach the two years before we had children because its hours were more suited to spending time with children. (I was looking ahead). When it came time and I was pregnant with our first, I realized that I did not want to leave him with someone else, and was able to stay home full time. I am not sure it would have been that easy if we were used to another engineering income and not just a private school teacher income. Also some of my first job offers were out on oil rigs - I had no interest in that at all even though I enjoyed my engineering classes and did well in them. No one discouraged me from an engineering job, on the contrary I got a lot of flack for my decision not to pursue an engineering career.
I've been lurking, but this is one that irritates me. Beats the heck out of me what these "barriers" are. I was educated as a chemical engineer, where 1/3 of our class was women. However, in electrical engineering, only 1 or 2 out of 30 were women. Is it possible that women are Just Not Interested in some areas? Nah, it must be The Man keeping us down so we must legislate (and, I agree -- when they say "legistlate", I hear "quota"). And actually, I have a friend that was also a chemical engineer. When she lost her job, she decided not to go back into engineering and started working from home so she could spend more time with her 3 kids. Also, if nothing else, there are all kinds of incentives for women to enter science and engineering -- scholarships not available to men, guaranteed housing on campuses that do not guarantee housing to the general population, etc. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that schools in general are not preparing students for the hard sciences. It is truly a sad state of affairs, the lack of science education these days.