Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to be a bit unhappy about Harems being supported by the taxpayer?

243 replies

pankhurst · 04/02/2008 19:06

I am ardently against polygamy. Sorry. I think it's discourteous and (because usually male advantageous) sexist nonsense masquerading as religious right.

I found out that men with multiple wives under islam will have benefits for all of them.

AIBU to be concerned about this? If I were a muslim man on benefits and I wanted to, there would be NOTHING now to stop me bringing four wives in.

I don't want my children to grow up in a country where harems are even 1% of the population. I really don't. I would prefer more obstacles rather than making it easier.

Or did I miss the point somewhere? Help?

OP posts:
monkeytrousers · 04/02/2008 20:58

It is not the misapplicatuion of Islam - it is the general application of Islam around the world. The evidence is overwhelming for this.

I wish it was not the case. I wish If it is a misinterpreation why are women denied equal rights with men? Why are they harrassed when they leave the house without chaperones and covered so as not to offend a passing man by showing their face to him? Whey are they alone responsible for maintaing the 'honour' of their family and the consequenses horrific if they are deemed to have fallen short of this? I could go on ad infinitum.

Your personal version of Islam is not the one that oppresses women wholesale obvioulsy - that it the Islam that exists in the real world for billions of women.

Pan · 04/02/2008 20:58

so agree lulu. As I referred to earlier.

and again with NO DISRESPECT to the OP, the dark days of decades past where racism was open and very ugly, does bring forward a very strong note of caution when discussing these things.

We do seem to be pretty good at missing he point of the indigenous population's poor behaviour and finding fault with others.

Desiderata · 04/02/2008 21:00

If the law states that a British woman cannot have two husbands, than the law must maintain that a man who lives in Britain cannot have two wives.

The law of the land must be applied even-handedly. If not, it falls vulnerable to a plethora of cultural differences which will ultimately undermine its integrity.

monkeytrousers · 04/02/2008 21:00

No blaming societies ills on immigrants Lulu, wanting to stick up for those immigrants - the female ones, the ones not allowed a voice.

Original poster
pankhurst · 04/02/2008 21:01

what's immigrants got to do with it????

the kids will be British (i assume?) and my kids will be wandering round school with someone who has four mummies. all banging daddy.

what's the role modelling going to be like?

lots of babymothers??

with one daddio!

regardless of where it comes from, i don't like it.

OP posts:
Lulumama · 04/02/2008 21:01

sorry pan, i must have missed that if i am just reiterating what you said.

it is far easier to get het up about polygamous muslims milking the benefits system with the tacit approval of the government than to get het up about the almight cock ups that have led to this country being in the state it is in.

Desiderata · 04/02/2008 21:04

Just out of interest, Lulu, what almighty cock-ups do you have in mind?

Original poster
pankhurst · 04/02/2008 21:04

and i'm pissed that it's being legitimised.

i think that's ridiculous

it's frowned upon when it's the patois-speakers, but it's ok when it's under the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him).

OP posts:
Lulumama · 04/02/2008 21:04

surely pankhurst , the wives will be immigrants? or maybe not

anyway, my point is still the same

see very few of these types of thread where there is a white / british cultural issue at the heart of it

monkeytrousers.. if what puss has said about polygamy, and mercy too i think is true, then surely that lifestyle is better than a woman alone.

i don;t know, i don;t know enough about it, but the knee jerk reaction to muslims milking the system makes me cross

i understand pankhurst is concerned and wants some perspective, but the amount of muslims who would do so, pales into insignificacne compared to other areas where the system is taken advantage of

monkeytrousers · 04/02/2008 21:06

"and again with NO DISRESPECT to the OP, the dark days of decades past where racism was open and very ugly, does bring forward a very strong note of caution when discussing these things."

Pan those were dark days indeed. I always try to be careful when discussing these things. But the treatment of women in some cultures, Islamic cultures being one of them, is horrific and if we believe in universal human rights we cannot close our eyes to this, but cultural reletivism means that women are being oppressed here, not just in Afganistan or Iran.

Criticising is not racist - criticising and having the right of dissent (which these women do not have) are the backbones of liberal democracy. Shouting for the rights of these women is what feminism should be doing.

If anyone comes on here and says something racist, I will be down their necks as much as the rest of you.

Lulumama · 04/02/2008 21:06

mismanagement of the NHS and pretty much every public service, lack of affordable housing, and you are wanting me to say immigration, aren;t you desi??

monkeytrousers · 04/02/2008 21:07

Lulu, with respect to Puss, that she desctibed was some fiction about it

Original poster
pankhurst · 04/02/2008 21:07

ok, i am against the government funding sexism with my taxes.

in any form.

essex, scots, nigerians, manxes...

any of them being sexist.

Don't fund them to be sexist.

OP posts:
Pan · 04/02/2008 21:07

similar points lulu.

p'hurst - no, they won't be "British" - you can be born here but not "BRitish".

and your diction in your last post is the sort of lose consideration I was referring to when mentioning the needfor delicacy. If that doesn't sound too warysome.

SenoraPancake · 04/02/2008 21:08

Pankhurst, I hadn't heard this story, but surely if the benefits system is to count polygamous marriages, then the result will be that the families receive less in benefits, not more. Obviously they won't pay out for extra wives who are in the country illegally, so if all the family are unemployed, they'll be paying the equivalent of 1.5 couple's benefits, rather than a couple plus a single person, which would be more.

Lulumama · 04/02/2008 21:08

ok, well puss is a muslim so i figured she was pretty well placed to talk about this

i understand your points too

tbh, this is not the best night for me to do this, am full of catarrh and my brain hurts!

Desiderata · 04/02/2008 21:09

I'm not wanting you to say anything, Lulu, but if the argument is always that we cannot discuss w because x y and z is far worse, then we would barely get round to discussing anything!

My problem with this legislation is that it's a mis-application of the law. Either the law stands for everyone, or it stands for no-one.

I cannot have two husbands. I see no reason, therefore, why a man may have two wives.

Original poster
pankhurst · 04/02/2008 21:09

I'm sorry, Pan.

My diction? I'm not annunciating properly?

(confused)

OP posts:
Lulumama · 04/02/2008 21:11

but where do you draw a line?

do you stop public funding for any thing to do with any other religion than church of england?

we live in a democracy with an ethnically diverse population.. this might not be the best decision the government ever makes, but there are far worse abuses of the system going on

if you feel this strongly, contact your MP?

was the CSA a government body? that managed to piss millions and millions of pounds up the wall PDQ ( in reference to almighty cock ups from my post lower down)

Mercy · 04/02/2008 21:12

MT - I do understand your point and agree totally.

But what concerns me is the the thinly veiled racism that happens on these threads however much it is denied by a few posters.

I know quite a few visa overstayers and claimants in the UK from years ago.
Bludgers!!

Pan · 04/02/2008 21:12

diction - choice of words wether written or spoken ( enunciation).

all banging daddy...daddio...stuff like that.

LittleBottle · 04/02/2008 21:12

SenoraPancake - yes, exactly.

As for it being a sexist policy - what would be the alternative? To not provide any extra money for additional family members (which is what these women are, after all)? To stop them from living with their husband/family? Surely they are entitled to be taken into account when calculating a family's benefit entitlement?

Lulumama · 04/02/2008 21:12

fair dos desi!

i just find it incredibly frustrating that these, in my mind, small issues, get a lot of attention , whereas bigger and more costly issues don;t

Blandmum · 04/02/2008 21:13

Isn't polygamy/andry supposed to be illegal in the UK?

Doesn't Sharia law state that an observant muslim has to follow the law of the land they live in?

Serious questions, btw, not being argumantative

monkeytrousers · 04/02/2008 21:14

She has a right to her opinion. She loves her culture. She doesn't want to see it criticised. I respect that. But I cannot agree with her description. And as a citizen of a liberal democracy it is my right to criticise

Swipe left for the next trending thread