"study etc is “destructive” to women and contrary to their nature."
Maybe I mistook your point - but it seemed like you're making broad swipes at Islam here, and in recent conversations with my contact that's exactly the kind of misconception she deeply resents.
Rereading your comment, maybe you were referring to just traditionalists in general?
Maybe I mistook your point - but it seemed like you’re making broad swipes at Islam here,
I wasn't talking about her (I saw that you said she is an academic partner of yours so I knew that clearly she didn't think that) or Islam specifically. I said that it's an attitude that various patriarchal traditionalists hold, including many Muslims but that varies a bit by country and by person. My point was that it's not new for traditionalists to "care" for women's rights. Especially when it comes to women who live in very patriarchal societies and have internalised that, they have to think it is somehow good for them. My point is that it doesn't make it any less patriarchal. It's just how these sorts of systems perpetuate themselves.
Oh, yeah we'd be in agreement there, my bad for misunderstanding, I'll edit. But it's just fascinating to me that such institutions do serve needs of communities, and it makes sense to me now that given the choice between the alienation and exploitation of souless jobs for some ghoul and oppressive but spiritually significant social roles, someone would choose the latter.
I'm pretty interested in how the left can better craft and explain narratives that fulfill that human need for meaning. While it may seem abundantly clear to us who are already radicalized, so many people struggle with the contradiction between capitalist alienation and their need for spiritual fulfillment, and they see reactionary institutions as the only outlet. While we can of course be critical of them, we must recognize that they are meeting needs/addressing certain problems, and if we're going to persuade people effectively we'll need to be prepared to meet/explain how leftism satisfies that need too.
and it makes sense to me now that given the choice between the alienation and exploitation of souless jobs for some ghoul and oppressive but spiritually significant social roles, someone would choose the latter.
They don't really make a choice. It's what people are brought up into. Few people "choose" to go there. Some do but it isn't the norm. It's not easy either to break out of that habit, or to get into the habit. Not to mention other dynamics at play.
That's all certainly true but not what I was trying to convey. I'm trying to figure out how to better reach those people by understanding the need it fills for them and how it fills it. Part of that means understanding the religion or ideology on its own terms, that way we can better speak to and understand the people that are locked within that framework.
I guess I'd liken it to the contemporary cultural anthropological method of investigation.
Literally what does this have to do with anything
"study etc is “destructive” to women and contrary to their nature."
Maybe I mistook your point - but it seemed like you're making broad swipes at Islam here, and in recent conversations with my contact that's exactly the kind of misconception she deeply resents.
Rereading your comment, maybe you were referring to just traditionalists in general?
I wasn't talking about her (I saw that you said she is an academic partner of yours so I knew that clearly she didn't think that) or Islam specifically. I said that it's an attitude that various patriarchal traditionalists hold, including many Muslims but that varies a bit by country and by person. My point was that it's not new for traditionalists to "care" for women's rights. Especially when it comes to women who live in very patriarchal societies and have internalised that, they have to think it is somehow good for them. My point is that it doesn't make it any less patriarchal. It's just how these sorts of systems perpetuate themselves.
Oh, yeah we'd be in agreement there, my bad for misunderstanding, I'll edit. But it's just fascinating to me that such institutions do serve needs of communities, and it makes sense to me now that given the choice between the alienation and exploitation of souless jobs for some ghoul and oppressive but spiritually significant social roles, someone would choose the latter.
I'm pretty interested in how the left can better craft and explain narratives that fulfill that human need for meaning. While it may seem abundantly clear to us who are already radicalized, so many people struggle with the contradiction between capitalist alienation and their need for spiritual fulfillment, and they see reactionary institutions as the only outlet. While we can of course be critical of them, we must recognize that they are meeting needs/addressing certain problems, and if we're going to persuade people effectively we'll need to be prepared to meet/explain how leftism satisfies that need too.
They don't really make a choice. It's what people are brought up into. Few people "choose" to go there. Some do but it isn't the norm. It's not easy either to break out of that habit, or to get into the habit. Not to mention other dynamics at play.
That's all certainly true but not what I was trying to convey. I'm trying to figure out how to better reach those people by understanding the need it fills for them and how it fills it. Part of that means understanding the religion or ideology on its own terms, that way we can better speak to and understand the people that are locked within that framework.
I guess I'd liken it to the contemporary cultural anthropological method of investigation.