Greetings Economists,
On Sep 3, 2006, at 10:27 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi Quoting Farid Muttaqin
wrote:
One of the most influential traditions in Islam is the patriarchal
view of ancient Arabic society. This society encouraged people to show
the power of masculinity. It was a common view within ancient Arabic
society that only a man could be a leader. Having a daughter
embarrassed parents. Fathers would even kill their daughters in order
to save the family from disgrace. Having several wives or concubines
was a measure of male power. Ancient Arabic society eradicated
feminine values in order to keep their masculine images.
Doyle;
The male in essence is married to many women, and therefore the
relationship though face to face an example of one to many social
attachments. Which then in turn models the Christian practice of the
man in the pulpit at the head of the congregation using one to many
media to model religious relationships. And echoed in Christian
culture in the U.S. where Dad gives the law wife sucks the cock. I use
suck the cock as an example of emotion work that reason cannot
adequately address because there is not adequate emotion theory to
address emotional attachments of sex work.
The Marxist concept of the 'whole' working class is not worked out in
terms of what equality of attachment means. It is not just getting a
house, getting a car as the developed world offers. At some point the
relative developed world hits a barrier of how far material attachment
can lead. For example peak oil indicates that energy distribution has
a maximum potential for distribution to everyone.
If equality includes women then the emotion structure of a patriarchal
model as Farid writes about above is the target for Socialist emotional
attachments.
On Sep 3, 2006, at 10:27 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi Quoting Farid Muttaqin
wrote:
Another Muslim man tried to protest. I
interrupted him. "We're changing history today," I said. "We're not
going to shut up."
What stunned me was not only the confidence with which we spoke but
the willingness of the group to back us — 12 Muslim women scholars and
activists and one Muslim man activist who had been invited to attend
the conference by a small but ambitious group of largely Spanish
Muslim converts, the moderate Catalan Islamic Board.
Doyle;
This emotional realization just references a theory of 'democratic'
values she has come to. That is that the right to talk in the presence
of men and deny their 'prejudice' (prejudice is founded in asocial
emotions like disgust and shame) is central to women's rights in Islam.
And further the claim comes from Muslim women in the developed world
of Spain's Catalan. The problem for them is the theory of Democracy
and the theory of attachment founders for them because their religion
based upon writing cannot model true large scale social connection.
Whether Islam, Christianity, or Judaism, there is not adequate theory
of interactive media that models large scale equal emotional
attachments. So that in a mass meeting a sense of equality is in the
air, but a theory is not there for how all women on the national scale
are liberated.
For example Democracy really references 'talk' and text based talk is a
one to many process. So a mass scale theory of interactive talk is
necessarily Socialist not religious in that the fundamental emotional
attachments are no longer male one to many patriarchal relationships
across the whole society.
On Sep 3, 2006, at 10:27 PM, Yoshie Furuhashi Quoting Farid Muttaqin
wrote:
It was an affirmation of the commitment that had brought me and the 11
other participants here from as far away as Malaysia, Mali, Nigeria,
France, Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States and refugee
camps in the disputed territory of Western Sahara to share stories
from the trenches in the "gender jihad." We Muslim feminists view it
as a struggle that taps Islamic theology, thinking and history to
reclaim rights granted to women by Islam at its birth but erased by
manmade rules and tribal traditions masquerading as divine law.
Doyle;
Echoing my point above, Farid had an emotional attachment to these
twelve people, a commitment which she saw as in direct conflict with
'manmade rules' (text based one to many media) and tribal traditions
(family home practice) as God's Law. God is outside material existence
and therefore Socialist are at advantage immediately in addressing a
theory of emotional attachment that is Socialist.
The deep question is how a whole society represents a Socialist
emotional attachment. That is the central core issue of Women's
liberation as Farid gives us to understand above. But rather than tie
ourselves to one to many theories of the Book religions, we want to go
to an interactive emotional attachment that Socialism can meet.
Socialism in other words can say something about Homosexual attachments
within the context of working class equality if Socialism agrees to
absorb emotion work into the movement. One that it is a real material
work, Two emotional equality is really an end goal of Socialism so that
women will finally get true equality in a Socialist world not just the
right to suck a guys cock while speaking truth to power.
thanks,
Doyle Saylor
