The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > 'You should always highly obey your husband' > Comments

'You should always highly obey your husband' : Comments

By Alanta Colley, published 19/12/2006

Where does gender equality fit on the road to Cambodia’s development?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
An article whose author admits to lacking the intelligence to prescibe a sure-fire solution for a very difficult problem, after giving it close and considered inspection.
What a breath of fresh air that is!
A rare open mind all the more likely to grasp the fundamentals, should they ever manifest themselves, necessary to advance the situation.
Posted by colinsett, Tuesday, 19 December 2006 9:53:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GENDER EQUALITY is a western concept and if introduced to Cambodia would probably create the same unbelievable MESS it has done for us in the West.

People ARE equal.. we know this, but CULTURE is the keystone to understanding how communities operate. If you mess with the culture (EVEN though you may not agree with it from YOUR western understanding) you might well destroy a WHOLE society. You give them 'Gender EQuality' and they die out in 2 generations. Ummm you have helped them HOW ?

READ THIS, if you don't believe how such a small thing as an Axe, and its impact on male self esteem can destroy a whole race.
http://www.cabrillo.edu/~crsmith/steelAxes.pdf

While I totally recognize that there are some unpalatable aspects to the Cambodian 'male female' roles, it is part of their culture and cultures are balanced. Mess with it...and you might be guilty of mass manslaughter.

Maybe.. JUST MAYBE.. the men are so happy with their loving attentive submissive wives they bend over backwards to please them ? Now..that would be a revelation wouldn't it ?

I heard from a Cambodian friend at Gym, about how his cousin (in Australia) married a 'traditional' girl from there, and my friend commented that "she will be rock solid, and stay with him through thick and thin ...for life" gee.. now that would be a tragedy for Australian marraiges and society hey ?
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 19 December 2006 1:43:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Treat your man like you treat your dog"

Catronia Rowntree. Documentary Program "Sex Life" AUATRALIA (thank you!) 2002.

Some obscure authour, nations away, is mis quoted and mis translated and there's a mini worldwide outcry.

Why wasn't the same national outcry forthcoming when Rowntree was advocating abusing your partner as a normal relationship?

Talk about double standards.!
Posted by sparticusss, Tuesday, 19 December 2006 2:08:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting outlook. I wonder if we were talking about African slaves and the negative impact on the economy of having to free and pay these people equitable wages, and hence a negative impact on the people in Cambodia, whether your support would change.
Posted by chrisse, Tuesday, 19 December 2006 2:45:58 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps you should ask Angelina Jolie!
Posted by Suebdootwo, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 1:36:15 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The third wave feminists of the Germaine Greer era again made their advances for wage equality, the recognition of unpaid labour and sexual equality after the instability and economic pressures of World War II concluded. Essentially, advances in gender equality have historically been the preserve of societies that were stable and affluent enough for a realignment of women’s economic and social roles."
Except these are not advances in gender equality but rather policies further to appeasement. Recognition of unpaid labour. What the @#$% is that. Who recognizes me when I feed my children or cut my lawn or fix my car or paint my house or anything else I do that is germane to living up to my responsibilities as a husband and father. Or is that something only a woman should be paid for. Motherhood deserves finacial reward, fatherhood is an obligation.
As if Cambodia hasn't enough problems coming to turms with it's past and struggling to have any independant future. It now has world feminism decending upon its culture to make sure it conforms to the new world order of feminist inequality and man hating.
Let's not feign shock and surprise at any violent backlash from Cambodians after upending their cultural relationships.
Posted by aqvarivs, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 2:20:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aqvarvis....you highlight a very important point.

That Feminism has never been just about 'equality' but dominance,PAYBACK for the sad acts of a few bad fathers who produced daughters who decided to start a movement (Pankhurst was one of these)

When the foundations are flawed, so will the end game be.

I shudder when I look at the level of emptiness, deadness, anger, fury, contempt, hate,bitterness which seems to characterizes so many people in our society today.. much of it coming from women.

Thinking they have found liberation, they have in fact found slavery, they have followed as sheep, lemmings to the cliff, and now, we are paying the social cost.

Genuine love went out the window so long ago and now, in its place we have POWER......

"Husbands, love your wives as your own bodies.. as Christ love the Church and gave Himself up for her. Wives respect your husbands in all things" Pauls word to the Ephesians.

Its a 2 way street, but one side has been selective and chosen just one "obey your husbands" and cried victim.... now we have chaos.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 7:03:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Western feminists are like cows in a china shop when clumping in around other cultures. As if they have not made enough mess in the West.

