Why dont western feminists and leftists protest for womens rights in Iran, Saudi etc?

[PurpleTree]

Or do they? I haven’t really seen it

because the women in Iran, KSA etc. are really defenseless and have less rights than men. 

This is the real toxic patriarchy.

 

[Leo Gura]

Because stage Green values can't survive there.

[Hatfort]

There are some attempts, I've heard of Western feminist movements to help women from Afghanistan after the recent power moves, for example. Also about empowering women of Africa, which sounds great, but I don't think is that simple where so many men are extremely poor as well, and they won't get a wealthy wife to maintain them.

In a sense, there's probably a surface understanding of the development stages, even if they are not yellow yet, most greens kind of get some societies are in previous battles yet. Criticize green contradictions all you want, but remember they are higher than orange and blue, so what's questionable about them, it's probably worse in the others.

[kray]

On 10/10/2023 at 6:41 PM, PurpleTree said:

Or do they? I haven’t really seen it

because the women in Iran, KSA etc. are really defenseless and have less rights than men. 

This is the real toxic patriarchy.

 

But the thing is Iran and Saudi are much lower on the spiral. They never had a woman’s rights movement like the west did, so the women in those societies for the most part like wearing hijabs, like playing that role as they see it as a moral duty in their society. It’s not just Iran, in most underdeveloped places with stage purple red and blue, people, even most women, accept that woman have a specific duty in society and men have a specific duty in society. Also Iran, India, china or any eastern or middle eastern culture for that matter see nudity and exposing one’s self as a sign of impurity. The women there genuinely see covering up and wearing a hijab as a moral duty to uphold specific values in their culture.

Edited October 12, 2023 by kray

[PurpleTree]

2 hours ago, kray said:

But the thing is Iran and Saudi are much lower on the spiral. They never had a woman’s rights movement like the west did, so the women in those societies for the most part like wearing hijabs, like playing that role as they see it as a moral duty in their society. It’s not just Iran, in most underdeveloped places with stage purple red and blue, people, even most women, accept that woman have a specific duty in society and men have a specific duty in society. Also Iran, India, china or any eastern or middle eastern culture for that matter see nudity and exposing one’s self as a sign of impurity. The women there genuinely see covering up and wearing a hijab as a moral duty to uphold specific values in their culture.

Haven’t you seen the protests in iran recently because many women and men had enough of this bs? Many people were killed and tortured. But not much help from feminists and lefitsts in the west it seems

[Hatfort]

I think the support for women in those countries from leftists and feminists is absolute. But if what you want is Islamophobia, you gotta look to the lower stages.

There's a limit to what can be done from the outside. Muslim societies are evolving too, the next generations will be less religious and more open, to say it in some way.

[PurpleTree]

9 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

I think the support for women in those countries from leftists and feminists is absolute. But if what you want is Islamophobia, you gotta look to the lower stages.

There's a limit to what can be done from the outside. Muslim societies are evolving too, the next generations will be less religious and more open, to say it in some way.

Women there are getting stoned and tortured, put to jail ( for example for not wearing the headscarf) and criticising that or protesting against these fools is islamophobia?

or what are you trying to say?

Edited October 12, 2023 by PurpleTree

[zazen]

 

The natural power imbalance man has over woman is not earned by him or his will, nature and evolution earned it. Virtue isn't found in power that has been given by nature but their use of that power by their own will.

 

The existence of power asymmetry isn't immoral or oppressive but it becomes so in how mans spirit makes it so. The extreme versions of the feminist movement reflexively overcompensate in political power for what they lack in physical power against men. Physical power is a natural state of biology whilst political power is a nurtured state of affairs.

 

Men didn't intend on this power asymmetry for its a natural occurrence and shouldn't be vilified as a gender for what nature has given, but they should be held accountable in their misuse of that power.

