Go Back   Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums > General Discussion > Critical Thinking
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-4-2004, 11:42 PM   #1
The_Q
FFR Player
 
The_Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Columbus, OH
Age: 31
Posts: 4,391
Send a message via AIM to The_Q Send a message via Yahoo to The_Q
Default Women's Rights and Mercantialism in Southwest Asia

Recently I've been pondering this.

As I was keeping myself busy with remembering the trading customs of different societies through history I noticed an interesting trend in Southwest Asia during the end of the Classical Era and the Post-Classical Era. With the rise of merctantialism came the greater subjugation of women. After further reasearch, this is what I found.

This starts in the bedouin eras. In the beduoin culture, women are highly revered and honored socially, economically, and politically. They were allowed polygamy and often held high status in the family. They didn't have to wear veils or were they segregated as in the neighboring Persian ideals. The men were often off herding, so the women became the staple of both the economy and politics of the clan. They were regarded with much respect in the counsils. During this whole time the level of trade with local and distant areas was minimal.

Even in the same time period, the trading cities had stricter rules on women. They weren't allowed polygamy, they couldn't participate in many political activities, they began their segregation, and they did not participate in much of the trade outside of their home market. Even the betroathal and marriage exchanges favored men.

Later, when Islam was introduced and the Umayyid caliphate was in rule, the woman's position in economic and political life deteriorated further into nothingness. They were now treated just as well as men (as Muhammad had shown with his own wife and daughters) and were very literate. They continued the art of poetry from the beduoin ancestors. Unfortunately, they didn't do anything with the economy at all, anymore, besides ask for their husbands to purchase things. As the wealthy class developed further, the women of the lower class remained to do dirty work and live as slaves. Slave women worked either as prostitutes or market traders, but they never left home and did very little in terms of running the family. Most of the time they just spent their time tending the fields, weaving, or farming. Many were illiterate. Trade had become international, with the expansion of Islam.

During the Abassid reign, the decline of women came to an all time low. The sexes were segregated and women were forced to stay at home. The lower class women were nearly all slaves and concubines, but some remained as market workers. Slave women didn't have to wear veils, but all other women did. Many richer girls were married at the age of 9 to get the bride price earlier. Women were kept in harems, as well, with the concubines. Trade at this point extended to as far as Great Britain (yes, there's proof somewhere). It was week long trade as well, because of the religious differences in their Sabbath.

Here's the ultimate question. Does this apply to other cultures? Is it even related at all? Please comment.

Q

EDIT: Sorry for typos. I did this at midnight. I was tired and bored.
The_Q is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-4-2004, 11:54 PM   #2
Tasselfoot
Retired BOSS
Retired StaffFFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
Tasselfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Widget Heaven
Age: 36
Posts: 25,184
Send a message via AIM to Tasselfoot Send a message via MSN to Tasselfoot Send a message via Skype™ to Tasselfoot
Default RE: Women

damn Q... sorry.. i really have absolutely no clue. i feel like this was some essay i got in my AP Euro class and completely BSed 4 pages worth out of. lemme know when you want to discuss the effects of Mid-Majors on the BCS and why D-IA college football needs a tournament playoff.
__________________
RIP
Tasselfoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-4-2004, 11:55 PM   #3
tsutter
Banned
 
tsutter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 2,370
Send a message via AIM to tsutter
Default RE: Women

As to whether or not it applies to any modern cultures, I couldn't tell you. I imagine it applies to ancient cultures (biblical times), at least slave trading, prostitution, and all that.

That was an interesting read, though. I never knew women were held in high esteem before* (not after, sorry it's 1 AM and I'm tired XD) Islam was instituted, I thought it was perpetually anti-feminine.

EDIT: 300th post. Yippee, I guess.
tsutter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-4-2004, 11:59 PM   #4
The_Q
FFR Player
 
The_Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Columbus, OH
Age: 31
Posts: 4,391
Send a message via AIM to The_Q Send a message via Yahoo to The_Q
Default RE: Women

The thing is, the Abbassid caliphate had it's decrees and beliefs last until modern times. That's what's so odd. It IS modern culture.