In the West they are the middle class intellectual elite. They represent their own personal interests, consult with no-one and have no place for women who are heterosexual and value family life.

It is always cute when feminists try to claim a link with the Suffragettes, yet does anyone stop to think that the Suffragettes worked with and valued the input of men. They also valued family and children most highly.

What a difference with intellectual toffs like Germaine Greer who is an avowed anarchist, who has lived off the fat of the land all of her life, has never had to do a day's hard work and lives in an English country villa. She is a person who has made a good living out of being a destructive attention seeker and is gross to boot.

We have no right to impose our culture on other countries. What about US feminists having a look at child poverty in their own country or Australian feminists coming to grips with the suicide rate of boys and young men?

It is time that politicians realised that the community is fed up with funding left wing feminists through universities and government sinecures and grants.
Posted by Cornflower, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 8:15:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*sigh* I know I shouldn't bite, but what they hey.

1) Feminists do not hate men. There may be people who call themselves feminist who do hate men, but this is not the standard modus operandi.

2) Feminists are aiming for the women to have as much choice in their life paths as men have been allowed. For some women this will mean being a classic housewife, for some this will mean aiming to be Prime Minister. The idea is choice, and not being locked in by social expectations.

3) Yes, men have been marginalised by some aspects of feminism. That dosn't make that marginalisation correct, nor does it mean feminism is intrisically bad. What is required is a sense of equality by all, not gender wars. Men should have as many choices as women - they should be able to stay home and look after the kiddies, they shouldn't be looked at askance if they wish to teach primary school, or become nurses. Feminism in its pure form should be fighting for Men's easy access to the traditionally feminine persuits as much as it fights for women's easy access to the traditionally masculine roles in society of leadership and influence.

4) I am a young woman with a good education and career, and I am deeply thankful that the various waves of feminism have allowed me to think about what choices I wish to make in my life. I hope that one day those choices will involve children - most young women I know also plan to have children, and also identify as feminist. We do not hate children and family.

5) Women's ability to make choices about their lives has been linked in many studies to better education and health outcomes for the entire community. Why should the women of Cambodia not be made aware that they should have options aside from the traditional if they want them? They may choose, or not choose, to take a different path, but knowing it exists would be great.

(continued)
Posted by Laurie, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 8:52:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(continued from above)

I know this won't change many people's perspectives, but women who believe in feminism are not out to destroy men. Most of us love men. We are daughters, sisters, girlfriends, wifes, mothers, etc. And most of us want as many opportunities for men and women in this society as the individual person wishes to seek for themselves. The false barriers of sex should not play into what role in society a person should aim to fulfil.
Posted by Laurie, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 8:54:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Laurie

With respect, feminism isn't one big sugar coated pill that is good for all, but a hotch potch of beliefs, theories and political movements and is prone to being hijacked by sectional interests for their own gain.

There is something quite pathological about the dominant brand/s of feminist theory being espoused in the West. So why shouldn't there be robust debate? For this reason alone, I object to calls for a united front. You should too if you are saying there is no common 'enemy'. There is no way I would ever be willing to suspend my judgement and become a foot soldier to uncritically defend some of the self-interested dominatrices and manginas who set themselves up as gurus and experts on feminism.

Mass education and health programs are the best chance for people in less developed countries and none of this would benefit from the particular political 'spin' and interference of Western feminists. In any event, feminist academics have been trying for years to close the ever-increasing gulf between Western feminism and multiculturalism so what marketable product do they have of relevance to others?

This being so, it is easy to imagine that feminists in other countries would prefer to grow their own product: one that fits their culture AND does not carry those toxic man-hating and family-hating viruses from the West.
Posted by Cornflower, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 1:07:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The American Civil War was fought over the Confederate's belief that it was their culture's right to own slaves.
I'm sure it was cultural for the Boers to oppress blacks, and for the Germans to hate Jews. It was cultural for the Chinese to bind women's feet, and it is cultural in some parts of africa to have child slaves. Honour killings are cultural, and the woman who was sentenced in India to be gang raped because of some misdeed of her brothers was victimised by her culture, as well.
Do we accept all of that?
If we don't, then to argue that the oppression and suppression of women is cultural and therefore okay in any place at all is the height of discrimination. It basically accepts that only western women are fully human and can have human rights.
Human rights are not relative. Every human, regardless of race, colour, creed, age or gender is entitled to them.
The Bangladeshi banker who just won the Nobel Prize received it in recognition of his small loan program to destitute women. He lent really small amounts of money (the equivalent of $10 or so) to these women so they could start small businesses, the incredible results of this small gesture towards otherwise ignored people have resulted in it being a model followed all over the world and in the Nobel Prize. He lent exclusively to women because no other lending institution would look at them - that was cultural too,
Women, everywhere, should have the same rights, choices and respect as men. When they don't, we should point it out, and help in any small way we can. It is not okay to say they are "only" women and their lack of rights doesn't matter. If you wouldn't want to be treated that way yourself, chances are they don't like it much either.
Posted by ena, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 2:06:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BD, "People ARE equal.. we know this, but CULTURE is the keystone to understanding how communities operate. If you mess with the culture (EVEN though you may not agree with it from YOUR western understanding) you might well destroy a WHOLE society."

