Quantitative Empirical Studies on Women’s Issues in Islamic Cultures: Introduction to Special Issue

The special issue aimed to focus on quantitative research articles covering gender and women’s issues in Islamic cultures which have not received sufficient attention. The present issue of gender and women’s issues in these cultures adds important information about topics such as the roles of honor, religiosity, and sexism as they interact with gender. In the special issue there are six quantitative research articles focusing on various topics relevant to honor, sexism, economic, and health issues. A study from Turkey examines the associations among benevolent sexism, hostile sexism, religiosity, and the endorsement of honor beliefs in Turkey. Another explores the effects of religious affiliation, patriarchy, and gender on the perception of honor-related crimes in Morocco, Cameroon, and Italy. Views about family issues are explored in a paper from North Cyprus that explores the associations among hostile sexism, benevolent sexism, religiosity, and attitudes toward childlessness. In another paper, researchers from Turkey investigate job-relevant gender issues such as work engagement, job insecurity, and turnover intentions. Finally, women’s health in Muslim cultures is the focus of papers on health screening behaviors in Turkey and on factors relevant to menopausal symptoms of women in Pakistan. In the introduction, the main purposes of the special issue articles are introduced. Then, the importance of studying honor, sexism, religiosity, the economic situation of women, and women’s health issues in Islamic cultures are covered. Some suggestions for future studies and implication and applications of the research findings also are discussed. Finally, limitations of the special issue are presented.     

Guest Editors’ Introduction

In spite of the widespread belief that there is (or at least there was) a clearcut and deep opposition between two forms of philosophizing vaguely characterized as 'continental' and 'analytic', it is not easy to find actual examples of debates between philosophers that clearly belong to the opposed camps. Perhaps the reason is that, on the assumption that the alleged 'divide' is so deep, each side feels that there is no point in arguing against the other, for argumentation would quickly be replaced by invective. In this paper I analyse one of the few recent examples of an across-divide debate m the Searle m Derrida polemic. Using a threefold typology of debates, I try to show that, in spite of the violent and sarcastic tone employed by both contenders, there is enough common ground, questioning of not-argued-for assumptions, and serious argumentation (on both sides) to consider this debate more than just an irrational dispute.     

Guest Editors’ Introduction

Journal of Philosophical Logic -     

Introduction to the Special Issue “Phenomenological Studies in Multidimensional Views”

How should Scheler’s critique of Kant’s ethics be interpreted? This paper focuses on two aspects of Scheler’s critique of Kant’s ethics: 1) the problem of “formalism” in Kant’s ethics, and 2) the problem of the “ethics of autonomy” and “ethics of heteronomy.” Generally speaking, Scheler’s project has a “modern” starting point; that is to say, his work starts with the rejection or critique of Kant and Aristotle. Most essentially, Scheler’s “material ethics of values” (ethics of person) must stay autonomous. Following Kant, Scheler takes Aristotle’s theory as an “ethics of heteronomy,” and then competes with Kant within the “ethics of autonomy” and further develops his own “ethics of personal autonomy.”