Q
The_Q is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-5-2004, 12:03 AM   #5
tsutter
Banned
 
tsutter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 2,370
Send a message via AIM to tsutter
Default RE: Women

Mmf, that's interesting. Gonna have to read more on this.

BTW Q, how old are you, you seem very intelligent.
tsutter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-5-2004, 12:13 AM   #6
Tasselfoot
Retired BOSS
Retired StaffFFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
Tasselfoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Widget Heaven
Age: 36
Posts: 25,184
Send a message via AIM to Tasselfoot Send a message via MSN to Tasselfoot Send a message via Skype™ to Tasselfoot
Default RE: Women

Q is actually an unborn fetus... he is accessing the internet from his mothers womb. modern technology is amazing, isn't it?
__________________
RIP
Tasselfoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-5-2004, 12:20 AM   #7
GuidoHunter
is against custom titles
FFR Veteran
 
GuidoHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Texas
Age: 36
Posts: 7,379
Send a message via AIM to GuidoHunter Send a message via Skype™ to GuidoHunter
Default

I would think that the decline of women's position would have more to do with the dominating Islamic culture before the trading system.

Well, that or the importance of the role of the woman in life. With the wandering culture of the bedouins and the absence of the man from the home, it's understandable if the women have much more influence. But when life became more modernized and life shifted from the fields to the home, the masculine presence dominated over the feminine.

Does this apply today outside of Islamic cultures? Look at the Central/South American cultures and you'll find that it's kind of in the middle. In the home, the woman has all the power, and is extremely revered. This includes family business, as well. However, in the world of business and politics, they are respectfully left behind. Nobody wants to oppress them, but everyone understands the importance of the role of the woman in the home. They're literate and learnéd and everything, but just don't have the "higher" power, which is where the men take charge. What they have is the "lower" power, which isn't lesser than what the men have, but gets that qualifying adjective for a reason. Obviously, the world of politics and economics has a greater impact than how individual families are run. However, when you ask someone which is more important, the economy or his family, you'll get a different response.

We have so few cultures to look at in the western world. What we have to look at are cultures of third-world countries and cultures which have modernized without losing their cultural values; most of the modernized world doesn't have this issue.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandiagod View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandiagod View Post
She has an asshole, in other pics you can see a diaper taped to her dead twin's back.
Sentences I thought I never would have to type.
GuidoHunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-5-2004, 02:35 AM   #8
blahblah18
FFR Player
 
blahblah18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: NOW BLAHTOPIA
Posts: 1,662
Send a message via AIM to blahblah18
Default

oh Tass don't even get me started on the ridiculous BCS system, and the mid-majors are helpful, Utah might be the real deal, and Louisville definately is
__________________
but for now... postCount++

blahblah18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-6-2004, 12:19 PM   #9
The_Q
FFR Player
 
The_Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Columbus, OH
Age: 31
Posts: 4,391
Send a message via AIM to The_Q Send a message via Yahoo to The_Q
Default

Don't hijack my thread, please. There's a reason I don't make them too often.

Guido, you are assuming that Islam teaches the subjugation of women. Muhammad himself treated his wives and daughters with great respect and dignity, which is the reason for the initial continuities of the bedouin tradition during the Umayyid rule. Islam plays only a small role in this, and that is in the trade itself (Christians, Jews, and Muslims all traded together so their Sabbaths never coincided. This allowed for week long trade. Technique developed by the Abbasids.)

Now, how would the absence of the man from the home be any different? Men left their homes to trade and their wives manned the markets at home. Still, the subjugation continued. It can't be blamed on other cultures, either, because the beduoins rejected Persian and Turkish customs from the beginning (no shawls, veils, harems, etc.).

Another important question. How did men get the upper hand enough to gain the ability to begin this subjugation? Could it be the biological aspect? Due to this biological aspect, does it make sense that women traditionally stayed home? (Ladies, don't kill me for this. From what I've heard periods and pregnancies can hold you home for a long time. That's what I base this question on. )

Q
The_Q is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-7-2004, 09:12 PM   #10
DonCasablanca
FFR Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Exeter, NH
Posts: 21
Default

Ah Q, we meet again.