 

A lot of the structure of traditional societies are made on the framework of these power imbalances, a framework nature gave. Its not that mens position as providers or protectors have a inherent divine value to them making them superior to women as much as it is a natural state that has functional value and places each gender in their most efficient roles for them to survive as a species.

Edited October 13, 2023 by zazen

[An young being]

Maybe they understand it won't work. It will most probably turn into or get projected as a fight between religions instead of a fight between feminists and patriarchies.

[Schizophonia]

11 hours ago, PurpleTree said:

Haven’t you seen the protests in iran recently because many women and men had enough of this bs? Many people were killed and tortured. But not much help from feminists and lefitsts in the west it seems

 

[BlueOak]

Your values are not superior to theirs. Their values are not superior to yours.

Even for your goals, on balance that would be counterproductive. The Western person doing the protesting would become the focus, and given how many people in the Middle East hate western people, their ideologies or their symbolisms etc, it would not go well.

The only way to do what you propose would be to find people in those countries, who know how to operate in them, or as leo says survive in those climates making gradual positive changes and financing them. If they are too radical they will likely be imprisoned or killed. This is what Western countries have done in the past, but it leaves the obvious response:

Stop interfering in our countries. Which is correct, it is the shadow we have causing many conflicts all over the world, because your values are not superior to theirs. There is no hierarchy here, there is what best fits the situation, and there can be a gradual adaptation to changing it for the better, but that's unlikely to be from an outside source. It's the same when Saudi Arabia finances western elections (which they do), or Russians try to directly bribe an official. They are trying to impose a perspective over others, which we can all see the fallout, instability, and chaos from both of these actions.

Here let me try to equate you to a country:

Imagine I tell you a truth about you, that you don't want to change. Even if I say it nicely. Are you going to do it? Why? What's your motivation? Because I said so? - Okay so i'll PAY someone to impose that view on you, how did that feel? It doesn't feel nice, I feel it daily, corporations do it all the time. I will say people who want to get out of that environment should be given every tool to do so, but then we hit the problem of immigration and population problems. Definitely an imperfect world with no easy answer.

Edited October 13, 2023 by BlueOak

[zazen]

@BlueOak  Great take. As in spiral dynamics, stage of development are just that - a development. Not an imposition from others who have developed to that stage. Although, spiral stages are themselves in a hierarchy of their own so its natural to view a stage red society as inferior, but a mistake nonetheless.

Other cultures shouldn't be interfered in by imposing cultural ideas from their own cultural stage. That robs them of their growth process, and what is imposed will try to be disposed of in rebellion.

Lower stage societies view the struggles the West is going through and deduce that they are better than them, which entrenches further to their own stage. Maybe once the West comes out the other side of its current growth process and looks to a lot more solid they can then contemplate its merits and be incentivised to develop towards it. 

These two videos show the psychology and perspective of how more traditional conservative societies view themselves as superior - in this case particularly from an Islamic lens.

 

What multiculturalism has done it seems is clashed different perspectives, values and stages of growth towards each other in a pressure cooker. Each questioning the others validity, assumptions and way of life which brings about the current confusion, cognitive dissonance and identity crisis.

Out of this friction evolution could bring us to our supreme identity which integrates them all together, but thats a lengthy and tumultuous process. 

 

Quotes on multiculturalism from Ken Wilber

''Multiculturalism is a noble, logocentric, and rational endeavor that simply misidentifies its own stance and claims to be not rational because some of the things it tolerates are not rational. But its own tolerance is rational through and through, and rightly so. Rationality is the only structure that will tolerate structures other than itself.''

''The "multicultural movement," which claims a universal tolerance of all cultures freed from the "logocentric, rational-centric, Eurocentric" dominance and hegemony, is a step in the right direction, with all good intentions, but ends up being self-contradictory and finally hypocritical. It may claim to be "not rationalcentric," but in fact cultural tolerance is secured only by rationality as universal pluralism, by a capacity to mentally put yourself into the other person's shoes and then decide to honor or at least tolerate that viewpoint even if you don't agree with it. You, operating from the pluralism of rational worldspace, might decide to tolerate the ideas of a mythic-believer; the problem is, they will not tolerate you – and, in fact, historically they would burn your tolerant tail at the stake in order to save your soul (whether your saviors be Christian, Marxist, Muslim,or Shinto).''

Edited October 13, 2023 by zazen

[BlueOak]

@zazen
Thank you for the perspective I'll do some analysis here, which will be limited in scope given how many points he touched on. Firstly I see his 'authority is causing this bias' rather than the liberal 'this has come about on its own' bias.

He's very much an ideologue, meaning he starts with a premise and works backward to justify it. He takes each point, finds one reason he can try to demonstrate its true, and moves on, rather than taking many facets of each point he makes and trying to find the best (or most helpful) view of it possible. Here is what I listened to for a while till I was tired of it.

He sees failure as a problem. He sees contrast as a problem. Both are absolutely required, 100% necessary for growth at least in Western societies that embrace and use failure. Which has been a big push in the last two decades, learning from failures rather than fearing them. I assume learning from failure is universal even if it may be repressed and not exposed in other countries. That lack of reporting on flaws or open transparency brings me to the next point:

His case about Sweden is odd. How many people report rapes in 3rd world countries? Or do anything about it legally? It's a false equivalency. South Africa which does seem to report these statistics is very high on that table too, I wouldn't equate South Africa and Sweden in many ways.

For the medications yes it's an industry that is overused. If you extended it across the world and gave people enough money for it, they'd be on them too. If we incentivized doctors to give as many medications as possible. I wouldn't doubt rich enough people in some of the countries he prefers are exactly the same way. While that is true, he makes it seem its pressures within the society itself that is the sole or unique driving factor of the way this natural problem manifests. Not the availability of medicine and the want to sell it. - People self-medicate everywhere when it's available, if they don't they find other outlets.

Body image yes, that's hyperfocused here, it's the leftovers of objectification inherent in the country he likely lives in, a flaw easily seen and we are going some way to move out of it, with plenty of pushback of course. Then he talks about people doing things to earn money to survive, while he may not like what they do, people will survive one way or another in hard times, and better porn from the safety of their own home than crime. He has no real concept of what it costs to live in the UK, its nothing about 'free independent woman' the old tired trope, I am neither a woman nor particularly free when I work, and I've been broke most of my entire life even when working 60 hours a week. It's much more related to the cost of things, and how people do or do not establish a value they can bring to the society they live in, not gender.

I get that the over-emphasis on beauty has caused many many issues, dating for example, lower birthrate due to exacting stands, seeking physical pleasure over love breaking up marriages, and one of them is people's default to physical beauty rather than exploring other long-term options that might keep them financially stable. His view is people are bad because they earn money to eat and objectify their bodies to do it, which is such a condensed perspective it misses all nuance.

The alcohol industry is on the decline (likely due in no small part to people self-medicating in other ways). Pubs are closing here in the UK. Then he goes extreme, outlets are closing all across the country in the UK due to shoplifting? Yeah ignore the internet being the hub of trade, ignore the cumulative effect one store closing has on the other, the huge differences in cost of running an online store vs an offline one, traffic problems, fuel costs, and massive commercial rates increases the last few years. Let's just blame shoplifters, and 'mobs of people' all I ever saw in a store were kids stealing. I did see that shops didn't bother prosecuting them much, probably due to insurance or just offsetting the loss in other ways financially, rather than legal costs (like price increases), which has led to an increase in people doing it, because nobody follows them up.

Then I stopped watching at 8 minutes :). I can only watch ideologues for so long.
Thanks though it was interesting.

Edited October 13, 2023 by BlueOak

[BlueOak]

1 hour ago, zazen said:

@BlueOak  

What multiculturalism has done it seems is clashed different perspectives, values and stages of growth towards each other in a pressure cooker. Each questioning the others validity, assumptions and way of life which brings about the current confusion, cognitive dissonance and identity crisis. Out of this friction evolution could bring us to our supreme identity which integrates them all together, but thats a lengthy and tumultuous process.

Very true. There are two ways of doing this blending the cultures or letting them reach parity and these are not exclusive to each other. That parity or blending approach will then create a genesis in the next generations that embody it, or so goes the theory. Never as simple as that but that's where laws come in, conversations, debates, and social change.

*edit because this is a more whole view and less divided.

Edited October 13, 2023 by BlueOak

[PurpleTree]

2 hours ago, An young being said:

Maybe they understand it won't work. It will most probably turn into or get projected as a fight between religions instead of a fight between feminists and patriarchies.

But feminists and leftists usually aren‘t religious i think, so it wouldn‘t really be religion vs religion

1 hour ago, BlueOak said:

Your values are not superior to theirs. Their values are not superior to yours.

Even for your goals, on balance that would be counterproductive. The Western person doing the protesting would become the focus, and given how many people in the Middle East hate western people, their ideologies or their symbolisms etc, it would not go well.

The only way to do what you propose would be to find people in those countries, who know how to operate in them, or as leo says survive in those climates making gradual positive changes and financing them. If they are too radical they will likely be imprisoned or killed. This is what Western countries have done in the past, but it leaves the obvious response:

Stop interfering in our countries. Which is correct, it is the shadow we have causing many conflicts all over the world, because your values are not superior to theirs. There is no hierarchy here, there is what best fits the situation, and there can be a gradual adaptation to changing it for the better, but that's unlikely to be from an outside source. It's the same when Saudi Arabia finances western elections (which they do), or Russians try to directly bribe an official. They are trying to impose a perspective over others, which we can all see the fallout, instability, and chaos from both of these actions.

Here let me try to equate you to a country:

Imagine I tell you a truth about you, that you don't want to change. Even if I say it nicely. Are you going to do it? Why? What's your motivation? Because I said so? - Okay so i'll PAY someone to impose that view on you, how did that feel? It doesn't feel nice, I feel it daily, corporations do it all the time. I will say people who want to get out of that environment should be given every tool to do so, but then we hit the problem of immigration and population problems. Definitely an imperfect world with no easy answer.

but opression of palestinians etc and oppression of women is both the same evil, no?

[BlueOak]

43 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

but opression of palestinians etc and oppression of women is both the same evil, no?

I won't use the term evil, because that is again you saying your perspective is greater than theirs. It's pushing that part of you away in judgment. When it's an individual in front of you that is being abused it's easy to say yes, step in, and get that person the hell out of there. (I have done this)

You are looking at a mountain and speaking to it with an unrecognized concept of morality. That's quite a challenge.

The entire fabric of that society, its collective development, institutions, values, it supports and is intertwined with what you don't like. The people there will continue to reinforce what you don't like because it's a reflection of who they are and has always been, their collective identity. So you make a value judgment from the perspective that who we are is better than who they are. It's not you going in and saving that one woman from her husband beating her, it's you reaching into the entire country of millions of people, thousands or tens of thousands of years of social development, and saying hey, stop that because I know better and it's wrong, or worse funding a part of it to imbalance the rest of it. Worse yet other people in different states of mind just bomb it, or kill the other perspectives because it's not theirs.

I mean name calling or judging can serve a purpose too, shame while horrid has a purpose, but it's also likely to elicit a purely egoic defense, conflicts etc because nobody likes shame. It's less likely to meet conflict to just highlight a way of life that has less suffering it in. Show them how it can be achieved to benefit their own way of life, and the suffering that can be avoided by its adoption, You can't do that from a place of thinking I am better than you in any way. You have to really own that part of yourself, see how you could be just like them if you lived there, if you were brought up there. You can't demonize whatever is in you that hates this and expect to see an external change of reflection.

Edited October 13, 2023 by BlueOak