Oppression of American women

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim In this case, her dad appeared uncaring even for your typical anglo.

Edited by Aelfgifu - 20-Jun-2007 at 09:26

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim My suggestion to Omar would be becoming more of his  own rather that allowing the ideas of other to govern his emotions. Dipo, I have at least three different cultures in my mums side of the family alone. No, make that 4 I forgot the Latvians. Another 2 on my dads side, and I can't count the number I have to deal with in any typical day.

@Dipo: No I meant cultures not ethnicity.
@Reginmund: By saying a weak family culture in no way did I mean they love their kids less.

It is no more a system of personal violence than national law is a system of state based violence. I mean that literally, both systems are, in theory, based on violence.

I think what causes the biggest advantage is that people always deal with personal issues, while hardly ever deal with the state. The state is big uncaring and often mistrusted, family and friends are not.

Similar to this issue there is a current controversy about remote aboriginal settlements. In many of these places there is alot of domestic violence, substance abuse, and terrible living conditions. The 'states' proposed solution (supported by both major parties) is to revoke the autonomous status these settlements were granted under previous aboriginal rights agreements and send in the police and possibly army to enforce law - A completely stupid idea. Sending the oppressors of a people to prevent domestic violence in their community. National Law in our case is completely unable to prevent domestic violence that has been caused by a complete breakdown in the aborigines way of life (due to white occupation)

If a society doesn't allow the national law to be a trusted mediator, and a final word, national law doesn't work. The aborigines have every reason to mistrust the police - their prime persecutors - and because of this domestic violence in their communities is rampant.

Originally posted by Reginmund Originally posted by Omar al Hashim The whole point of the example was to show the difference between a strong family culture and a weak one. � This is a rather careless choice of words; even though the social boundaries are different this does not mean the emotional commitment between the family members is less strong. It's possible to care a great deal about a person�and at the same time allow that person considerable freedom.

Ditto for Reginmund!

Originally posted by TheDiplomat Originally posted by Constantine XI Put yourself in the position of a central Asian woman. You probably received little education and were probably married at a young age to someone who suited your family's taste, already this is not going to be helpful. The strong presence of an honour culture and the need for the head of the family (your husband) to appear in charge, means that your obediance to his will is required. The last thing he needs is to be seen as unable to control his wife. This is also bad.   Poor example. The Central Asian Women are the ones who got the most education among Muslim Women. They avarge more than 99% literacy rate and occupy much more degrees at university thanks to mass education provided by the Soviet Communism.   If you had suggested him to put himself into the shoes of a women living in Arab Peninsula, I tend to agree with you then.