Light the dark pt2

Two questions can be asked to know if you or a loved one is depressed, or just feeling miserable:

1. How long is it lasting?
2. Is it taking control over my life?


Men are diagnosed far less with depression than women. Why do you suppose that is? Probably the same reason why there are more women in therapy than men. Growing up, boys are raised to be "men", the stupid boxed PERFECTED definition of what a man needs to and should be. Unfortunately, this box does not and will not do society any good, not only does it place the men who can't fit inside as outcasts, but it also places women in a place of inferiority. To be violent and to be tough is part of a man's boxed definition, to be emotional and submissive is a woman's requirement. The outcome we see is women having more "freedom" to speak of their issues then men, because she is seen as an "emotional being" she then becomes "allowed " to act like one. Whereas a man may not be seen as a man anymore if he decides to show any sign of weakness. We must always ask ourselves, are the boxes society places on us worth following? If so, to what extent? How long will it take for my fear of society to make me coo coo in the head? Or has it already done that to me? Is it worth the trouble? If so, to what extent? Who should I be pleasing?

Psychological illnesses should never be left untreated, the loneliness that results from it is roughly unbearable. Society's pressure for its individuals to be perfect is an impossible task to accomplish, people come from all sorts of different backgrounds, what may be perfect for you may be totally flawed for me. Respect yourself before you respect others, and demand self love, tears come and go, but when depression comes knocking on your door, it will be a long way, if ever, for it to depart from its visit.

Advise loved ones on the importance of smiling, tell your friends you love them. Never judge a book by its cover, and always remember that when you point a finger at someone, you are pointing three fingers right back at you. Awareness is important to help rid of the problems our people suffer from, the first step to regaining power: denying access. Be the true radical Feminist that you are, and deny depression access! By denying access, you re-define definitions, and gain complete power over yourself again. Power is not given, it is taken. Take it back, and live your life again!


Writhen for someone special.

Light the dark pt1

Bright sunny day. Birds chirping. Great, I'm alive again. I don’t want to wake up. No, you're already awake, you mean you don’t want to get up, right? NO, I meant I don’t want to wake up. The snooze button can only work for so long. Slide out of bed and the first person I meet today, my enemy. Yes, you, staring right back at me, what do you want? And why does it look like you gained more weight? Did your thighs get bigger? Yes, you. Look at me when I talk to you. That’s right, you can cry, feel sorry for yourself and look the other way, you are no good for anything. No one likes you. I don’t like you. What are you doing? Yes, you, mirror, I'm talking to you. Why do you make me look so ugly? Am I really that bad? How can people stand to look at my face? I know I can't. I look away. Disgust, shame and the passion to be sad. I cannot find this beauty people speak about, the beauty of life. Let me be, leave me to stay sad, it is all I know how to feel.

Depression, if left untreated, not only effects our mental state of mind, but our energy, daily activities and total production to function properly. The world is so overwhelming, and I do not want to be around anymore.

According to a research study done by Dr. Juliet Dinkha for depression in Kuwaiti students, she emphasized the importance of Depression workshops to help society's needs today, the ability to speak about your problems and insecurities can help society as a whole because it helps the individual as one. Signs she identified that were most seen in her student samples were crying, loss of pleasure, fatigue, punishment feelings, difficulty in concentrating, feelings of guilt and more.

It is important to remember that those whom put walls around themselves are just that: walls. Once torn down the root of the problem can be found. We must care for our loved ones, because keeping things in will not affect the individual now, but in years later to come in problems like being overweight, excessive drinking, constant negativity and lack of interest in making something big out of yourself.



Further readings: http://www.q8nri.com/home/2009/12/10/students-in-kuwait-are-at-great-risk-for-depression-research/comment-page-1/#comment-9147


http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/medical/IM00356

If this were you, could you see it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_lWQJPLd-8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xgsdhrj_zvg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYWMe7cTsRs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsKBs6gZfW0&feature=endscreen&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raY7xQBh0nM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWTAdfIc4kQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7cumti-Pg8&feature=related

Opression, inequality.

Many argue against women's oppression. Many discuss the problems from and resulting to women's inequalities in society. It is important to remember the significant difference between oppression, and inequality. Radical Feminists claim women to be oppressed. Liberal Feminists say it is merely a case of inequality. But what is the difference? And which side wins? And why should it matter whether women are burdened with inequality or oppression if we all know women are treated like crap anyway?