Not quite sure what your point is on this one, let alone how its worthwhile, but: if you're trying to equate mercantilism with the subjugation of women, that's a bit much. European mercantilism caught on in the early 18th century (after Colbert makes it a full-fledged economic doctrine in 17th century France), soon before the Enlightenment, which you may recall wasn't too bad for women.

If you're trying to argue that the subjugation of women in Islamic cultures wasn't prevalent until the spread of Western empires, you are absolutely correct. In Islam, veiling, harems, and the general subjugation of women did not arise until three generations after Muhammad -- the Quran indeed treats men and women as equals. However, when Byzantine civilization (a Christian society, under which women were quite inferior) began to influence Muslim societies, veiling arose.

Wait - actually, the Quran does prescribe veiling, but only for Muhammad's wives, as a mark of their status. Ironic, considering your argument.

In any event, this is the irony of Islamic Fundamentalism: it defends old, misogynist customs (like veiling) not for religious reasons, but because Western culture (which has since outpaced them scientifically and economically) attacks those customs.

This has little to do with systems of economics, however. Women were subjugated because the rise of the cities made martial, physical strength more valuable. This was a change from very primitive societies, which actually treated women as superior for the most part, as you can see represented in pagan godesses.

A seperate valid point, which you almost touch on in your post, is the collapse of the household with the advent of Industrialism, as men worked in factories instead of at home. But that's a different story.

As far as the physical differences between men and women, men's bodies are stronger and faster, while women's can create milk and bear children. Societies consider one sex superior if they prize one's traits more than the other's. I think its as simple as that.

I suggest reading Karen Armstrong, a history and religion scholar, who is by far the best qualified and most prolific author on this subject.
__________________
DonCasablanca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-8-2004, 12:08 AM   #11
The_Q
FFR Player
 
The_Q's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Columbus, OH
Age: 31
Posts: 4,391
Send a message via AIM to The_Q Send a message via Yahoo to The_Q
Default

Thank you, Don, for pointing all of this out. I can't really refute but one thing.

How did the Muslims come in contact with the Westerners? Trade. It came to me a while back and I forgot to post it. As contact on an international level increased, the level of female subjugation must increase as well.

Then again, as you pointed out, it could very well be the change from pastorial lifestyles to more sedentary city dwelling ways of living that caused the subjugation. It still makes little sense, at least in the line of the merchant class. If the traders are out and about all the time, the women should hold the most power in their families. In fact, after I looked into it further, the lower class a woman was, the more power withing the class she had. She ran her family, held a good voice in the neighborhood, etc. So why are the upper class withheld from privilage?

Of course, to show that they had more power. The veils should help signify that these women were of the moral correctness of Muhammad's wives. They were that high up and their husbands or fathers wanted them to be seen higher. The greed for power explains almost all of it. Still, why the almost total subjugation?

Because the Westerners put pressure on them to do it? I doubt it. Chrisiandom was far too primative to push their morals onto the Muslims. I'm sure it must have been Indians or Chinese, who were much more highly revered. However, it was hard to get to the Chinese, the Silk Road ran right through Arabia. India was accessable through East Africa. I'm sure the Moors were relatively untouched by much except the Spanish, which I know had a huge influence on them.

And thanks for the book reference. I'll look into her. Would you do me a favor and lighten up your writing tone a little. You seemed a little harsh. Again, thanks for helping to answer my questions. Anyone else may further look into it.

Q
The_Q is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-8-2004, 12:50 AM   #12
Cenright
You thought I was a GUY?!
FFR Veteran
 
Cenright's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Beaumont (A town with 25 times fewer people than this site)
Age: 33
Posts: 3,139
Send a message via AIM to Cenright Send a message via MSN to Cenright Send a message via Yahoo to Cenright
Default

My opinion on it. (Sorry if I am repeating anyone.)

As things progress in history and the overall economy strengthens, there is more and more of a wealth of free time. Women were prominient because their time was needed, and men could not sully them, for they would be hurting their own way of life.

With life becomming less of a burden, the man is more able to carry the burden of the entire family and have time left over. This creates the feeling that there is less need for a woman, and so men believe that the woman would not be able to do the same things that he himself is doing.
With man being the stronger of the genders, and women being needed less, they are able slowly take over. Things become tradition, and the role of the woman is downplayed more from each generation.

Man can subjugate another gender by having the physical advantage. This is in a time when physical advantage means a deal of a lot. That becomes a self-fulfilling process, as more women think there is nothing better, and more men think of women as lower and lower.

We went through industrialization. America and Europe lived through that time. Our cultures evolved with our technology. That way we learned from our technological blunders, and our world wars. The middle east though, was not part of that industrialization. Their culture did not go through the same renovation.

They are a culture of long ago, but they have obtained the technology of today. That is a very big problem. Being militant in the 1600's to 1800's was not a horrible worry. But now that culture has been ripped into the new age. And with it, all those mistakes of before that we learned from were not learned by the middle east.

Now they have the technology they didnt work for.
Now they have the militant spirit that we already got rid of.
Now that they didnt have to learn to cope with research taking time, they have it all.

Why else is it that Californians are so stuck up? They have everything right there, and since they didnt work to get a lot of it, they now want everything on a silver platter. Why else does California have all of these idiotic lawsuits that are so stupid that judges with the tiniest common sense throws them out? Such as fat people suing McDonalds.

This all goes back to the evolution of culture, how having things done for you, or having others do all the work makes the ones that are left behind into having a totally different mindset or culture.

(Such as the problems with the welfare system, and why welfare recipients have cellphones even before me)
Cenright is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-8-2004, 08:16 PM   #13
DonCasablanca
FFR Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Exeter, NH
Posts: 21
Default

Damn, Q, I've got to read my posts before I submit them. I sounded like a jackass, sorry.

I think you overestimate -- or perhaps misunderstand -- Mercantilism. Mercantilism has nothing to do with merchants: it's an economic doctrine (like capitalism, like communism) based on the idea that a country's economic well-being varies with its money supply (in gold and silver). This was adopted by most of the European empires, beginning with France under Louis XIV. Their governments set high import tariffs, and low export tariffs, making it costly for foreigners to import goods (and trade them for the gold and silver the country prized).

Sound a bit silly, to value domestic gold and silver more than GDP, aggregate demand, or other modern economic indicators? It was: mercantilism was thoroughly debunked as an economic theory, and faded into history -- although democrats today seem to think its a good idea (preventing "outsourcing" is ridiculous).

But back to the subject. I don't really see the link between trade -- trade in itself -- and gender inequality. Trade of course facilitates the assimilation of ideas and cultures, but I don't see how the scope of a culture's trade could skew a society's gender relations by itself. Again, Karen Armstrong has some mind-opening ideas on the subject.

Which is not to say I don't see your point: the correlation is remarkably close, but I think you're mistaken to assign this cause and effect.

I think the most telling story is the American women's rights movement of the early 20th century. This gained headway only when much of the (male) workforce was shipped to Europe to fight World War I, and women were left to fill their jobs in industry. You would say, perhaps, that women were finally allowed a place in America's trading life, and so their lot improved. But I think there's a clearer explanation:

Women's rights did not improve until women were allowed to play a roll in modernity. As cultures became more focused on technology, warfare, and trade (your idea), men took society's helm: It is patently obvious that men are better equipped for the process of modernization than women. Men will always be more interested in, if not better at, technology and trade. Even today, seventy percent of Engineering majors are men (at least); it is simply TRUE, that while men like maps, women like novels. We are wired this way.

Rather than narrowing the cause of misogyny down to trade, I think its fairer to ascribe it to modernization in general. It was not until our age that we men have about reached the limits of these pursuits: there's no point in building weapons any bigger, and we've reached the boundaries of international trade. So finally this inexorable process of modernization can slow, and gender relations can balance again.

I don't think it was the increase of trade that caused the subjugation of women in the Middle East, but the male chauvinism inherent in modernization: Middle Eastern cultures couldn't (as they can not today) resist the attraction of modernity, but women paid the price.
__________________
DonCasablanca is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution