As Isaac is quick to point out, feminists of all stripes and nationalities share more than a few unsavory habits in common:
Many in the newly formed group, the Womens Islamic Initiative in Spirituality and Equality, or WISE, said strict sharia law was not divine because it was created by men and should be changed to incorporate womens rights.
Wait a minute! I thought it was a "stereotype" that Islam oppressed women. One would only need to provide valid information about Islam to counter this "stereotype"--not change the woman-loving Islamic law.
It is inconsistent to call for the modification of the gender apartheid laws of Islam while simultaneously calling the Westerners, who say that Islam is indeed oppressive to women, misguided or uninformed.
Like good feminists, they contradict themselves. Islam is not inherently oppressive they say, but they openly admit that they are going to have to "change Sharia" (HAHAHA good luck with that!!) in order to make it not be oppressive to women. It is pretty obvious that this is a tacit admission that Islam is a really bad religion in how it treats women. This is not unlike the tendency that Western white feminists have of giving any dark-skinned misogenist a free pass for virtually ever slight, insult or act of violent misogeny (provide he's not a decent black man who unabashedly defends Western ideals).
See, we're not misguided or uninformed. You, ladies, are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.
Some may not have heard of the recent incident in Egypt where roving bands of young men systematically, viciously, sexually assault a hell of a lot of young women on the streets. Here's a good summary from the New York Times which is finally officially reporting on it:
Recently, reports surfaced on Egyptian blogs, on television and in newspapers that groups of men had roamed the city streets during a holiday weekend and attacked young women - actually chased them down in packs. There were accounts from witnesses and victims.
I bring this up for a few reasons. Number one, this is the quintessential behavior that makes your average feminist wring her hands in abject fear of men. Second, it's a perfect example of what is very, very wrong with Islamic societies today. If you don't believe me, you can take a look at this post from The Big Pharaoh, which links to a Pakistani government report that should be making the 82nd Gynadier Division of the Militia Etheridge pack up for war:
A woman is raped every two hours and gang-raped every eight hours in Pakistan, according to the country's independent Human Rights Commission
One woman is gang-raped every eight hours. That's the official count, and knowing the fact that traditional Muslim men tend to blame the woman, the number could easily be--and most likely is--much higher in reality. The fact that such violent sexcapades happen in the open in major population centers, across ethnic boundaries, in the Islamic world is noteworthy in and of itself. The fact that they also put the lie in the feminist propaganda that Western, Judao-Christianized men tend to treat their women like trash, is also firmly challenged by such considerations.
Now what would the feminists expect us to think about these things? That American women live in genuine fear of the police and the sort of stigma that Muslim women face? Only a weak, decrepit mind could actually make such an argument, but I have seen it made time and again to imply that America is a fundamentally backward country. This is, of course, only a convenient way for feminists to ignore the fact that everything they fear is made manifest in popular macho Muslim male culture. Everything from the rapist tendencies to the general misogeny
It's all there. The presence of good, decent Muslim men does not negate the fact that there has to be a certain degree of broad cultural acquiescence to fundamental evil that would tolerate broad daylight gang raping in urban areas. I think it goes without saying then, that the existance of such men as those who helped protect the women speaks only to the individual morality of those men rather than to the broader moral health of a country where such attacks not only happen, but happen with some sort of impunity and the state's only reaction is one of apathy.
Again, as I have said, feminists, meet the embodiment of what you fear. You have two choices. Accept the fact that Judao-Christian culture is the last, best hope for women being treated as human beings or face your fears-made-manifest alone.
The feminist's choice is far from the binary you state it is. For instance, a better choice besides the two you give is one in which no religion is blindly followed. No Judao-Christian religion. No Islamic religion. Rational thought.
Well first of all, that would presuppose that most feminists are capable of rational thought which is something that remains to be seen. Second, reason cannot arrive at anything other than utilitarian moral considerations. For example, it can say that it is bad policy to abort baby girls because they are needed for keeping a healthy gender balance, but it cannot arrive at the conclusion that baby girls have an inherent right to live, even if their mothers don't want to have them because that is a positive assertion which can only exist in a context wherein one presupposes the existence of a transcendental moral order--which is not something that can be rationally proved.
Reason by itself is a very limited tool. It's great for understanding cold hard facts, judging how actions have or will play out and things like that. However, reason has very little use in morality because most moral considerations that people take for granted are based on emotional/spiritual arguments, not cold, hard facts. To put it simply, in order for you to "reason that you have a right to life," you would have to empirically prove the existence of a moral law of the universe that exists irrespective of human law, and without assuming religion, you cannot do that.