Liberal Feminism strives for Equality, it does this through reasoned, intellectually based ideas. They see power as a resource, a resource that has been re-distributed unequally. Radicals give emotional and political statements, for a bigger change: social change. They are not interested in fancy arguments, they are too busy with standing against the degradation of women. Unlike the Liberals whom see power as an unequally distributed resource, to Radicals, power = domination. The only way to conquer power is to dominate, you dominate by denying access to the other. Once you’ve denied access, you can re-define definitions and create all you desire. Your the one with the power, your the one who decides. As many women fail to realize power is not just given, one must take it.

I will discuss two philosophers whom looked into women's oppression and what steps can be taken to solve the issue. Their opinions on education and the economic system are two ways of how oppression is shown in society. I will then conclude with my opinion (of course) an why I think a radical Feminist makes a stronger case.

John Mills, an 18th century philosopher, was very big on education. One of my favorite ideas about Feminism which he discusses, Association: women are shaped through their experiences. How can you expect a woman to be any other way when society's views is all she knows? Women had no political rights, money or property because they were (are) considered property themselves. Even for the longest time were denied from representing themselves in legal matters. Change a woman's experiences if you want to change the outcomes. Good experiences on what's right and good for one's self an the culture they live in will result in great outcomes, stupid societal ideas? Not so much. Before you assume a woman is unfit for SOMETHING, remind yourself that it is not because SHE is unfit, but because some man decided that for her.

John lived during the Victorian era, an era where rape within the marriage is impossible and women had less grounds of divorce then men. John believed in the harm principle: Your freedom ends when you end someone else's. he advocated for women's access, education and their right to vote. He did not like the inequality that was settled in society, I agree with him. He saw that through education and different (better) experiences, women were just as capable as men in the jobs women were banned from. He then goes on to reject Essentialism, which is the idea that you are born the way you are because of biology, if you are incapable, then there is nothing you can do to change it. This was the view on women, incapability, and unable to change, which is why they needed men to take over them, rule for them. Women's "incapability" and "inferiority" are the radical results of Essentialism. Finally, he believed that women would only freely be able to choose if we demolish all social organizations that influence her decision (marriage, nuclear family, etc…) if women are able to make free decisions they would have reach true liberalism and freedom. But, seeing a show long women's "inequality" has been around for so long, will women's shackles ever truly be broken from society? More importantly, will society ever be able to get off the addiction of treating women like crap?

Engels was another philosopher who argued against women's oppression. He blamed this on the new economic system that required a women's monogamy. A woman's faithfulness to her one husband ensures the children's legitimacy for the family's inheritance of private wealth. In early society.
In the early past before capitalism, all individuals of the tribe worked equally towards collecting the food, hunting, and communal child bearing. As time passed, inheritance evolved into society, in with private wealth, and out with the fruit of one's own labor, therefore making the need for more working hands. It was no longer the tribe's job to provide for everyone, but more the family's job to provide for itself. The woman's job became to produce only, therefore making her "incapable" of doing anything else. Leaving no choice to choose, her only job becomes just that. Engels believed the only way to get rid of women's oppression is to abolish the capitalist system that endures private property, supports exhausting working hours, and publically pays women significantly less than men, if it even hires them in the first place.
It's important to note that only radical Feminist use the word "oppression" to refer to women's situation, this is why Mill, a liberal Feminist, does not really use this word.

I side with Engels, purely because of the fundamental differences in the meanings of the words Inequality and Oppression. To be unequal with someone is to have different capabilities. This is fine, and it most certainly would not have been a reason to start an entire Feminist movement world-wide. Oppression is when you are excluded from the rest because of something you can not change: gender. Women up to the 18th century owned nothing, not even themselves. Women's education is only a recent 20th century phenomenon, something that did not exist in the past. Do women not want to work? Do women like to be beaten and kept at home? Do women enjoy being treated like ignorant children? Sexual objects? Lower class citizens? NO! Women have and still are oppressed in some or many ways. Denying someone a job or refusing to pay an equal salary like the rest of the men because you're a woman is oppression, not inequality. Because being a woman is something one cannot change, but being religious, for example, is changeable. I agree with Mills, education does help in freeing women from societies shackles. But I agree more with Engels because the current economic system has a big chunk of influence on why women are sill oppressed.

Just because its not physical, doesn't mean it wont hurt.

Engels and The Origin of Family

Engels, a German philosopher, devoted his life to creating a revolution that can change society for the better. His radical opinions that I bring up in the paper consist of three main parts: his interpretation of history, the social changes that came with these interpretations, and his harsh critiques on Capitalism as the result of these social changes.

This blog post focuses on the main aspects on Engels's ideas. First, I begin with pointing out his findings on the social aspect of human development throughout history, and how he associated the development of the family parallel to this social change. Second, I will discuss the problematic aspects of our current social development in society from Engels' opinion. Finally, I will point out a few counter-arguments to his own.

In the philosopher's "The Origin of Family", Engels explains the evolutionary change in family structure according to each development stage. Human history is based on three stages: Savagery, Barbarism and Civilization. Savagery is when everything was in its natural state, Barbarism was when humans took what was in its natural state and turned it into a production, like agriculture. Finally, civilization, which is the industrialized and more advanced society. Engels argued that each stage has a different form of family.

In the very beginning, group marriage was the dominant norm in society, with the only barrier being marriage outside of one's generation. The second stage was the Penulian family, where the exclusion of one marrying another out of her/his generation extended to siblings, cousins and ultimately relatives. Family become separated, and as the division increases, so does the creation of private property and wealth. The third stage of family, the Pairing family, comes from the upper stages of Barbarism, where polygamy of the man is still common, but for the woman is no longer acceptable, as it begins to carry social and legal baggage. But if the husband and wife separate, the children remain with the mother. During this stage we find the Mother Right and communistic household ways begin to deteriorate. Finally, monogamous marriage appears in the civilized society, where male supremacy consists of its base, a woman's legitimacy of child bearing is the condition, and the degradation of women is the result.

The Monogamous family derived from economics and inheritance. Thus making male supremacy the first essential factor to monogamous marriage for the man. Monogamy had become required because of heritance, the male was to own his wife, children, slaves and house under his private property. Engels sees this owner ship of property as the first clear division of inequality between men and women where the woman becomes inferior to him. women no longer experience the sexual freedom that was once theirs in group marriage. He saw Monogamy as one step forward to a new societal development, but one step back for inequality in terms of creating pleasure for some and misery for the rest.

Engels saw that in order to understand human history it is important to see it from the aspect of class struggle in a particular society. During the nineteenth century the dominating classes at that time were the Bourgeois and the Proletariats. The Bourgeois class of an industrial culture was the ruling class. It owned the production and industries. Through this ownership they were able to create many job opportunities and discover new markets. More trade led to competition which ultimately led to further distances of commerce.

Unfortunately, through this ownership they were also able to abuse the power they possessed. The abuse of power led to the dehumanization of the Proletariat class. They refused their civil rights, economic wealth and government rights to participate in ruling the state. By turning themselves from the producers to the production, they have become the base of the capitalist society. Therefore, the exploitation of the Proletariats created development for the Bourgeois, but misery for the rest.

The two classes were in constant struggle. The proletariats' did not own wealth the same way the Bourgeois did. Their wealth was considered to be their children and the number of hours they can work for a wage. The Proletariats wanted their wages to be high as possible, the Bourgeois wanted the opposite to make the most profit. The Proletariats represent the Capitalist's working class and is considered the lower class.

Along the lines of class struggles, he saw the differences within the women, which depended on the social class they were in. The proletariat woman was considered more free than the Bourgeois woman, because of the expectation of her work to be outside the home, whereas the bourgeois woman was not privileged with the same expectation. He considered prostitution to be degrading for both men and women, and also thought that it was a contradiction to monogamy. And yet these two conflicts must arrive together, setting the poles that hold society despite their contradictions. Nevertheless, Engels believes that women will arrive to human equality if the current economic system is demolished, because he thought the more money the man had, the more control over his wife he possessed.

Class struggle intrigued both Marx and Engels, making them a great team of revolutionary theorists. Engels was first interested in the subject of class struggle when he moved to England to work in his father's factory. He was shocked by the place's living conditions. Their radical views allowed them to create Socialism, Marxism, and dialectical materialism. Socialism is an economic system that production is co-operatively owned rather than individually, distributing power and wealth equally. Marxist theory looks into historical context, social changes and critiques of capitalism which he despised. Dialectical materialism is a result of a conflicting social events, these social events represents a series of contradictions with their solutions. A revolution can be an example for dialectical materialism: a result that appeared from conflicting social forces, these social forces represent a series of contradictions.

In a capitalist society, economy and inheritance come into play of the newly formed monogamous marriage. Whereas in the hunter-gather society, did not. The reason for this is because the primitive tribes all worked together, shared the land and work, therefore shared the spouses and children. While everything belonged to everyone, nothing belonged to anyone, so there was no necessary need to know which child belonged to who's father. Since mothers could tell their children apart from the rest, the Mother Right was the dominant factor.

Women were equal to men, as they (like the men) contributed in the household for providing resources. This disappears as we move further into the capitalist society and the more it imposes its ideas, the worst off we are from its demoralizing effects. The civilized woman's social position thus becomes less of the primitive woman, where she is respected, and more importantly, honored. Engels believes it is impossible for two partners to freely chose to be together as long as property and heritance is considered a factor. If men were to be worried about sex-love only, then monogamy will come naturally rather than forced, which produce its negative effects of immorality and prostitution.

By taking this idea, Engels was able to form a more "moral" philosophical economy that he wanted society to embrace. To him, the original state human beings were (savagery) was what was best for society as a whole. As it did not degrade women, male supremacy barely existed, and the economy was not a problem. This economic approach is what made him believe the solution to putting an end women's new degrading position was to put an end to capitalism.

One can argue both a positive and negative side to Engel's thoughts. First, He argued the unfairness in the distribution of power and wealth, and a need for a revolution through his radical writings and opinions. But since Capitalism is economically and morally flawed in his opinion, socialism has not proven to be any better. Communist societies have failed just as much as Capitalist ones. Perhaps a new economic system can be formed in which it does not necessarily need to equally distribute the power as long as the distribution of money and opportunity are equal. Second, I do agree with Engels on that understanding human social development is through the understanding of its class struggle. But differ in emphasizing the need to understand its politics of that time as well, because the politics in that society (on what terms is power distributed) are what shape the class struggle and the inequality of women.

Finally, having monogamous marriage arise from economic causes, is it possible for monogamy to disappear if those causes do? One might think it would be the case, but Engels's opinion on the matter is the contrary, as he sees the means of production transfer to social property, and with that disappears wage-labor, the Proletariats and prostitution. Monogamy though is to be realized fully along with an altered change in both men and women. One may see a possibility in this, but nothing is certain as the possibilities of the next form of social human development are limitless.

Engels claimed the social revolution will demolish all types of inequalities that he saw society suffered from. In one sense he was a liberal Feminist for wanting equal opportunity for both men and women in their role of providing to the household and society. In another sense, he can be considered a radical Feminist for arguing that only a revolution can make these inequalities go away. His main interests in economics, class struggle and philosophy shaped his opinions and questioning of the monogamous family, Capitalism and power distribution in the social class.

An angry letter from an angered woman

I am degraded, disrespected and defined as a woman every day of my life. I actually check these three thing s off my mental list every day. One way or another, some man thinks it's alright to do any of the above, need I call him out for it and the automatic response: justification. No apology, but pure guilt. The need to make it "okay". Well, it's not okay, an never will be for me. I am not the typical woman to let things slide. If you do something wrong, I will call you out for it. I do not expect any apology, or justification. All I want is acknowledgment, listen to what I have to say and accept it as it is. You don’t have to like it, you don’t have to follow it. I understand men are raised to treat women a certain way in all societies, doesn't matter if you're in the west or east side of the world. Certain expectations apply to all women everywhere. Now what are women these days to do? If we are not being the victims, we are exercising the victimization men apply to women, and what is worse than having women objectify other women? The meaning of sisterhood no longer exists in my world for some odd reason. Where we see men everywhere standing on the base of brotherhood and respect, women are so far apart from each other, and more importantly, from ourselves.

I am degraded by being considered inferior. Some days it's because of my size, other days from my squeaky voice. But most days it is because of the blessing I posses between my legs. I am disrespected when I see the eyes of lust instead of equality. When a man whistles I do not walk over. I am a woman, not a dog. When a man tells me to come over here I do not walk over, I am the person wanted not the one who wants. I am disrespected as a woman when a man tells me what I am, or becomes my voice. A man tells me what is socially acceptable, how control should be distributed, and what being a woman (or being womanly) is and looks like.

Do I like it? No. will I live to see the day where it all changes? Probably not. There is an important need as women to take some responsibility for the distance we have created amongst ourselves, and within each other. Being a Feminist was one of the best decisions I have made in my life. And not because of the satisfaction it gives me from knowing my history, or the optimistic drastic changes women have been able to create for themselves, but because it enables me to see the truth. There is nothing better than the truth, there is nothing more painful than the truth. My truth is that I live in a man's world, conquered and dictated. A constant struggle to change it and add a little more pink to the black. I give my kind regards to the men in my life who are my support system and strongly believe in human equality for all, but to the rest of you pigs out there: I will not let the hand I hold, hold me down. If you objectify me and say a "woman" is all I am, the squeaky voice will remind you a Woman is what I am :)

The kite runner: A struggle with what is real, and what is insane.

They had money to pay for the guns that protected the child molester, but no money to provide food for those molested. A so called "leader" preached the words of God, punished women with the words of God and forbade everything he could think of with the words of God. And yet we find him contradicting his own actions and those words he so often preached, behind closed doors. And it is not that nobody knows, but the lack of power to do anything about it makes it nonnegotiable, when something is nonnegotiable, it is OK.
I have had the opportunity to watch "Kite Runners" tonight because of a friend's recommendation, and forever will I be grateful of this friend. If there is a law in Islam to ban kite flying, show me. If not, how did things get so far? On what basis are they making up rules? Crazy men, the men who use their ego, for the wrong reasons end up creating societies where everybody suffers, especially society's minority: the women. The conditions seen in this movie were just that, a movie. Reality tells a very different story, where events like these happen everyday, anytime, to anyone and in much worse scenarios. If you are not along the ride for the system, you're killed.
Need I note this blog is not meant to critique Afghanistan's way of law, for that is something I will leave the people in that society to decide upon themselves. I am here to call all those who contradict and go along with their games. Contradicting Muslims, SHOW YOUR SHAMEFUL COLORS because I am tired of the bad rep you have given my religion. The religion I claim to be so proud of: how could a religion so beautiful, so peaceful, be taken to extremes worse than hell? What kind of hypocritical prick are you when you practice what you object? A pretty good one.

Rape and sex offenses are everywhere, statistics cannot show us the real damage because it happens far too often. It is a shameful act from the offender that leaves the offended hopeless, broken, and more importantly, the one in shame. Islam recognizes crimes and punishes wrongdoers for it. Personally, rape is worse than murder, because if you're killed then your dead. You don’t have to LIVE with the consequences, you don’t have to live with yourself. The psychological struggle of living a normal life and emotional struggle of being able to forgive yourself take years if not forever to finally happen. It is important that we keep an open mind of this issue an be aware that laws are REQUIRED to be enforced upon those who are mentally ill enough to commit it, and protection upon those who it is done to. This is the sad world I live in. This is your reality as well. No one apologized for handing me a piece of crap, a so-called "world". No one told me "I'm sorry, Nour. I don’t know when things got out of control and I cannot fix it". Were things always this out of control? If we all really want a world of peace and happiness, why don’t we have it yet? It seems we have all the resources, tools and answers, what is stopping us? A sin is theft. When you sin, you steal the right of something. STOP STEALING. It is a crime, and if those so called religious extremists claim to follow Islamic law, then a rapist's punishment according to Islam is death. I find it mind blowing how in all my years I have never seen someone be punished with the death penalty of raping... And before you tell me because no rapes occur, I will tell you to stop yourself before you become a fool.

Islam Is not meant to be horrible, hurtful, or abusive. One of the main reasons of Islam's upbringing is enforce woman's rights in Arabia, something I take great pride in. As a Kuwaiti Muslim, I find it hard to believe that there are any real Muslims out there (including myself) who truly practice all that is preached, if there were (or if we all truly were) I would be eating ice-cream, not writing about rape and hypocrisy.

Bribes, sexual offense, oppression and extremism amongst other crimes are all strongly forbidden in Islam, so kindly tell me why it’s the only thing many Muslims nowadays are known for? If the corruption is working well for your behalf that is fine, but do not turn around and forbid the voice that speaks of truth, do not tell me who I am or what I should be. o not turn around and tell me who I am nor become my voice, when all you do is be whoever you are when I turn my face an go home because of the injustice served. Along those lines and in a more casual note that might be easier to understand, just shut up. Seriously, we (or at least I) are tired of the boring sound of your ugly voice, hearing the same damn thing over and over. Islam is about diversity and respecting others' opinions, ideas, and lifestyles no matter how different or unusual (just as long as it causes no harm to others). Remember, social construction is constantly changing, YOU are the one that controls it, not them. Live the way you want, the way you would want your kids to live. Just like how they are living the way they want to,how would they feel if you impose all of your nonnegotiable extreme opinions on them? Not too good I would assume.

On an ending note, to be open minded is to be educated, tolerant and free of judgment. In contrast to the newer definition of open mind-ness (which is to wear mini skirts to parties and drink) to have an open mind is to have an open soul, to open your soul is to be in touch with it. Once we are able to connect with ourselves we can overcome our fear and become able connect with others. That is the true way to reach the furthest sufficiency of both religion and social construction. We want to provide the best for ourselves and future generations, but I will bet you a million Dinars extreme opinions from religion alone will not take us anywhere but back.