Maybe you would consider answering the questions I posed to you? I understand that you have suddenly lost interest in the subject and prefer to discuss the deficiencies in my "argumentation techniques," but since you raised a subject, and I took the trouble to engage it and reply to your points, it would be considerate of you to take my points seriously, since they are serious points, however poorly expressed.
You need only to read my post again to see what you have failed to respond to, but I will save you the trouble.
Reacting to my mention of honour-killings, which I explained the relevance of MANY TIMES but will re-explain below even though it is not interesting to me to do so, you raised the topic of how Jewish women are treated in traditional homes "either,", citing the "absurdity" of such customs as wig-wearing, from your perspective.
I took exception to the parallel, pointing out the difference between voluntary participation in ritual by women and being made to live in fear of death as a control mechanism for daughters.
You denied any intended parallel, challenging me to identify it, and expressed your belief that I had gotten your point.
I identified the parallel, I felt. I gave three specific examples of religious rituals that I wanted to know whether you felt were in some way "you might want to make clearer" comparable to "the examples of control-mechanisms used on (NB: non-volunteer) Muslim women that were cited by me."
I ended with this confession that I did not, in fact, get your point:
"If you weren't drawing a comparison you felt was relevant and meaningful in some way, then I didn't get the point of your raising the voluntarily participated-in rituals (that do not relate to the issue of the ability of parents to control their children), I fear."
Now, you might have answered my question about what rituals you consider absurd treatment of women. You might have cleared up my puzzlement about how wigs compare to fear of being murdered, which is a daughter-control mechanism used by parents who were claiming to have no control over their sons. You might have noted this completely explanatory phrase in the above paragraph: "I didn't get the point of your raising the voluntarily participated-in rituals (that do not relate to the issue of the ability of parents to control their children)"
Maybe if I explain AGAIN why I mention honour-killings in this discussion you will afford me the courtesy of a reply to those questions. I doubt it, though.
Here are some quotes from my posts in which I explicitly cite the relevance of the willingness on the part of Palestinian parents to exercise control over their children even unto threatening death and carrying out the threat when they want to. Palestinian parents have been, until very recently, claiming they had no control over their children. Sons.
The explanations, pasted from my prior posts, that you somehow missed:
1) My remark about the ability of Palestinian parents to keep their daughters home, while proclaiming their helplessness to reporters to prevent their sons from participating in the rock "throwing," (those slings they whip around their head make the rocks into projectiles
adequate for hunting game, actually) refers specifically to the "honour killing" phenomenon.
2)Here's just one more citation that suggests the power of families to control their children's behavior when they desire to:...
3)I just kind of figure if there were a will to keep the sons away from danger, there would be a way....
4) Let them send adults to fight and keep the children home. (Oh, they can't keep them home, I forgot! They can keep their daughers home, but not their sons! Right!)
5) The relevance of the reference to the treatment of Palestinian daughters was the reported difficulty of controlling the Palestinian sons. They just run all over the place, those madcap naughties!
6) However, to repeat: The ability to prevent your daughters from speaking to strangers in contrast with the claimed inability to prevent your sons from stoning them makes the subject relevant. |