Interesting coming from a former missionary who appears to still support missionary inteference in other cultures.

Laurie and Ena well said.

Guys settle down. Have another read of the article, the author is not pushing an extremist position. The popular idea that women should be in charge because they would naturally do a better job than men is challenged (and quite well at that). Questions are asked about priorities. You may not agree with everything but rather than a wholesale attack on feminism identify the bits that really concern you and what alternatives you would suggest.

Keeping women subservent because that keeps the peace hardly seems like a viable approach.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 2:43:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
At its base, this article is less about feminists and feminism than it is about fundamental human dignity (not "rights", incidentally), and the way civilizations move gradually from antagonism and confrontation towards amity and cooperation.

I like William Gibson's quote "[t]he future is already here - it's just unevenly distributed." suggesting that there will always be instances where some folk appear to be ahead of the game, while others haven't quite caught on yet. Trying to bring everyone up to speed simultaneously is as futile and painful as attempting go back to some imagined golden age.

Differences in speed of progress are always highly visible (for example, I vividly recall my first sighting of an East German Trabant on a West German Autobahn back in the late eighties) but ultimately merge into the scenery. It is to be hoped that as Cambodian society becomes more open to external influences, these arcane practices will gradually disappear.

Incidentally R0bert, you raise a point that I have been meaning to ask for a while.

Boaz, when you went off on your missionary work to our North, did you abide by their customs and observe their culture, or did you import your own?

As a corollary, do you expect your wife to "always highly obey [her] husband" back in Australia? I suspect so, since it would explain why she didn't object when you raised your hand against your daughter.

You go so far as to hint that we might do well to revert to their approach:

>>I heard from a Cambodian friend at Gym, about how his cousin (in Australia) married a 'traditional' girl from there, and my friend commented that "she will be rock solid, and stay with him through thick and thin ...for life" gee.. now that would be a tragedy for Australian marraiges and society hey ?<<

Slaves in the southern US states had similar loyalties to their masters, and stuck with them through thick and thin. Is that an aspect of their culture that you admire too?
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 5:26:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I read the article to my husband and in particular the part about the woman obeying. For some reason I struggled with the words. His reaction was that it sounded good to him.....

I guess if you don't take it to the extreme and if woman and men were more focused on what they could to make things better for each other, rather than what the other could do to make things better for them, for sure the world would be a better place and there would be much less marriage break ups and heartaches.
Posted by Jolanda, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 5:41:43 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good comments Laurie, Ena, and R0bert. I didn't want to get into arguments with the anti-feminists. They are as rabid as the feminazis, and just as helpful :(

All cultures are not equal, and cultural tenets that need to destroy a particular group of individual's human ego to artificially build another group of individual's human ego reflect a deficient culture. Individuals in the advantaged group can then abuse their situation, further degrading the other; in other words, one group is 'happy' in the others 'misery'.

Gentlemen, are you really for that?
Posted by chrisse, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 6:32:49 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If we offer aide like food, money and medical supplies to people in third world countries because these people are deprived of these things and are the victims of poverty…
then we can also offer information, opportunities and education to people who are deprived of these things (in this case women) and are the victims of a violent culture.

Whether you like feminism or not should be irrelevant- there are people who are misinformed and simply deprived of knowledge of the REAL options and possibilities that exist apart from the rubbish they are being told as children about having to blindly obey another person. Whether these people/children are men/boys or women/girls shouldn’t matter.

I value human rights more than I value tradition or culture, therefore I believe that empowering the Cambodian women is the right thing to do. By informing and helping them we do not oppress them or manipulate them- we offer them choices.

Culture should not be used as an excuse to block equal rights.

Besides, poverty is related to women's rights issues.
Posted by Celivia, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 6:45:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nothing gives me more joy than to be picked on as a 'former missionary' who supposedly 'imposed' his culture on indigenous people.

Though clearly the story of my wifes people that I've explained a few times has not gotten through. They themselves approached the missionairies who were working among a different tribe, and they simply wanted to be taught about Christ and the Gospel. Its as simple as that. The culture changed as they grew in Christ, but it was their choice, not our direction. Somethings happen by default, like tunes for worship songs... yes, it would have been so nice if they used their traditional chants, BUT as I found out later, many of the old ones had too closer link in their minds to the "spirit realm" when they heard those tunes. Now.. they can begin to recapture them and apply Christian words.

Laurie.. I think you are extrapolating your understanding of feminism on the broader movement. I take issue with one of your points, "Women want as much choice as men".... what I struggle with there, is you separating men and women so much, and it just seems to be promoting '2 individuals' in marraige rather than 'one flesh'.
The choice thing is almost a mantra these days... an ad catch phrase... but when 2 people become 'one' BOTH of them lose a lot of choice, because of the bigger choice they made to be together as 'one'. (I'm not shouting there :) just emphasising)

I reiterate, that if a culture has a value system where the woman is urged to love and please her husband, as the article says, and ALSO if men are taught to appreciate their wives, and respect and love them... what's the problem ? This is indeed the Biblical picture.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 20 December 2006 8:03:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My goodness. Feminism is now being equated to human rights and social equality. I thought Feminism was organized activity on behalf of woman's rights and interest. I have as yet to hear them stand up and insist upon actual equality. However I did hear a woman refer to the feminist movement as the "wise woman's way" and she made it very clear that the undefined "wise woman"s way" was very much morally and ethically superior to the "wise man's way". Stuff like this really gets me laughing. Because some women feel dominated by men and unable to express themselves in a "man's world", then the world must be altered to a "woman's world".
I asked my wife during the show if she wanted to live in a "woman's world" and she said, " There's no way I'm going to start all over at the bottom and have to prove myself to a woman in the hopes of being treated equally".
It took us both a while to catch on to what she had said.
Posted by aqvarivs, Thursday, 21 December 2006 12:44:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aqvarivs, "I thought Feminism was organized activity on behalf of woman's rights and interest. I have as yet to hear them stand up and insist upon actual equality." - that would explain your approach to feminism.

Read a bit more widely, there are some good feminist writers around who are calling for equality rather than pushing the "women are naturally better than men" line. It's to easy to mistake the stuff that gets drawn to our attention (mostly because it is extreme) for the core of feminism but feminism is much more than that. Just as the mens movement is not all about men who want wives just like the Cambodian women are trained to be (but does have some extremists with those kinds of views) feminism is not all about women wanting a swap of roles.

I don't always agree with the assumptions made by equality feminists - I think many have massively overestimated the level of privilege enjoyed by the average male and I've got a fairly strongly expressed disagreement with what has become a standard feminist line about gender and DV/child abuse issues but then one of the best writers (who I've read) on the topic is a feminist (Patricia Pearson).

I've recently finished a book by Norah Vincent called "Self Made Man" which is a very worthwhile read. I don't agree with it all but there is some good food for thought in it for us all. Basic premise, Norah spent about 1 1/2 years masquerading as Ned Vincent in male roles to try and understand how different the experience was. Generally more extreme situations than form my day to day life but the observations are very honest and worth thinking about.

Make sure that you are not caught up in the idea that extreme feminism reflects what most feminists seek, they no more reflect what an equality feminist is seeking than those who think that the inbalance the article speaks about is good reflect my wants as someone pushing for a fair go for men in family law.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 21 December 2006 8:50:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Robert.
You put the case very eloquently.
Women's rights are, of course, human rights, as are children's rights and men's rights. Women's rights do not take precedence over other's rights but, equally, nor should women be asked to sacrifice their rights because it makes life easier for others for them to do so. No adult should be asked to "always" obey another adult merely on the basis of the other's gender, or race, or religion. Imagine the howls of outrage if a culture said black people should always highly obey white people, or christians should always highly obey jews, or catholics should always highly obey protestants. But we are less likely to be outraged by such statements when they refer to women and men, or wives and husbands, because such pronouncements are so common they are virtually invisible.
Many of us still have a problem in seeing women as being as fully human as men, that's why we accept abuse of many -particularly third world - women with little concern, or rationalise it as cultural.
Posted by ena, Thursday, 21 December 2006 9:13:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry Robert but, I don't know the first thing about equality or the "mens club" or "the male dominated society", or "men working in concert to keep women down". I get up every work day morning and put my pants on, go in for a bit of coffee and quick hug with the wife and drive to work where I greet my female boss and settle into the work load with my fellow slaves to the machine. If I've gotten a raise above the usual cost of living or what not it was because I work damn hard and prove my usefulness each and every day and that my commitment to the job goes beyond punching the clock. If my worth to society has to be subjugated to the "needs of the female victim" please don't ask that I read more to better understand their issues. I have a wife that gets up every work day and goes out into the world to contribute to society and earn a few pesos to create a better life for ourselves and our children. My wife does not consider herself a victim of a male dominated society. She will tell you with quite a bit of anger about the social sexual damage women do to women in the name of feminine empowerment. We are not victims nor put upon by society. We pride ourselves on being contributors and think and work in a more holistic manner to life's issues and social governance. We are not left nor right per say but sometimes a little this way and at other times a little that and not always in full agreement. P.S. Cambodian women are not sexual slaves to a dominant uncaring male society. That's a western feminist interpretation made exclusive of the males cultural responsibility to family and mothers, sisters, wives and daughters. It's not actual.
Posted by aqvarivs, Thursday, 21 December 2006 9:30:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aqvarivs, I've not been to Cambodia so my views on the issues there are shaped by what I've read. From what I've seen so far my views largely agree with the author of this article.

Your family situation may be more a reflection that much of the vital work of feminists in this country is done (I know some will strongly disagree).

Would your wife be as happy if there was cultural pressure on her to "highly obey her husband" rather than being part of a partnership with you? Would you be happy if she was not allowed to work because she was married or if she got less pay than the guys she works with doing similar work? Does your wife enjoy the times when she is trying to conduct a transaction and some clod insists that she bring her husband along to talk about it (friends of mine still cop this fairly regulary)?

The extremists have done real harm to our society but I don't see any basis to seperate out the harm that they do from the harm done by the extremist paternalists. Both have sought to build divides between men and women. Both have sought to place one gender over the other and both have sought to portray the other gender as less able.

I think it is important for those of us who believe in equality to make a stand against all extremists, not just the extremists on the other side. Just as I oppose those who wish to portray men as "overwhelmingly responsible for most DV and child abuse" I will also oppose those who think that women "should highly obey their husbands".

They are all part of the same problem.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 22 December 2006 8:21:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Unfortunately Robert no thing in society is accomplished in a vacuum. Feminist nor "Masculinist" have contributed or raised up society alone. Men and women have always worked together to effect change. Men were hunters, women were gathers. Simple enough statement. Accept it for the moment. I fail to understand how women as gatherers becomes less a valuable contribution to that society. Industrialization wasn't an attack upon the female species. It was a mechanism to make mans work faster and more efficient. It's a simple fact that at that time in the history of employment man came first. And womans place was in the home. It wasn't a concerted effort by man to keep woman down. There were X number of jobs and many men went unemployed as it was or they conveniently died in some misbegotten foreign war. Times change and practices change and cultures change. We have a very strong cultural speak of the Feminism battle to create equality. Their historical victimization by men. It's bunk and it's twisted and it's done to devalue men on the whole. The one true constant is that men love women and women love men and we have worked well to this point in history. To highlight the exception and to say that the exception is the greater truth is political feminist counterculture. There are many predominantly agrarian cultures still in the world that have not yet had the experience of Industrialization. That in itself will be a great hurdle. To jam feminism down their throat and to demand that they transform their culture overnight is criminal and not the great altruistic feminist gift to human society that is pushed in western PC media. There is a time and place for all things and Cambodia needs a time to mature and heal from a most terrific historical wound.
Posted by aqvarivs, Friday, 22 December 2006 9:32:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aqvarivs, I agree that social change has been complex just as the reasons behind historical conventions and structures are complex. Too often various "ism's" have tried to simplify their concerns down to easily accepted catch cries and causes. In the case of feminism I think the idea of male privilege has often been overstated (or just plain wrong), likewise I'm convinced that many feminists have been extroardinarily wrong about family violence. The book I refered to earlier in the discussion (Self Made Man) was in part interesting because of the authors observations about male privilege (and how little most of us have of it).

That does not necessarily make some of the inequities that the ism's are addressing irrelevant but it can lead to excesses in attempting to redress wrongs. It does not help when you have others attempting to justify the continuation of the inequity for pretty much the reasons claimed by the 'ism', for example god botherers wanting wives to 'highly obey their husbands' because it's gods plan.

There have been aspects of traditional inequities which have worked to keep society functional, I've heard mixed views on the economics of slavery, I suspect that it worked well for slave owners and not so well for slaves or the whites who did not own slaves (bit hard to get a reasonable job when you are competing with slaves).

Some think limiting opportunities for women has social value, I believe that the cost to the women and society of doing so far outweighs any potential benefits. Few men would willingly swap places with the women we they think should be limited in that manner.

Those women who want a hubby to highly obey and who don't want to make adult decisions will probably still find someone to accomodate the desire, the rest should be free to live as responsible adult human beings.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 22 December 2006 6:02:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Very well said, RObert; it's all about freedom.

Aqvarivs,
“It's bunk and it's twisted and it's done to devalue men on the whole.”
If there are feminists who set out to improve things for women to devalue men I do not agree with them.
In fact, I believe that equal relationships benefit both men and women.
Do men in Cambodia only gain power and value by taking these things from women? Partners in an equal relationship do not take value or power away from each other- they make each other’s lives richer and more interesting which adds value.

Informing Cambodian women of their legal rights and helping them to gain more status doesn’t mean it’s a plot to devalue men.
Your wife doesn’t feel discriminated against because she is not being brainwashed into believing that she should blindly obey you and to be your sex slave, neither is she being told that in case of DV she should grin and bear it and shut up about it because it’s a private matter.
It is estimated that one in four Cambodian women are victims of DV.

Why is there trafficking of so many Cambodian girls and women?
Why do women still make up about 70% of the world’s people living in poverty? Even in Australia, the vast majority of poor people are women.
Why are two-thirds of the illiterates women?
Why do twice as many women as men suffer form malnutrition?

It is time for the world to pay attention to women’s issues in Cambodia and promote equality between men and women and speed things up a little.
It’s criminal to do something about the discrimination women face right now?
I don’t agree; it’s criminal not to act because in fact, even though their judicial system is quite dysfunctional, Cambodia does have legislation in place to protect women and children. To disrespect this legislation ’should be’ a criminal offense.
Posted by Celivia, Friday, 22 December 2006 10:12:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia
-Cambodian Civil War 1967-1975
-Khmer Rouge Regime 1975-1979
-Vietnamese Invasion and War 1978-1991
-1991 U.N. mandated to enforce the peace and ceasefire, deal with refugees and disarmament.
-Total collapse or destruction of cultural, economic, social and political life of Cambodia.
-corruption is wide spread driven by foreign development companies
-corrupt police force
-corrupt army
-corrupt judiciary
-Cambodia is one of the worlds poorest nations ~75% of the population is involved in subsistence farming.
-illegal logging is robbing the country of millions of badly needed revenue. The environment is suffering with topsoil erosion and flooding becoming prevalent. The spread of aids is another threat.
-life expectancy: Men(52) women (60)
-majority of Cambodians living on less than $2.00/day
-85% of Cambodians don't have access to electricity, fresh water, medicine, schooling, or basic services.

Everybody stand back Celivia and feminism have the answers. No I don't think so and it's not that I hate women, au contraire. It's because the last thing Cambodia needs is anything that furthers social division. With ~75% of the population just getting by on subsistence farming, the whole family is necessary to meet that end. If western feminism was actually about social cohesion and working together as a society to make life better for all I'd buy the airfare for people like Celivia to go abroad and do good works. I'd be just as skeptical if it was a Men's only group. I don't like "masculinist" either.
Posted by aqvarivs, Saturday, 23 December 2006 2:50:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is something very wrong with feminism which this article expounds yet again: It springs forth from deciet, not fact, on which a power is established and abused. Numerous examples abound, eg. origin of laws allowing abortion, domestic violence, preferential treatment in work place over men etc.

The feminist mantra is 'equality' but practical effect is power on authority solely in their hands for their own benefit against others, mainly men and children. The result is mass unhappiness of all but the 'feminist' particularly whom have worked their way to the top of power, hold mass money, and direct influence on politics, government and media. I think even women are unhappy jumping to the commands of these...

I have a solution: since the feminist movement is so unhappy with so called 'male domination' of society, then separate out and have your own where the power and authority only extends within it... Leave the rest of us to live our lives as ordinary decent people with our children.

I dont think this will happen...because it bring another fundamental nature of feminism that they are unwilling to expose and talk about, its parasitic in nature...

Sam
Posted by Sam said, Saturday, 23 December 2006 10:26:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aqvarivs, I am not claiming that I (and feminism) have the answers.
I'd love you to pay for my plane ticket but I can't promise miracles ;+)
I don’t really adhere to feminism as such (only when I agree with a specific issue such as this case of discrimination against Cambodian women).
I can see that men are sometimes disadvantaged, too, and I would then be empathic to their problems. (e.g. men not being the natural father of 'their' kid but unknowingly paying for it, or DV against men).

Why should some groups be disadvantaged or ignored or bullied so others can gain from it (may it be power, money, status or whatever it is that they gain)?

Thing is, I am not convinced at all that emancipation of women would dramatically slow down the reconstruction of Cambodia. On the contrary, I agree with princess Norodom Marie Ranarridh, head of the Cambodian delegation, who said at a conference for women back in 1995 that ( http://www.un.org/esa/gopher-data/conf/fwcw/conf/gov/950906204356.txt )

“… the emancipation of women is vital to the socio-economic progress of our nation.

“Our critical areas of concern are:

- remove gender disparities in national education programmes and provide equal opportunities for girls and boys, and women as well as men…

“… we consider it our honour and duty to be able to work for the empowerment of women in Cambodia.”

By looking at different articles, it shows that Cambodian women were ready for emancipation years ago; and the fact that the women want more freedom and equality but are being ignored and brainwashed into believing they should serve a man should be good enough reason to direct some of the available aid towards their causes.
Why use available aid for everything else but women?

I am merely saying that I agree with a point the author makes that women in Cambodia need help and discrimination should not be ignored.

Women’s issues do not need to come last on the priority list; they can stand alongside the other priorities.
Posted by Celivia, Saturday, 23 December 2006 11:09:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia said: "Very well said, RObert; it's all about freedom."

Rubbish! If that is so why do Western feminists support female genital mutilation of young girls, or forced marriage of young girls to old Aboriginal men? Of course Western feminism is not about 'freedom', it about power and certain lifestyles for some middle class women.

Western feminists, often ensconced in comfortable careers in academia and the public bureaucracies, claim to represent 'women' however they do not consult with them and may not always work entirely in their interests either.

Western feminists themselves acknowledge there are major irreconcilable differences between feminism (as they understand it) and multiculturalism. This alone should warn them against proselytising their mantras in other countries.

There is a lot of arrogance in presuming to advise people in other cultures as to what is 'best' for them, especially when at home you are supporting, or at least turning a blind eye to, obvious transgressions against the liberty and individual rights of young girls in the name of 'multiculturalism'.
Posted by Cornflower, Sunday, 24 December 2006 12:08:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia
I can appreciate your quest to improve the lot of women the world over. However at the present moment, those women of age who are needed by the family to work the farm are being sought by the western clothing manufactures in the big cultural centres like the capital Phnom Penh. And to make way for those clothing companies thousands of families are being displaced, broken up, lost. All of a sudden women have become a commodity, marketable, and this is NOT a Cambodian cultural attribute. Watching their families disintegrate and their young women traded like cattle, drug use, sex trade. Worshiping money above family values is not what was the Cambodian Buddhist way. The author of this story happily isolates the reason and context behind "You should always highly obey your husband" (because it is your husband who loves you not the fellow waving the handful of riel or dollars) and excludes the rule of obligation of husband to wife. Can't foster anti-male hatred or push feminism if it becomes known that husbands must honour their wives.
How soon we like to forget that Christianity and Judaism and Islam also teach that wives ought to obey their husbands and that husbands ought to honour their wives. Can you just imagine the horror story when the author bumps into that little tid bit.
Posted by aqvarivs, Sunday, 24 December 2006 2:40:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Obviously this is how more of the aid money should be channelled - let’s just air-drop some feminists.

Cambodia needs another occupying force, as much it needs western feminism. Parasitic indeed.
Posted by Seeker, Sunday, 24 December 2006 10:41:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why is it that instead of discussing the issue: the treatment of women in Cambodia, the discussion degenerates into slamming feminism?
If the roles were reversed and men were in the exact same position the Cambodian women are in, there would be cries of outrage.

Husbands must honour their wives?
Husbands do as they like in Cambodia where Domestic Violence is of astounding rates.

I don’t care what you all have to say about feminism- the issue is the treatment of women in Cambodia and the aid needed.
Whether feminism even exists or not, the treatment and rights of Cambodian girls and women need attention and they need help now, not when feminist bashers decide 'when'.
The feminist and female bashers do not have to give their permission or rationalise that rights for women must be appropriate or depend on cultural norms.

Let the Cambodian women decide; offer help and let them decide what to do with this help.
Show me an article where it is made clear that Cambodian women do not need help and I’ll look into it, but don’t speculate with all kinds of home-made theories to justify withholding aid.

Fact FYI: In countries where women's status is raised by education and opportunities the overall economy of that country improves. Where women continue to be treated as chattel that country stays in the stone age.

The men who condone inhumane treatment of women are simply revealing their own hatred of women in general.
Clearly these men have so little confidence in themselves that they bash any attempt of equality with women.
Real men are not threatened by equal standing with women. Real men fight for humane treatment of all people regardless of sex, colour or creed. Men who excuse subjugation of women are pathetic, feeble little cowards.
Notions of subservience and submission belong in the past. They are regressive and outmoded. Anyone who tries to justify these notions should be regarded with complete contempt as not worthy of civilised discussion.
Posted by Celivia, Sunday, 24 December 2006 3:24:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Celivia says, "Real men are not threatened by equal standing with women. Real men fight for humane treatment of all people regardless of sex, colour or creed."
Exactly my point Celivia. But it's not about equal standing with women. Once again your focus is on the exception to the rule. In Cambodia to day Cambodian men have no standing. They're ruled by western influence and western interest and western investment. Their values have been cast aside, new values are being dictated. Their land is being taken from them, their water diverted, their forest clear cut, the top soil scattered by the wind and flooding, soil erosion, and their families broken apart all in the name of progress. The army only protects those with money, the police only arrest those who can't pay the bribe, and the judges will not take legal action if the money is right.
The average Cambodian family exist on $2.00/day. That two dollars has to cover everything. The average Cambodian cannot afford justice of any kind.
So "Real men fight for humane treatment of all people regardless of sex, colour or creed." Your only concern is for the women. There is nothing equal about that.
Posted by aqvarivs, Monday, 25 December 2006 2:02:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aqvarivs,
I am worried about the men too, and agree that the situation for them is terrible, but I am focussing on women here because not enough people seem to worry too much about them.

I obviously don’t know as much about Cambodia as you do- thanks for pointing out the corruption again; I am trying to understand the bigger picture but yes, I have to admit that like the author of this article, I am concerned about the women for the reason that they seem to have been forgotten amidst the disasters of corruption.
All I can see is that women matter as much as men do anywhere, not just in Western democracy. There are no degrees of equality- either all human beings have equal opportunity or we, as a race, continue to live in a regressive feudal manner with men as the overlords.

The majority of news articles or info on Cambodia make it clear to me that even though as you say men don’t have much standing either, Cambodian women still face more challenges than Cambodian men; e.g. it’s much harder for women than for men to move forward politically, to deal with discrimination and under-estimation, to face financial constraints, have less status, etc.

I believe that (as some articles have addressed) the women, e.g. as councilors, when empowered, trained and given a fair go, could have a positive impact especially at community level, even though they might find it very challenging to balance their ‘family duties’ and councilor duties; a challenge many men do not have to overcome. Women’s experiences matter and should be valued.

Training men and women to work together to rebuild communities (or on larger scale) must be a better thing for the country than training women to be their husbands’ servants and to ‘behave’ and to be agreeable and submissive, surely? Women do have something of value to add and we should insist that they are included in decision making.
Posted by Celivia, Tuesday, 26 December 2006 3:42:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry Boaz, I missed your response to my indirect question probably due to its (my question's) irrelevance to this forum.

But you didn't exactly answer my question, did you?

Let me try again. Did you at any point accept and adopt the mores and lifestyle of the people at whom you were preaching, or did you consider it more appropriate that you continue to set an example by maintaining your own, during the learning process?

You see the point I am making here, don't you? At some point, you were an alien in another culture. Did you or did you not make any concessions to their existing views (before you changed them with your silver-tongued rhetoric), or did you insist on adherence to your own?

I am sure you will try to fob it off as "just doing God's work", but it would be the height of hypocrisy, would it not, if you were to have acted in a way entirely contrary to that which you demand of others.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 29 December 2006 10:24:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Colinsett - I don't think an inability to see the solution to a very complex problem indicates a 'lack of intelligence'. The author is obviously highly intelligent. It is more likely that no particular solution actually exists. I agree that open mindedness is important and that it is refreshing that this author is clearly a lateral thinker. If more people like this woman are involved in development work, I think we can look forward to significant progress.
Posted by Melanie7321, Sunday, 18 February 2007 4:08:05 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy