I do not need... Eurocentric feminists to dictate to me what I wear or shouldn't wear.

[Luminous Animal]

Pictures from todays counterprotest by Muslim Women Against FEMEN

https://www.facebook.com/groups/408107599288286/?ref=ts&fref=ts

This group is primarily for muslim women who want to expose FEMEN for the Islamophobes/Imperialists that they are. We ha...ve had enough of western feminists imposing their values on us. We are taking a stand to make our voices heard and reclaim our agency. Muslim women have had enough of this paternalistic and parasitic relationship with SOME
western feminists. The group is open to all, muslim and non muslim, men and women.

:large

:large

[ZombieHorde]

1. Interesting.

The bottom pic is especially interesting to me.

[Luminous Animal]

2. My hijab, my choice & my right Fuck FEMEN

[Cali_Democrat]

4. I don't know why, but....

looking at this picture, I'm reminded of a toon I saw where a chicken was campaigning for Colonel Sanders.

[stevenleser]

150. +infinity. You win this thread. nt

[Zorra]

156. +1 nt

[Scootaloo]

164. You don't know why? Then why say it?

Of course you know why. So does anyone else reading this.

You regard her as your inferior. A very low inferior, akin to the domesticated animal you compare her to. For her choice on how to dress, you shitcan her. She's not conforming to your own (superior) beliefs, so you feel the need to denigrate and insult her for the choice she has made, regarding wearing a goddamned scarf.

You don't know her, you don't know her situation, you know exactly two things about this woman; that she is Muslim and she chooses to wear hijab. For this you compare her to an animal campaigning for its own death. From those two facts you have decided you are far enough above her to judge her and condemn her.

Because she'd rather wear a scarf than takes a picture of her breasts for your enjoyment.

[stevenleser]

168. LOL. I dont even think you buy what you just wrote. nt

[Scootaloo]

176. I wouldn't have typed it otherwise.

[Cali_Democrat]

172. You think I regard her as inferior?

You also think I want to see her breasts?

Not so much.

You're right about the fact that I don't know much about her situation, but the fact remains that many women around the world are required to wear hijab. That is oppressive IMO.

Take for example a woman in Afghanistan who is required to be veiled. The woman in the photo is doing her no favors. I can see some misogynistic warlord in Afghanistan appreciating her.

[stevenleser]

178. I think that person couldnt come up with a factual argument, so they made up ad hominem stuff about

you. The ad hominem logical fallacy is the dead giveaway. People with good factual arguments dont resort to logical fallacies.

[Cali_Democrat]

187. I'm still shaking my head over here

This is why I like avoiding flamefest threads like these which rack up hundreds of replies.

Should have listened to my instinct and stayed out of it. LOL.

[TeeYiYi]

380. You said rack.

TYY

[Scootaloo]

183. So this woman is under the rule of a misogynistic warlord in Afghanistan?

We don't know - again, we know two things about her - but I'm going to go with "highly unlikely."

Yes, many women around the world are forced into a particular mode of dress, and yes, this is oppressive. This woman is apparently not among their number, and this is the woman that you comparing to a chicken campaigning for colonel Sanders. You reach this judgement because of what she freely chooses to wear on her head.

if you want to talk about the situation of women in Afghanistan, then talk about the situation of Women in Afghanistan. Don't attack this woman, from somewhere else, for her choice of attire, on behalf of those women in Afghanistan, because that, frankly, stupid. Those women didn't ask you to haul off on this lady, nor does your doing so help them at all.

Giving a woman a hard time because of what she decides to wear is oppressive and relies on the person giving the hard time feeling that the woman is their inferior. Doesn't matter if it's Pat Robertson complaining about her hemlines being above the ankle, or you complaining about scarves covering her head.

[HiPointDem]

180. +1.

[Cali_Democrat]

182. The poster implied that I want to see her breasts

Did you gather that from my post?

[HiPointDem]

186. I didn't read it that way.

[Scootaloo]

339. I did actually...

As that seems to be a large point of interest for a lot of people posting on FEMEN threads.

However, I have apologized to Cali_Democrat over this, as it was unwarranted.

[HiPointDem]

361. i meant i didn't read either ofyour posts that way. i didn't read yours as being directed to cd's

specifically either.

[EOTE]

268. What a load of tripe.

FEMEN didn't tell anyone how they could or couldn't dress. This anti-FEMEN group IS, however trying to suggest what kind of dress is and isn't appropriate. It's not what clothes they choose to wear, it's the choices they attempt to take away from others.

Like it or not, the chicken campaigning for Colonel Sanders comparison is damned appropriate.

[Scootaloo]

309. Really? Read the message again.

My hijab,
My choice &
my right
Fuck Femen

I don't see her telling anyone how to dress, or trying to take choice from anyone else. What you claimed is a pretty blatant lie. She's the one who has a problem with someone else telling her how to dress, and that's quite clear.

However, as Luminous Animal points out downthread, and as a simple little google search will show you, Femen crusades against the hijab. Not just mandatory hijab as in Iran, but the garment itself. They are, in effect, telling Muslim women how to think, what to wear, and apparently at least a few Muslim women aren't real appreciative of this paternalism.

And if you feel comfortable calling a Muslim woman who chooses to cover her hair a "chicken campaigning for Colonel Sanders," then really you have absolutely no fucking room to complain about someone criticizing Femen's style of protest. If you're allowed to denigrate and judge, so are they, after all.

[EOTE]

317. Blatant lie? Like you claiming I said the anti-FEMEN group is telling anyone how to dress?

Because that's a big fat strawman. I never said any such thing. What I did say is " This anti-FEMEN group IS, however trying to suggest what kind of dress is and isn't appropriate". That's clear from crap like "You need to take your top off to make a point" and the assorted pablum on their Facebook page like "FEMEN get dressed". Keep in mind that FEMEN has said absolutely nothing negative about any muslim women's groups. They seem to support muslim women and women in general. This anti-FEMEN group has said an awful lot of mean spirited things about FEMEN, though.

Sure, there are an awful lot of muslim women who are perfectly peachy being told what they can and can't wear. I'm sure there are plenty of muslim women who don't realize that they're being oppressed. That doesn't mean that the other women who actually want equal standing don't deserve some help.

I also think it's hilarious that you harangue me regarding PATERNALISM when this anti-FEMEN group is the one protecting the patriarchy.

[Scootaloo]

324. No, Femen just derides Muslim women who choose to wear a hijab

Just as posters here such as yourself and Cali_Democrat are doing.

My feeling is that if a woman chooses to wear something - or chooses to wear nothing, as the case may be - that's up to her. Being forced into it, in either direction is wrong of course, but your clear assumption that every woman who wears hijab is forced into it:

Sure, there are an awful lot of muslim women who are perfectly peachy being told what they can and can't wear.

Is nonsense.

Also this is rich:

I'm sure there are plenty of muslim women who don't realize that they're being oppressed.

Yes, that doesn't sound paternalistic at all. I'm sorry, but fuck this "civilize the ignorant savages" shit, that went out of vogue sixty years back. "They don't know how bad they have it, the poor dears!" is cloying and insulting.

That doesn't mean that the other women who actually want equal standing don't deserve some help.

I agree. I don't think denigrating women who choose to wear a scarf on their head is a productive way of doing this, however. Nor is baring your breasts in Oslo going to do a lot to help women's liberation in Qom.

You're interested in the rights of women in the Muslim world? Good. How about letting them take charge of the cause, and you stand behind 'em? 'Cause otherwise it creates a situation where you are actually stripping the primary right; being able to represent yourself. It's generally understood that white people take a back seat in black or Native American activism, that men take a back seat in feminism, and so on. Not excluded, but letting the people in question have primacy in the discussion.

[EOTE]

326. You're totally right. All muslim cultures are totally friendly of women.

And all the women wearing hijabs are doing so totally by their own choice. All muslim cultures are totally in the modern age and none of them disrespect women or human rights in any way.

Just a little hint for you, when FEMEN came out with their protest, we WERE letting them take charge of the cause and we WERE standing behind them. And then this anti-women garbage came out.

Christ, you are so utterly blind to what the actual situation is that I think there's really no point in continuing this conversation.

[Scootaloo]

329. I think you're right

All muslim cultures are totally friendly of women

Did I say that?

And all the women wearing hijabs are doing so totally by their own choice

Did I say that?

All muslim cultures are totally in the modern age and none of them disrespect women or human rights in any way.

Did I say that?

You're right. There's no point in continuing this discussion, as it's evident to me that you're going to be unable to address any point I make, in favor of making straw men like that shit.

It seems to me your interest here is less about women's rights and more about using those rights as a proxy for an intolerance of your own.

[EOTE]

330. You suggested all of those things.

Suggesting that they don't need any help suggests that they've got things all taken care of. Because helping would be "paternalistic", right? You suggested all of that and more. I'm not intolerant of muslims at all, but I'm also not blind to what certain muslim cultures do. I've got two Iraqi refugees living at my house for three months out of the year, they're husband and wife and both civil engineers. Both of them will admit that much of muslim culture is extremely controlling of women. Some here, like yourself, don't seem to think that's all that big of a deal. They can take care of themselves, right? Don't need anyone demonstrating for them. Sick.

[Scootaloo]

336. You're doing it again.

Suggesting that they don't need any help suggests that they've got things all taken care of. Because helping would be "paternalistic", right?

I never suggested this. I suggested that leadership should not be taken from Muslim women on the issue of liberation for Muslim women. That is, speaking for them strips their voice from them. This is a largely-understood concept in every other realm of activism. They deserve support, but support is a different thing from leadership. Is this a difficult idea for you to grasp?

I also suggested that attacking women for whatever they may choose to wear is counterproductive. Again this is a generally-understood concept. Are you having difficulty with that as well?

I suggested that baring one's breasts on an American college campus might not do much for women in Iran. This is just logic, are the Ayatollah's going to be swayed by these protests? Has Pamela Anderson's naked body stopped anyone from eating meat when PETA used this tactic?

Your attitude - that they're too stupid to know better and need your special guidance to lead them from the wilderness, is paternalistic. That you draw exception just for Muslim women and feel that you have some right to attack and denigrate them if they choose to wear a headscarf, for any reason they may feel like, is paternalistic.

And so far everyone who tells me they don't hate Muslims goes on to regale me with stories of how they have Muslim friends. I've heard this song before. While it's great, it doesn't change any of the attitude on display. Tell me, if this woman you know donned a hijab or chador, would you take her to the proverbial woodshed? Serious question, would you berate her for how she dresses? Because that's what you and Cali_Democrat, among others, are doing in response to the women pictured on this thread.

So again, let's see if this sticks into your head. A woman should be free to choose to wear whatever she wants, for whatever reason she wants, as much or as little as she wants. That her faith is one you are not a fan of does not give you the authority to denigrate and berate her and call her names because of how she dresses, any more than if she shared whatever faith you hold. This is not a difficult series of ideas to wrap you head around, I don't think, so I puzzle over why it's so hard for you.

[The Straight Story]

346. And that sums up everything right there:

"Your attitude - that they're too stupid to know better and need your special guidance to lead them from the wilderness, is paternalistic."

Amen to that. If we could just get people here to realize that and stop trying to tell the rest of us we are too stupid and need their guidance DU would be a better place.

If a woman is not offended by a compliment, someone holding open a door, a dongle joke - who are we tell her she should be?

[Luminous Animal]

369. Excellent subthread Scootaloo! Really hardcore. Brava!

[stevenleser]

412. Exactly EOTE .That person and their supporters dont care if Tunisia goes to Sharia

in which case any of these women in the OP showing any kind of pro-feminist tendencies will be completely crushed.

They dont care that a Tunisian woman, Amina, is in a psych hospital and in danger of being stoned to death for protesting against the country going to Sharia.

They don't care about that. They are too invested in preventing women from showing naked boobs. They are too invested in attacking a group of women in another part of the world for showing support to Amina to care about Amina or the women in Tunisia. To them this is all about Femen should be damned for showing boobs. That is the entirety of to what feminism seems to boil down for some.

[EOTE]

448. That pretty much sums it up.

They'd rather see women in burqas than showing skin in form of a protest.

[Paul E Ester]

283. +1

[msanthrope]

427. You got it. nt

[Deep13]

381. FEMEN isn't forcing you to do anything.

It's only a suggestion. Protestors are in no position to insist on anything. Obviously, you can wear a headscarf and even a veil if it really is your choice. I have a language professor who wears one here in Akron, Ohio, USA. Many of the students are from Arab lands so those women wear them too. No one, except maybe her own family, would blame her if she did not. I have friends in Jordan who wear them. The law there does not require them, although I hope you and everyone else realize that there are ways of enforcing behavioral codes other than the law.

The protests I have seen from FEMEN are not directed at clothing, but at the idea that masculine honor is connected to feminine modesty. This gives men a pretext for controlling how their wives and daughters dress and behave. Unfortunately, as in the case of majority-Christian societies, women enforce conformity with social norms, even when it is against their own interests.

[randome]

3. Is FEMEN pressuring them to go topless?

I don't understand their concern. Do they want an organization that caters only to them? If so, they should start their own.

[Luminous Animal]

10. FEMEN believes that the hijab=opressions. They march in Muslim neighborhoods

with signs that say "Muslim women, let's get naked." They have no clue that there are Muslim feminists who wear the hijab or nikab and still consider themselves feminists.

There are Muslim feminists organizations worldwide with there own articulate goals and how to achieve them. And there are many feminist Muslim scholars, bloggers, and activists that are plenty annoyed with FEMEN right now. There is a lot of criticism around FEMEN's neo-colonialism.

[Matariki]

13. The choice to wear hijab is one thing. Flogged or stoned to death for showing breasts is another

[JI7]

18. are Muslim Women in France, UK , Spain flogged or stoned to death for showing breasts ?

[Luminous Animal]

19. And western feminists marching through their neighborhoods naked is addressing

that how?

How is exhorting Muslim women in Paris neighborhoods to "get naked" going to change things for women in Egypt?

How is ignoring the methods and goals of Muslim feminist organizations in the west and elsewhere and pissing them off going to change things for them?

[randome]

32. 'Exhorting' them is not the same as 'pressuring' them.

What's wrong with advocating the choice to go topless? It's a man's right but not a woman's.

Should women who want to rebel against this type of patriarchy sit demurely in the corner because SOME women don't want to be topless?

[Squinch]

40. So you think FEMEN is protesting for the right to choose to go topless?

[randome]

46. I don't see them 'demanding' women go topless.

They are spreading the message that they don't need to feel controlled by their male 'superiors'.

If someone doesn't want to listen to that message, or disagrees with it, where's the problem?

Going topless is a fast and in-your-face way to send that message.

[Squinch]

55. So their goal is to spread the message that they don't need to be controlled by men?

[randome]

57. That's my take on it.

Why are you being so vague about this? Tell us what you think the message is.

[Squinch]

59. I am curious about what others think FEMEN's message is, and what their goal is.

No two people have the same answer.

Which says that their message is not very clear at all.

[randome]

70. When it comes to women's rights, the same confusion exists...

...as when deciding the meaning of 'freedom'. If their message isn't clear, it's partly because of onlookers who can't see past the bared breasts. That goes for men and women.

[Squinch]

71. Or it could be that their message simply isn't clear.

Another possibility, which I don't think is what is happening, is what you describe: there is a message there and everyone -men and women - is missing it because they can't get past the breasts. If that is the case, is it an effective way to get the message across?

Again, I don't think that is the case. I think their message simply is not at all clearly presented. I also think that is not unintentional.

[LadyHawkAZ]

140. They have more than one message

FEMEN protests a lot of different things, and their protests contain more than one message at a time. The ultimate goal is the same as all other feminist organizations: freedom for women.

[JI7]

144. freedom for women for what ? there are "pro women" groups in the US and their focus

is on being pro gun and letting people buy whatever weapon they want.

[LadyHawkAZ]

153. There are "pro-woman" groups that claim all kinds of things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FEMEN#Goals_and_stances

[Zorra]

154. Freedom to choose "what", ie, freedom of total self determination. nt

[JI7]

155. even whatever gun you want ?

[Squinch]

352. Is freedom of total self determination possible? Does anyone on earth have that?

[bettyellen]

78. it's his best guess and he's sticking with it!

I'm finding all these faux passionate supporters hilarious.

on another thread, not being able to read another language (written on her body) was the excuse for having no idea what it said. fella didn't bother skimming the article right there in his face to find out WTF he was pretending to care so deeply about. LOL.

[Squinch]

82. Am I crazy in thinking this is precisely their goal in this? To evince this kind of response?

Am I giving FEMEN too much credit?

This is so fascinating! If I am right, they are geniuses.

[bettyellen]

89. well, the article said they are aware they get faux interest and think it;'s still worthwhile.

the other article, about the african women who get ignored was interesting- sometimes they flash butt or genitalia and it;s considered in their culture as a very rude and agressive thing to do. Kind of the opposite of the short shorts and garland of flowers, huh?
I've read a lot of not no nice anti- Muslim stuff going on in Europe, and as much as I dislike all religions, I feel like they are being targeted both here and in Europe for purely selfish reasons. Everyone loves a good scapegoat.

[Squinch]

95. Yes. The dynamics of this are fascinating, but the fuzzy scapegoating

in the pursuit of the joke - if that is what this is - is not a good thing.

And I am still not entirely convinced. I might just be giving them way too much credit in thinking this is such a multilayered thing.

[Luminous Animal]

165. This might help you work it out....

I'm going to post it without comment.

Inna Shevchenko of FEMEN on Al Jazeera last night, along with fellow feminist bloggers Sara Yasin, Meghan Murphy and Ariana Tobin.

http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/future-feminism-0022381

[Matariki]

35. Because this...

...one of their (Femen’s ) Tunisian activists, Amina (19), is now facing a fatwa that calls for her to be stoned to death because she posted a topless picture of herself with the words ‘My body is mine’ written on her bare chest.

I won't argue one way or the other that going topless is an effective form of protest - BUT no woman should be stoned to death, or threatened with such, just for bearing her breasts. The protests in Europe are to show the Tunisian woman solidarity. I believe her parents had her committed, btw. If someone wants to cover their head for religious reasons, that's their business - but that right stops, or should stop, with their own head. When it comes to women's rights, which are HUMAN rights, I don't believe in cultural relativism.

[JI7]

42. what they do is like protesting at a Christian CHurch in the UK , fRance etc

because of something Fred Phelps said.

[Matariki]

53. Is that what you said when people did local protests against Apartheid?

Or any other human rights abuses anywhere in the world? It doesn't count unless people get on a plane and protest in the country where the abuses are taking place? Or it doesn't count because it's 'just women'?

[JI7]

62. they are protesting against Muslims in the West , they are calling on those muslim women

to give up their religion and take their tops off.

if they are protesting for more rights for muslim women they would focus on those rights just as anti apartheid focused on that issue.

[bettyellen]

84. those were focused protests with calls for specific policy changes....

these are very free form and messages are unclear. i'd love to know how they want policies or laws enacted changed so they can "fuck (your) morals"

[randome]

87. In the end, they don't need ANY message that you or I approve of.

Being denigrated simply for the crime of being topless while female is its own message.

The medium, in this case, IS the message.

[bettyellen]

91. so, protesters don't need to educate or empower anyone for change these days? Interesting dodge.

[randome]

102. I would say the reaction to being topless IS the message, in this case.

Not dodging anything at all. It's not up to me to decide what anyone wants to protest.

[Squinch]

105. I have to say though, that if a protest is serious,

it is up to the protester to give some clue about what their message is. Otherwise, what is the point? Literally.

[Squinch]

98. Being vaunted simply for being topless is equally its own message.

[randome]

103. The interpretation of the message is always up to the observer.

No one can change that.

[Squinch]

114. I do observe, however, that the women in the African protests left absolutely no doubt

about the message they wanted to send and the results they wanted to achieve. There was no interpretation there.

Likewise with any of the protests I have ever heard of or been involved with.

[randome]

130. Whether this particular group of women are conducting their protest 'correctly'...

...should rate a collective shrug.

Because they dared to bare their breasts, we have all this hyper-interpretation going on as to whether or not they have bared their breasts in a 'legitimate' manner.

They are sticking a finger in the eye of society and I think that's always to be commended.

Change is essential. Maybe we'll get to the point in my lifetime when a woman being topless is considered no more a big deal than two men kissing in public.

[Squinch]

132. Oh, but then we're right back to the idea that it's about giving women the choice to go topless.

OK. I will join you in the collective shrug. And wish you a good night.

[bettyellen]

117. so, it;s more of an art piece then, than a protest, because actvists have actionable goals and no

matter how any one want to interpet them, words have meanings.

[randome]

119. Why do you feel the need to parse every possible interpretation?

Who cares? That should be our collective reaction to this. Who cares if some women are topless?

Instead, you have this hangup about bared breasts that forces you to decide whether or not they are baring their breasts in a legitimate manner.

Who...really...cares? Not me.

[Squinch]

129. But that's exactly the point. The lack of clear message makes us have to conclude: In the end, who

cares?

And you are exactly right. The collective reaction should be, and after the novelty wears off, probably will be: who cares?

[bettyellen]

146. Huh? If someone has a protest and no one knows or cares why- it;s a good thing?

SAY WHUT?

[HiPointDem]

188. that's art, not politics. and vapid performance art is exactly what most of femen reminds me of.

[idwiyo]

410. You mean something like Banksy? Solders Painting Peace, One Nation under CCTV, etc.?

Solders Painting Peace



One Nation Under CCTV

[HiPointDem]

447. yes, i mean people like the fraud 'banksy'.

Many critics degrade his art, claiming him to have copied directly from French street artist Blek le Rat. Comparing the styles of the two artists, one would find they are nearly identical.

In response to the criticism, Banksy stated, “Every time I think I’ve painted something slightly original, I find out that Blek le Rat has done it as well, only twenty years earlier.” However, it’s doubtful Banksy could not have pulled straight from the earlier artist. In 1981, Blek le Rat began to stencil images of rats all around the city of Paris. Two decades later, Banksy populated the walls of London with similar rats. It leaves one to wonder whether Banksy is merely trying to revive Blek’s unique style, or take credit for it.

Brian Sewell, an English art critic, does not sing Banksy’s praises. “He brilliantly subverted the global corporate machine by allowing his art to be used in the game Counter Strike… an anti-war game about settling your differences non-violently… is published by IGN Entertainment, a division of Fox Interactive. Peace out, man. That’ll show the pigs. Similarly, his art appeared on the cover of a Blur album, published by Parlophone, a division of EMI Group, the world’s largest music publisher. Fight the power!” says Sewell in the Londonist.

http://themycenaean.org/2012/03/banksy-artist-or-fraud/


The thief shepard fairey is another one. commodify your fake dissent.

[cliffordu]

332. What you said

[Luminous Animal]

374. Well, Femen disagrees with you. They say that their boobs are billboards

to deliver their message.

Apparently, they have failed since you believe that the billboard is the message.

[stevenleser]

414. No, that is a logic fail. It is both. Boobs are their billboards and part of the message. nt

[HiPointDem]

185. who exactly issued this 'fatwa' and under what authority?

[riderinthestorm]

320. Adel Almi. A Salafist of course

" Amina has said that she represented the movement Femen, an organization founded in the Ukraine that hosts topless protests to support women's rights. But this symbolic protest soon took a dark turn: A woman claiming to be her aunt posted a YouTube video disowning her, saying, "I hope she pays for her actions." The Salafi cleric Adel Almi also issued a fatwa warning that Amina's act could "provoke epidemics and disasters," and "give ideas to other women." Almi called for the young woman to be stoned to death. By the end of last week, local media reported that Amina could face two years' imprisonment for posting the photos.

Two related phenomena are important to understanding this incident -- the increasing restrictions on women in Tunisian society, and a significant rise in Salafi vigilantism. Though Tunisia has had one of the most progressive legal systems in the Arab world toward women's rights since its independence, these restrictions have largely resulted from societal pressures and harassment. According to recent media reports, increasing numbers of Tunisian women feel they need to change the way they dress -- including donning the hijab as a protective measure. "

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/03/26/springtime_for_salafists

[HiPointDem]

321. under what authority? and where does that say 'fatwa' as opposed to his opinion?

[riderinthestorm]

333. Islam has no central authority. As we saw with the fatwa against Salman Rushdie

the imam who issues the fatwa can be a very powerful force that's globally persuasive.

The article says he issued a fatwa in the fourth sentence of the first para I excerpted.

Its all over google. Feel free to find a different source if you think he issued an "opinion" instead of a fatwa.

[HiPointDem]

362. islam has lots of 'central authorities'. rushdie's fatwa was issued by the religious and civil head

of the iranian state -- which means a person who controlled a military & intelligence apparatus with international reach.

yet rushdie lives, & khomeni is dead.

this 'fatwa' (if that isn't just misreporting by western media) is issued by someone who controls no such apparatus, a minor cleric who's organized a self-appointed morality squad.

tunisia doesn't have sharia law or sharia courts; they haven't had since the 1950s. tunisians aren't fundamentalists. tunisians have had access to western media for decades.

the link cited by Foreign Policy doesn't say anything about 'fatwa'.

http://www.kapitalis.com/societe/15111-tunisie-amina-doit-etre-lapidee-jusqu-a-la-mort-estime-un-predicateur-islamiste.html

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kapitalis.com%2Fsociete%2F15111-tunisie-amina-doit-etre-lapidee-jusqu-a-la-mort-estime-un-predicateur-islamiste.html

Also Adel Almi has been on Tunisian TV saying he didn't say she should be stoned (sorry, i saw the link yesterday but can't find it today. the tv show was the same one amina herself was on.)

maybe he's lying, maybe he's backstepping, i don't know. but that's what he said on tv.

btw, do you know what a fatwa is?

A fatwā is a learned opinion concerning Islamic law issued by an Islamic scholar.

In Sunni Islam any fatwā is non-binding, whereas in Shia Islam it could be considered by an individual as binding, depending on his or her relation to the scholar.

The person who issues a fatwā is called, in that respect, a Mufti, i.e. an issuer of fatwā, from the verb أَفْتَى 'aftā = "he gave a formal legal opinion on". This is not necessarily a formal position since most Muslims argue that anyone trained in Islamic law may give an opinion (fatwā on its teachings.

Some people use the term to mean an Islamic death sentence imposed upon a person. This is indeed one possibility among others (and would be in the case of something Haraam), though it is a rare use for a fatwā. The term's correct definition is broader, since a fatwā may concern any aspect of individual life, social norms, religion, war, peace, jihad, and politics.

A fatwā is not automatically part of Islamic teachings. While the person issuing it may intend to represent the teachings of Islam accurately, this does not mean that that person's interpretation will gain universal acceptance. There are many divergent schools within the religion, and even people within the same current of thought will sometimes rule differently on a difficult issue. This means that there are numerous contradictory fatwā, prescribing or proscribing a certain behavior. This puts the burden of choice on the individual Muslim, who, in case of conflict, will be forced to decide whose opinion is more likely to be correct.

There is a binding rule that saves the fatwā pronouncements from creating judicial havoc, whether within a Muslim country or at the level of the Islamic world in general: it is unanimously agreed that a fatwā is only binding on its author.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatw%C4%81

[riderinthestorm]

366. Yeah, fine. So Amina should just head out to the local Tunisia Starbucks

no sweat right?

Cause this fatwa is nothing?

Amina is protesting because Tunisia is quickly lurching towards an Islamist state. Whatever PAST Tunisia has had, isn't reality for the present.

I hope you've booked your flight to Tunisia to be there at Amina's side as she goes about her daily business in "secular" Tunisia because frankly, she's going to need protection regardless of your attempts to minimize her peril.

Until you come up with a link that says the imam doesn't REALLY want Amina stoned via his despicable fatwa, I'll believe the THOUSANDS of google links that prove you wrong.

[Luminous Animal]

376. Actually, Tunisia is not quickly lurching toward any such thing.

Jeesh. The fundamentalists are in the minority. The country is on the verge of ratifying a secular constitution. So much ignorance, so little time.

But, I will state, if Femen wants to support her, THEY should be booking their next flight to Tunisia.

[riderinthestorm]

382. Only YESTERDAY the Tunisia Assembly's tie was broken by Ettouir's vote

Its THAT close.

To say that the Islamists aren't encroaching on the state institutions and governance on a daily basis is disingenuous. The assault has been well documented and is playing out in public media for all to see.

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=57891

Amina's protest occurred in the middle of very, very tense political negotiations. Tunisia is on the precipice of becoming an Islamic state governed by Sharia.

[Luminous Animal]

384. No, Tunisia is not on the precipice of becoming an Sharia state and nothihng in your link

supports that assumption.

[HiPointDem]

386. it's not 'nothing' and i didn't say it was. it's not a 'fatwa' though, if by 'fatwa' you mean an

order for her assassination.

but the main reason it's 'something' is because there are nuts in tunisia, same as everywhere.

your image of the entire middle east as psychopathic bloodthirsty muslims longing to stone infidels is the problem.

i could come up with no link that would satisfy you.

[riderinthestorm]

415. That the Arab Spring revolutions have turned into an Arab Chill via Islamist

groups exerting powerful and muscular influence isn't "my" image but a widely observed political fact in many, many more links than you can provide. These aren't individual "nuts" as you categorize them. Its a well funded Salafi effort by the Gulf States with the new front being Syria where the false veneer has finally completely worn off, exposing the bald truth that these movements were never about "democratic revolution".

FWIW, I don't believe Muslims are psychopathic or bloodthirsty but I'm sure I too can't provide enough links to satisfy you.

Amina's action was taken in response to the growing threat to secular Tunisia by the encroaching Islamists. I choose to listen to her powerful action but I also believe its equally important to watch and listen to what happens in the wake of such an action. Your attempt to minimize her cry for global attention is noted.

[idwiyo]

217. Are you saying that all muslim women who live in muslim neighbourhoods want

to wear head cover? Or that all of them are objecting to FEMEN? Or that FEMEN is not allowed to walk through muslim neighbourhoods because some of the women object?

[pnwmom]

313. And some FEMEN members are Muslims themselves. Don't they have the right to their views?

They aren't neocolonialists just because they are against the hijab.

[BainsBane]

27. they explicitly target Islam and modesty as political foes

They marched through a Muslim neighborhood in Paris saying down with Islam, etc. . .
Veils are actually banned in places in France, like schools. Some of these actions reek of imperialism and cultural disrespect.

[Matariki]

54. They say "down with Islam", really?

Do you have a link?

[BainsBane]

58. They held signs

Here is a Huff Po article. They refer to it as a "war on Islam": http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/04/topless-jihad-day-femens-war-islam-underway-protestors-tunisian

[Matariki]

60. that's a 'page not found' link

and I'm actually interested.

[BainsBane]

63. wrong link

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/03/topless-jihad-day-femen-war-islam-warning-tits-deadlier-amina-tyler-stones_n_3006735.html

This link works for me. The one I had before my edit went to a different article.

This isn't the one I previously read about because it's more recent. And the exact wording varied. I'll see what else I can turn up.

[Matariki]

74. Thanks for the link

I didn't see any 'down with Islam' signs, but a couple women had 'Fuck Islamism' painted on themselves. Which isn't the same as 'fuck Islam' or 'down with Islam'.

Islamism refers to Islam's moral guideline. Which is what Amina was protesting in the first place and what earned her threats against her life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism

[BainsBane]

106. I noticed that

Did you see the article on imperial feminism? I don' claim to know much about what FEMEN stands for. I'm trying to figure it out myself. But from what I have read, I can understand the reactions of Muslim women referenced in this OP. I know a lot of Muslim women, since I live in a city with large Muslim population. Many where head scarves or Hijabs because they choose to, and I respect their choices. The idea that we should all become a homogenized Western culture bothers me. Of all issues affecting women, dress strikes me as the least important. I also think it's important to respect the goals of feminist groups already working in countries like Egypt and Tunisia.

[Matariki]

210. I agree with that

Last edited Fri Apr 5, 2013, 03:37 AM - Edit history (1)

It just bothers me when a religion's ethics are forced on people whether they want it or not - especially when those ethics tend toward sexism and subjugation of women. And especially when the punishment for not conforming to those ethics is dire.

But yeah, I agree with what you said about the homogenizing influence of western culture, and particularly our culture's materialism.

Don't forget though that this IS about the fate of a Tunisian woman who dared to defy her culture's requirements for women's behavior.

[BainsBane]

212. Yes, and I Very much want her to be safe

I agree entirely with your characterization about forcing oppressive religious practices on people. It does concern me, however, that some make blanket condemnations of Islam. That does nothing to advance the well being of women.

[BainsBane]

205. Here is an image

With "Fuck the Q. . .". Written on a protester. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022617072
Attacking the words of the Prophet is attacking an entire people, men and women included.

[Kurska]

211. I'd contend saying the words of any prophet are above criticism is an assault on common sense.

Living in a secular society means that while you have every right to your religion, you certainly don't have the right to live your life without every hearing someone disagree with it.

Especially when the book includes lovely passages about raining hellfire on to people like me because we were born to love other men.

"And (We sent) Lot when he said to his people: What! do you commit an indecency which any one in the world has not done before you? Most surely you come to males in lust besides females; nay you are an extravagant people. And the answer of his people was no other than that they said: Turn them out of your town, surely they are a people who seek to purify (themselves). So We delivered him and his followers, except his wife; she was of those who remained behind. And We rained upon them a rain; consider then what was the end of the guilty."

Yeah if I'm not allowed to criticize a book that calls for the raining of hell fire onto me, I don't even know what to say anymore.

[BainsBane]

218. They don't know enough about Islam to attack the words of the prophet

If they had read the Quran they wouldn't make such uninformed displays.

That tactic In the photo certainly does express a deeply ingrained imperialism and sense of Western superiority, which many here seem to share. The neocons have succeeded in convincing Americans that Islam is evil and backward and in doing so have justified endless war in the region. It's amazing how invested many Americans and Europeans remain in their own imperialist sense of cultural superiority. I would have though 10 hrs of war and hundreds of thousands of lives lost would prompt people to think more carefully.

[Kurska]

220. How bout these words of the prophet

"And (We sent) Lot when he said to his people: What! do you commit an indecency which any one in the world has not done before you? Most surely you come to males in lust besides females; nay you are an extravagant people. And the answer of his people was no other than that they said: Turn them out of your town, surely they are a people who seek to purify (themselves). So We delivered him and his followers, except his wife; she was of those who remained behind. And We rained upon them a rain; consider then what was the end of the guilty.”

Which endorse the raining of hell fire upon homosexuals for being homosexuals?

Am I allowed to criticize that?

People can have whatever religion they want, but as soon as you start this business about not being able to critcize or dispute a holy book you've lost me.

Islam is certainly not uniquely bad among religions, but it isn't much better .

[BainsBane]

223. Should we pull out some bible quotes too?

Or some statements from our own political representatives? Would that then justify another country invading us and killing 200,000 civilians?

We are not superior because we are American. Being American means we have more blood on our hands, including of women who die at 4x the rate in the US than in Algeria.

[Kurska]

225. I'm rather offended that you seem to associate being Christian with being American.

I'm an atheist and I'm just as American as anyone else. It is entirely wrong to judge America by the content of the bible. There are Atheist, Jewish and yes even Muslim Americans. America has no official religion. It is entirely appropriate however to judge Islam (notice I'm not saying Muslims, I'd never judge someone BASED on their religion) by the content of the quran.

And for the record, I think the bible is just as bad as the quran. They have certainly both been used to justify equally terrible things.

[BainsBane]

232. I don't associate Christian with being American

Which is specifically why I referenced statements by politicians along with the bible. I didn't even specifically mention the US, since the parallel with Islam would include many additional countries, and at least Europe. But you are content to assume all those in Muslim countries are fundamentalists, which is far from the case. Perhaps you should consider treating Muslims with the same respect for ideological and political differences that you expect others to recognize about Westerners? The blanket condemnation os Islam extends beyond a single country. It covers a large chunk of the world and goes back over 1300 years. If Islam itself is inherently bad, why were conditions for women in the Golden Age so different from today?

[Kurska]

238. I'm not endorsing any of these positions, but just trying to understand your logic here.

Being born in American means that I have blood on my hands for the Iraq war, despite the fact I never voted for president who was responsible for it.

But if someone chooses to practice the Islamic religion, it is offensive if you point out all the horrible things that the quran advocates for women or gays.

So again, you can tell someone that they have blood on their hands because they were born in a particular country.

But it is offensive to tell someone the truth, which is that in many places Islam is used as the primary justification for the brutal subjugation and or murder of gays and women.

Yeah, I'm going to honest when I say I really don't understand the conclusions that are being reached here.

[BainsBane]

242. Okay

Last edited Fri Apr 5, 2013, 08:44 PM - Edit history (1)

What I'm trying to get people to understand is that they are condemning a huge portion of the world's population based on little understanding of the differences within Islam, or even that all those in Muslim countries aren't even Muslim. Like the US, most of those countries contain Christians, Jews, Atheists, as well as followers of other religions.

I'm also trying to point out that the prejudice toward Islam many feel is the result of cultural indoctrination to justify US wars. We don't recognize it, but it clearly frames how we see the Muslim world. Lastly, that we as Americans are not superior human brings and should reflect on ways in which our views toward foreign cultures are influenced by our own cultural mythology of superiority.

[Kurska]

265. Well, you didn't address what I said at all.

So I don't believe I'll be continuing this exchange, as I have no desire to be simply talked at. I hope you have a great day.

[BainsBane]

278. You asked what my point was

I told you. I happened to think they are quite important points. And you can't expect me to address points you make after you reedited a post, when I was responding to the first version. Even then, those points are your own misunderstanding of what I said, so I distilled my main concerns, which evidently anger you. For some reason, you seem compelled to make this discussion about you personally, which I have no interest in doing.

[Kurska]

338. I understand you fine, I however think you are holding two incredibly double standards here.

And you not addressing those double standards and explaining why they are valid is what I'm waiting for a response to.

[BainsBane]

358. At your request

That you think, or propose as an abstract idea, that someone someone "chooses" to practice a religion and that justifies being smeared based on a very limited of understanding of that religion is, in my view, unacceptable. There is not one understanding of Islam or one implementation of the Koran. That you imagine it is all the same is unfortunate. I realize that most of us in the US learn very little about the Muslim world. But to fail to understand the limits of ones own education in this particularly area and broadly condemn a huge swath of the population is truly unfortunate.

The Islamphobia in many posts in this thread is a manifestations of cultural imperialism, of a deeply imbued aspect of American national mythology that imagines ourselves superior to the rest of the world. All countries have nation myths. That is key to national identity. The American national myth centers on believing ourselves to be the best nation in the world, "a free country," and imagining that much of the rest of the world lives under oppression.

That cultural imperialism has been imbued in us to legitimize military, political, and economic imperialism. My point about the wars was mean to highlight that we as Americans are not as superior as you seem to believe. As you are aware, in regard to the the Muslim world, that has included bloody wars killing hundreds of thousands of people. Now are we as individual Americans responsible for those interventions? I consider this question a tangent from the central issue, but since you insist, I will answer. Yes, in a way we are all responsible. We all pay a sizable portion of our tax bill to fund those wars. I think it unlikely you did not vote for any of the governments that executed them, unless you have never voted. George Bush began the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but Bill Clinton regularly bombed Iraq, entered Somalia, and did a host of other things in the Middle East. Jimmy Carter began arming the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, and Barack Obama has continued war in Afghanistan and kept Guantanamo Bay open. Governments from the 1950s through 1979 backed the oppressive Shah of Iran, who was put in place via an American coup that replaced a Democratic leader. But under the Shah woman dressed in Western garb that people here find acceptable. If they dressed otherwise or dared to veil, they were beaten by state police. Since WWII, the US has propped up dictatorships throughout the world, including in Muslim countries like Indonesia, where the US funded genocide (under LBJ). Administrations since WWII have funded Israel and its occupation of Palestine. In terms of foreign policy, there has been little if any difference between Republican and Democratic governments, so all of us have voted for people who carried out that military and political imperialism. We have all benefited from the oil gained through those interventions that met US economic and geopolitical interests.

My point, however, is not to levy blame but to encourage reflection on cultural stereotypes and recognize that the simple statement of attributing a set of beliefs to all Muslims reveals you have little understanding of the religion or Muslim people. Passing judgment on the rest of the world serves no one. It only contributes to being the ugly American who thinks itself superior, a myth that serves to justify interventions abroad. I'm not saying that you and others deliberately seek to justify that action. You do not. You do, however, display cultural manifestations of that imperialism. That cultural imperialism was not borne of its own. It has been taught to us in order to justify US action abroad.

The rest of the world need not be like us to be respected. In fact, in terms of their actions abroad, they are far less complicit that the US. So rather than pointing fingers at those in other countries and condemning huge swaths of the world's population, learn something about those peoples. Rather than relying on cultural stereotypes, we must interrogate them: think about where they come from and what purpose they serve. Then we can think about what we as individuals can to to affect the issues we care most about.

__________

As an aside, to imagine all Muslims are homophobic is simply wrong. I live in Minneapolis, the city with the largest Somali population in the US. I canvassed those voters, who came out to vote down a proposed constitutional amendment making same sex marriage illegal. You can go to the MN Secretary of State's website and look at votes on that amendment by precinct, and you will see solid Democratic votes in Somali neighborhoods, including on that measure. Why? I think it may be because they have developed a loyalty toward the Democratic party and we asked them to vote no on the issue. The world is not as one dimensional as many think.

[Kurska]

375. I'm disagreeing with your basic premise from the first line.

In America people clearly have the right to pick their religion. Sure people are raised with certain religions, but in the exception of very limited circumstances (Threats from family members for instance) everyone is free to changes religons or abandon religion all together at any time. The debating the idea that religion is a choice is contrary to the very concept of freedom of religion. That doesn't mean it is okay to judge PEOPLE based on the religion they choose (that would be contrary to the principle of freedom of religion aswell), but that most certainly doesn't mean that religious tenets and practices are above criticism. Especially when they contribute to the brutal oppresion of vulnerable minorities the world over.

You're arguing that different interpretations of Islam excuse homophobic or sexist content in the Quran. I'd argue that by definition Islam is defined by the Quran, sure you can interpt the Quran in any many ways. I however fail to see how you can interpert a verse about raining hellfire on people for taking male company as a male as anything besides a rather homophobic attack on homosexuals.

[BainsBane]

392. the Muslim world isn't America

I hate that whole religious choice argument, but even granting that for the sake of argument, we are talking about cultures that differ greatly from the US. Religion and ethnicity are one in the same in most of the world. People are born Sunni or Shia. You don't think people in Syria wouldn't have become Alawite, the religion of Asad and the ruling class, if conversion were so easy? People don't switch. Religion is who they are. Part of that is identity born from oppression, as Rashid Khalidi's book Palestinian Identity makes clear. How likely do you think it is that someone born in Ramallah will say, hey I think I'll try out Seven Day Adventism as a religion, or better yet, Judaism, the religion of my captor? Seriously? That's not how it works. Holding foreign cultures to American standards is highly problematic. You need to knock that whole notion from your head. It is itself culturally imperialistic.

Here's the parallel to what you are doing: Pat Robertson says some fucked up thing about the US constitution or the Magna Carta. Someone in Pakistan decides that defines all Americans and Europeans and figures they need to know nothing else about any of us. Do you think that makes a lot of sense?

I'll also point out we have our share of sexism and homophobia in this country to worry about. Do we really need to be pointing fingers at oppressed populations and people's emerging from dictatorship and neocolonialsim? I think we've fucked enough of the world up already. We really are in no position to judge.

[Kurska]

393. Well first off, any society that wouldn't freely let someone change their religion is pretty wrong.

Last edited Sat Apr 6, 2013, 04:27 AM - Edit history (1)

And it is right up there with bans on homosexuality and sexism for messed up stuff about the middle east.

Secondly, just because someone can't picture changing their religion doesn't mean they aren't free to do it.

Human rights are universal rights that should apply globally. If some nation thinks they have some culutral right to treat women or gays poorly they are going to find themselves increasingly isolated in the world. Just like how nations that had laws that allowed slavery all found themselves increasingly isolated by the end of the 19th century. Like slavery (which is also biblically and quranically endorsed btw) bans on homosexuality and oppression of women are disgusting relics of the past and not something I am prepared to tolerate no mater the culture.

If that is cultural imperialism, sorry it is also respecting of basic human dignities.

Obviously people should have the right to be whatever religion they choose and they shouldn't be judged for their religion. That said I still believe people should be able to critique religion, especially when that religion is heavily involved in the public discourse

[BainsBane]

402. How about societies that don't let people change their race and ethnicity?

Are they wrong too? That is what religion is in most of the world. You assume people would run around church hopping if government let them. That you think that possible is the result of a breakdown of community and family, a function of capitalist dislocation. Most of those people would no more change religions than you would change your skin. It is who they are, who their families are, who their ancestors are.

Any society that kills others to remake the world in its own image is wrong. Think about that. You are paying money to do that each and every day. You really are not in a position to judge.

You aren't promoting cultural dignity. You are completely denying it for others. You see cultures that differ from ours as illegitimate. Than sense of superiority is without justification. We are a highly militaristic culture with the highest prison population on earth and tremendous economic inequality. That people do not think exactly like you does not make their culture wrong. Firstly, very few people on this earth are as ethnocentric and self absorbed as Americans. You somehow see that as a virtue. It is not. Do you seriously think a gay person in Palestine is more interested in your condescension and scorn that his own right to life, land, water, and political self-determination.

You've clearly not been exposed to much about the world. I suggest you do something about it because you entire world view is offensive and dangerous. It's a sense of cultural superiority that justifies massive military interventions designed to "liberate" them from oppression, and in the result kills millions.

[Kurska]

425. Being able to change religions is the result of a breakdown of community and family? Are you real?

That is absolutely ridiculous. Are you seriously implying that if our community and family structures were not broken down we would be forbidden to change our religion? Are you honestly implying that the ability to freely worship is a flaw of our country?

If you're not willing to stand up for the rights of gays and women in other countries, that is your flaw not mine. But I refuse to excuse the horrible treatment of others because religious bigots think it is their god given right to murder gays and oppress women. You seem to also think they have a right to engage in those brutalities. This may seem terse but this is how I see it now, you obviously aren't actually a feminist if you believe only western women have a right to be free of oppression and domination. You certainly are not a friend of gay rights if you think other countries murdering gay people is okay as long as they are doing it for religious reasons.

It is also beyond ridiculous to ask me to tolerate a culture that desires to MURDER me or people like me or those who would brutally oppress my sisters. Should the north have "tolerated" the unique cultural right of the south to hold slaves? Did it make them cultural imperialists for waging wars to stop it (not saying that is the solution here, that would honestly probably cause more harm then good. Sanctions would work just fine)? Or does allowances of brutality towards oppressed minorities only apply when it is far away and you don't' have to see the actual results of it? You still haven't addressed how you are basically arguing that the concept of universal human rights in invalid.

Your assumption about me are beyond hilarious. I've actually travelled rather extensively and have a very diverse group of friends. I've also known gay people in horrible situations that would be disgusted at your abandonment on them to bigots. To be honest, I am rather disgusted as well. The solution to countries that continue to murder gays and oppress women is obvious. Sanction them, exclude them from the international community and turn them into pariah states along the lines of Apartheid South Africa. If you don't support that, I don't know what to say except that your "support" for gay rights and womens rights is rather local and exceptionally shallow

[ButterflyBlood]

435. I hate calling a way of thinking "anti-American", but I'd say that clearly applies in this case

It's reminscent of McCarthyism and strikes of jingoism, but it clearly goes against one of the pillars of the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment. The right to choose one's own religion is clearly enshrined in the Constitution. Imagine saying "Yeah I guess people have a right to free speech but it's causing a breakdown of community and family and is all the result of capitalist culture." Now consider what above is basically being said about the right to choose one's own religion.

I can take personal offense to this as I am proud of that my religious tradition is something that I chose, not my parents. Considering that my parents are OK with this and supportive though, I have to wonder how it's causing the breakdown of the family.

[ButterflyBlood]

388. Last statement is objectively false. Look at this map

http://www.sos.state.mn.us/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=12124 (Big but worth it)

Somali neighborhoods are clearly the ONLY areas in Minneapolis to vote for it. In contrast the overwhelmingly "no" areas around them they stick out like a sore thumb.

[BainsBane]

395. tell me, with your x ray eyes

and intimate knowledge of residential patterns in Minneapolis, which neighborhoods voted yes, because I can't distinguish a single neighborhood on that map.

[ButterflyBlood]

417. You don't need "x ray eyes", the precincts voting yes are pretty obvious.

Though the way the map is designed makes finding where they are specifically a little tricky. But the precincts voting yes do clearly stand out. It's a bit easier on the metro zoom insert, because the city boundaries are drawn, as are the actual precinct boundaries. It's clear that some group in the city is voting for it. Go on Google Maps for Minneapolis, type in "halal" and you'll notice a correlation where the dots appear. And since the MN SoS site has all the precinct results, I can list every precinct in Minneapolis that voted yes:

W-6 P-03
W-6 P-04
W-6 P-05
W-6 P-07
W-12 P-07

You can view the precinct map here: http://www.minneapolismn.gov/maps/about_maps_wards-precincts

Aside from W-12 P-07, which appears to consist of nothing but an assisted living veterans home, all of these are heavily Somali areas. Also type in "Somali" on Google maps and you'll get lots of hits for community centers, which are mostly all in the above precincts.

Granted they were quite far from unanimous, you probably around 40% of Muslims in these areas voting no, which itself is impressive. But it is simply false to say that they voted no overall.

[BainsBane]

419. You think Halal markets are in 5 precincts in this town?

There is one two blocks away, and there are very few Somalis in this neighborhood.

None of those precincts are the ones I canvassed in. It does appear to include Cedar Riverside, where the newest immigrants live, But none of the communities along Bloomington and Columbus or S of Lake Street. Though truthfully, I need to see street names to figure out exactly what neighborhoods are covered. That map also seems to include the U of M dorms. When I canvassed, the only Republicans I encountered, with 1 exception, were U students, probably from Ferguson Falls or some such place.

It also appears to include the White Earth Reservation and Native American neighborhoods along Franklin, which do also include Somalis.

[riderinthestorm]

421. Its "halal". Pretty big blunder if you really do see them everywhere nt

[BainsBane]

422. Posting via iPad

I know how it's spelled. But thanks, I'll edit it.

[ButterflyBlood]

433. I live about three blocks south of a halal market, and I'm in a white mostly hipster neighborhood

About equidistant from uptown and downtown. I'm aware they're not just in Somali neighborhoods, but if you look on Google maps, they do follow a similar pattern to the precincts. Somali cultural centers do as well.

The U of M dorms were definitely not a stronghold of support for the amendment (which should surprise no one): http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2012/11/youth-vote-s-overwhelming-opposition-doomed-marriage-and-voting-amendments

Yes this does include the Little Earth area, but compare that to Red Lake up north, and it's clear that while it might be relatively stronger for it than the rest of Minneapolis, it obviously wouldn't get a majority in that region based on the Native American population alone, especially as Minneapolis Natives would be more liberal than ones in a rural area. The only non-Somali factor I can see boosting it is the fundamentalist Assembly of God university North Central which is in the region, but doesn't have much influence outside its own precinct and wasn't even enough to tip its own to Romney.

Yes lots of Somalis clearly did vote no, as evidenced by the fact No got over 30% even in the Cedar Riverside area. I have no doubt the Somalis I saw at the election night victory party who were drinking what was very clearly alcoholic beverages also voted no. But to say they were as strong as the city in general against it is clearly and evidently false.

[BainsBane]

437. I was simply recounting my experience canvassing

and I checked the neighborhoods I canvassed in after the election. I dd not cover the Cedar Riverside area. I went up and down Bloomington, where entire large apartment buildings are filled with Somali families. I also covered some neighborhoods south of 28th near Lyndale, where I found Somalis and three Republicans on one block. That stood out since they were the only Republicans I encountered. A lot of the neighborhoods I covered were mixed, African-American and Somali, or white and African American, like Whittier, where I grew up.

[ButterflyBlood]

439. I'm going to trust the actual results over anecdotal evidence

Cedar-Riverside and the surrounding areas were clearly the strongest pockets of support for the anti-gay voting in the city.

Whittier by the way, where I am living, may be only slightly majority white in census numbers, but is far more white in terms of voters because the whites are mostly either young singles or DINK couples and almost all are above voting age while the minority populations include children (as well as recent immigrants who aren't eligible.) I'd be surprised if even 10% of whites in Whittier voted anti-gay. The non-white vote in Whittier as well was no doubt majority against the measure as well (look at how the African-American neighborhoods in north Minneapolis voted or the Asian ones in St. Paul), but there aren't many Muslims.

[BainsBane]

440. Whittier has changed a lot since I lived there

You wouldn't have chosen to live there when I was growing up.

I didn't suggest my experience was statistical. I was simply saying that was what I based my post on.

So given your disgust for Catholics, were you disappointed to see those neighborhoods in St. Paul voted no?

[ButterflyBlood]

441. Yes I know, it's a gradual shift of people from Uptown because the rent is cheaper

But today it's a place where I can get an apartment for just $550/month and still be close to cool coffeeshops and clubs and music venues and independent arthouse theaters! Perfect.

Seeing any area voting no doesn't disappoint me. But I can assure you that those Uptown and Lowry Hill neighborhoods that were voting less than 10% anti-gay don't have too many people who would identify as Catholic regardless of their upbringing (or Whittier for that matter.) I can actually count the number of under 40s who identify as Catholic I know on both hands, and I'd still be able to do so if I was a double amputee.

[BainsBane]

443. I specified St. Paul

Since that is where the Catholic churches are, I assume that is where most of the Catholics live. The Irish names are also a clue.

[ButterflyBlood]

444. One of my best friends is from St. Paul and has a very Irish name

and he is a staunch atheist who would never in a million years identify with any type of religion and whose comments about the Catholic Church would make Ian Paisley look kind. So that's what my experience with that crowd is.

But the strongest legislative district in St. Paul was 64A, based around the Frogtown area, which is again mostly college students, hipsters and yuppies. I don't think you'll be finding too many Catholics there.

[BainsBane]

445. from the map you provided earlier

If I recall correctly, the entire city voted yes. I guess I was correct that upset you.

[ButterflyBlood]

446. The whole city voted against, but what does that prove? St. Paul is not all Catholic

or even majority Catholic. That said though I have never denied that many Catholics voted against the amendment or are Democrats. I deny that as was claimed that the VAST MAJORITY of Catholics (not just majority, but "vast&quot are Democrats and supportive of gay marriage. Here's the results of the exit poll of the state in 2008 by the way (this question wasn't asked in 2012):

Protestant: 51-47 McCain
Catholic: 52-47 McCain
Other: 78-21 Obama
None: 77-21 Obama

And if you break down the Protestant question further...

White Prot. Born-Again: 65-33 McCain
White Prot. Not Born-Agn: 60-38 Obama
All Others: 60-38 Obama

So yes I did move to a more liberal and Democratic voting group by throwing my Catholic upbringing and heritage in the trash like a pair of old socks.

[BainsBane]

420. It doesn't even include the Arab/ Somali neighborhoods

NE along Central. NE has lots of Muslims. Looks to me that you've identified a pattern among the very newest immigrants and U of M students, and maybe medical residents, since that area includes various University Fairview hospitals and of course the Academic Medical Center.

[ButterflyBlood]

434. None of those areas are majority Muslim

Only the Cedar-Riverside area is. While the NE might have lots of Muslims, it's still majority white just about everywhere.

U of M students were obviously not a bastion of anti-gay support: http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2012/11/youth-vote-s-overwhelming-opposition-doomed-marriage-and-voting-amendments

By the same standard it'd be pretty bizarre if medical residents were mostly in favor of the amendment, as demographically they'd be one of the least likely groups to support it (post-graduate education). Furthermore medical residents are definitely NOT a group I'd expect to vote yes on banning gay marriage and for Obama, which is the case in these precincts. Of the Ward 6 precincts that voted yes, two (precincts 3 and 5) also gave Obama over 90% of the vote and another (7) gave Obama over 85% of the vote. Only precinct vote gave Romney a significant percentage (33.85%) and it's home to a fundamentalist university. The other precincts clearly show some demographic group that significantly voted Obama/Yes.

[BainsBane]

436. So what is your general conclusion from that?

If Only Cedar Riverside is majority Muslim, why all those precincts? Cedar Riverside can't be more than one precinct. You do realize that Cedar Riverside is where the newest immigrants live, and have for decades? So what do you propose doing with this population?

[ButterflyBlood]

438. The precincts are all clustered in the same area

It's not just Cedar-Riverside (which I am VERY familiar with because it's home to one of my favorite music venues) but the immediately surrounding areas that might also have large Somali populations but are part of different neighborhoods. It is basically just three precincts in the end (we can throw out the elderly one in southeast corner and North Central University one) that likely have a majority Muslim population, or at least large enough to tilt the vote. Take a look at State House district 62A (where I am) and what it entails and consider that the amendment received 28.22% of the vote here. Where did that 28.22% come from? It obviously wasn't the Uptown hipsters and post-grad degree holding yuppies.

I'm not proposing "doing" anything with this population. I'm just stating facts about the results and demographics. It's not like this pattern is isolated, recent immigrant communities have never been too supportive of gay rights, look at the Prop 8 results in California. Obviously things change. The younger generation is no doubt far more supportive (after all they don't seem to even have a problem drinking alcohol.) Even getting around 30-40% against is quite impressive, hell ten years ago that'd be about average numbers for a vote on it in most states overall! There is lots of positive things to see in all these results. But that doesn't mean we should ignore other realities and try to pretend that the most anti-gay voting groups in the city are college students and medical residents.

[idwiyo]

246. yeah, if only they have read the Quoan, they would have known that accoring to Hadith

http://www.missionislam.com/knowledge/homosexuality.htm

SODOMY AND LESBIANISM

In more than one place in the Holy Koran, Allah recounts to us the story of Lot's people, and how He destroyed them for their wicked practice. There is consensus among both Muslims and the followers of all other religions that sodomy is an enormity. It is even viler and uglier than adultery.

Allah Most High says: "Do you approach the males of humanity, leaving the wives that Allah has created for you? But you are a people who transgress" Koran (26:165-66)

(1) The Prophet (saws) said: (1) "Kill the one who sodomizes and the one who lets if be done to him." (Tirmidhi, a sahih (authentic) hadith)

(2) "May Allah curse him who does that Lot's people did." (Ibn Hibban, sahih (authentic))

(3) "Lesbianism by women is adultery between them." (Tabarani, sahih)"

Taken from the Reliance of the Traveller, transltaed by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, p 664-665.

There are a lot more Hadiths on the issue, and the issue of what is to be done with one who commits sodomy or lesbianism. I will not deal with these now in this post. All I wanted to do was to show that the position of Islam on this issue is that it is an enormity (kaba'ir), and therefore, forbidden, (

I am thinking VERY carefully now about what is it you are actually defending?

[Marrah_G]

271. Wait what?

Criticism of "the prophet" is the same as attacking an entire people?

LOL..........really?

[stevenleser]

273. Yeah, see, I don't think Femen's feminist detractors really stop to listen to themselves.

Many of their arguments against Femen are so regressive as to be ridiculous. Or are just plain ridiculous.

[BainsBane]

281. Criticizing their holy book

is indeed the same as criticizing their religion and who they are as a people. You evidently find that funny. But pissing on the Koran costs American lives in Afghanistan. I see nothing humorous about cultural imperialism and blatant disrespect for others.

It's pretty clear to me that if people lack basic respect for a people, they also disrespect the women they claim to care about. Those women are Muslim. The Koran means as much to them as it does men. Such callous cultural disrespect shocks me, but then we are a people who see fit to make endless war against Muslims. And here we see the results of those neoconservative denunciations of Islam.

[Marrah_G]

286. actually what I find funny is your view on this

Actually, absurd would be the word I would use.....and I am sure you feel the same about mine.

But we are all entitled to our points of view. Yours and mine are just far to different to really have a conversation about this particular topic.

[BainsBane]

359. Absurd that human beings deserve respect

even if they believe in a God, or are born into a religion different from ours? If that is what you are saying, that is a chasm too vast to be breached. I wouldn't call yours absurd, I would call it frightening. Unless I'm just not understanding what you are saying. I hope that is the case.

[idwiyo]

411. You (generic) have a right to beleive, but there is no right to demand respect for your belief.

Applies universally. Even more so when we start talking about homophobic, misogynist, racist book.
You are welcome to embrace and respect all of them, including Dianetics.

[JVS]

423. Don't start talking shit on Dianetics!

[idwiyo]

424. You mean I should respect it and stuff? :) Of course I have greatest respect for anyone

who believes in Scientology! I mean it has "science" in its name, and it was invented, oops REVEALED by sic-fi writer. Damn, maybe I should look at it more closely... After all if I should respect Quran than why not Scientology?..

[BainsBane]

68. first reference I saw

That someone pointed me to a couple of days ago. Now someone has since told me this blogger is transphobic. But this is where I first read it. http://feministcurrent.com/6619/there-is-a-wrong-way-to-do-feminism-and-femen-is-doing-it-wrong/

[idwiyo]

249. You were told this blogger is transphobic bigot but you just repost the link anyway?

Obviously, they don't have enough traffic, lets send some more their way.

Or you could have posted a link to Al Jaseera instead. It takes like about 2 seconds to do it.

[BainsBane]

331. yes, because my singular goal in life

is to promote transphobia.
I thought it best to qualify the source based on the little I know.

[snooper2]

99. Do you think the Koran is friendly to women? You never responded to this video..

We can get into the bible too, it's just as bad, but since you brought up Islam..

Do you just jump on whatever side you think will give you the most "traction" or is there a moral center driving your thought process?

[idwiyo]

251. brilliant video, thank you for posting it.

[stevenleser]

258. Christina Rad rocks. There is no response to this. nt

[pnwmom]

315. Some do, but not all. n/t

[stevenleser]

100. Yes they do. They also target various Christian denominations.

They seem to believe that a lot of anti-women beliefs and actions are religion based.

And it's pretty hard to argue the point.

[BainsBane]

110. But the idea of destroying religion is absud

Attacking a people's core belief system is not going to improve conditions for women. Some of their ideas strike me as adolescent in nature. The idea of rejecting religion is a first world notion.. That seems entire idea seems foreign and alienating to most in the Global South.

[stevenleser]

116. I think Femen would be just as happy with a world where religions dont contribute to the harming

of and bias against women.

As for the rest, a lot of new ideas start out alienating people.

[Squinch]

118. Then your interpretation is that FEMEN wants world religions to eradicate their bias toward women?

But not to eliminate or change religions beyond that?

[stevenleser]

120. Either that or they want them to go away altogether, yes. That would be one of Femen's goals. nt

[Squinch]

124. So possibly the elimination of religion?

[stevenleser]

128. Yes. One or the other. nt

[RainDog]

169. but you failed to see this same dynamic

here on DU, when people were talking to people in a Christian church that codifies sexism and homophobia as key tenets - to the point that these beliefs are considered central to the morality of the institution, by that institution's own claim - and asking them why they would continue such an association. You called that bigotry.

I look at this issue this way - what if it were homosexual men who undressed protested at the embassy in Uganda where some political and religious leaders have called for death sentences for homosexual acts. What if they did this because a homosexual man had been put into a psychiatric ward because he was open about his sexual orientation?

Whether I agreed or disagreed with the tactic, I would not label it imperialism because I am a liberal and I believe in universal human rights - rights that apply to others, not just myself, in a variety of situations.

If a group of homosexual men from Uganda posted pictures saying... your nude protests don't represent me, so stop your imperialistic attitudes - I would wonder why those men are turning their wrath toward the protestors rather than the injustice that exists.

What value is there in attacking the protestors, other than reaffirming the homophobic (i.e. patriarchal) system that exists?

People are at different places in life all the time and have different ideas about the value of things. But it seems like a defensive posture to attack the protestors, to say "They aren't me."

That's fine, too.

Rather than resort to name calling, the counter protestors should say what they stand for, because, otherwise, they stand for the status quo unless they have something else to offer other than disapproval.

[stevenleser]

171. no, I didnt. nt

[BainsBane]

204. What new ideas?

It's looking more and more like the flash mob version of PNAC. What am I missing?

[JVS]

248. FEMEN comes from a region with a tradition of strident anti-clericalism

Last edited Fri Apr 5, 2013, 05:30 AM - Edit history (1)

For all the talk about FEMEN being Western, people seem to ignore that this is an Eastern European political group and will reflect tendencies unfamiliar or even unpopular with Westerners.

You seem to be presenting FEMEN as having an attitude toward religion that is very appealing to Westerners. An attitude where political activists are perfectly happy to leave religion alone as long as the religion does not interfere in the political arena. But outside of North American and Western European democracies, such an attitude is scarcer because it requires separation of church and state as a pre-condition. In places where separation of church and state has not been experienced (Tsarist Russia, Spain before the civil war) strong an unyielding anti-religion movements have been known to develop.

[stevenleser]

272. As a result of my frequent appearance on RT, I have a lot of media friends

from that part of the world. In turns out that after the fall of Communism, religion has re-asserted itself with a vengeance in Russia, Ukraine and many of the republics. I made the mistake of mentioning some sympathy for Pussy Riot on my FB page and received very terse comments from my friends over there because PR's acts were deemed offensive against the Russian Orthodox Church.

Femen is not generally thought of very well in Russia or the Ukraine either. There is a reason they left Eastern Europe and have set up shop in France. The authorities back in the Ukraine and Russia would not treat them kindly if they return.

I don't think it is a fair criticism to say they approach issues from a particular regional viewpoint, particularly since there is no region where they seem to enjoy majority support. Their viewpoints are their own.

[HiPointDem]

399. In what sense is ukraine a region with a 'tradition of strident anti-clericism'?

[BainsBane]

403. Former Soviet block

Where religious practice was looked down upon and impeded one's advancement in the Communist Party, and therefore all upward mobility. Then there were purges.

[HiPointDem]

404. more or less banning religious display from above isn't grassroots anti-clericism. it's an

orthodoxy imposed by a semi-colonial power.

it seems to me anti-clericism has to involve a revolt against a clergy that holds power.

[BainsBane]

405. It's a long standing cultural understanding of

Religion as a form of oppression, dating long before these women were born. That influences them, I imagine, as much as Islam influences the women depicted in this thread. They come from different cultural backgrounds and see the world differently. Muslims are used to Westerners looking down on them. They are sick of it.

[idwiyo]

408. Have you been elected a spokesperson for Muslims everywhere?

What is your evidence that all Westerners look down on Muslims?

[BainsBane]

243. Where? Everywhere? It's all identical in the entirety of

The Muslim world? If that is integral to Islam, how then do we explain Al-Anadlus?
People are ignoring the entire history of Western imperialism that led to the emergence of Islamic fundamentalism.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

239. Good for them - respect for Islam (as opposed to for Muslims) is a bad thing.

We should respect the right of Muslims to practice their religion - the moment Femen et al move from asking women not to wear the hijab to trying to force them to, they will be wrong (and France's ban on doing so is utterly wrong and illiberal), but we should be quite clear that

1) liberal values are objectively superior to illiberal ones
2) The overwhelmingly vast majority of muslims interpret their religion as being grossly illiberal - there are exceptions, but they're a minority, and if you look at what they actually have to say about gay rights and abortion even most muslims branded moderate are actually very conservative.

The teachings of Mohammed are both false and immoral, and should not be respected.

[LittleBlue]

277. Agreed. I support these women

just like I support FEMEN. They both deserve a chance to express their viewpoint.

And yes, the cultural disrespect is a big turnoff to me.

[Luminous Animal]

5. Hmmm. It's awful quiet in here.

Too bad they didn't show their boobs, eh?

[whatchamacallit]

15. Not sure what to make of "my modesty is my liberation"

given the muslim patriarchal obsession with modesty. That said, more power to women to express themselves in any manner they like.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

293. Ready to edit yet?

292 posts so far, no boob shots in the thread that I'm aware of. If this is what you call quiet, your judgment is askew.

[LadyHawkAZ]

6. Who is dictating?

I can't recall anyone protesting for mandatory nudity in all Muslim countries. I wonder where they got that message from?

[Shankapotomus]

7. If I may...

Methinks they are missing the spirit of the Femen movement. They don't have to take off their tops to make a point. They are demanding the option to take off their tops, which, I might add, is an option the ladies in the pics above do not have. The movement is not about breasts. What's at stake is control, specifically who has control over women and women's bodies. Femen knows exactly what they are doing. The nakedness is the symbol of that control and by taking to the streets in that manner they are saying who is in control of women and their bodies. It is a brilliant strategy and I hope it pays off because the winners will be women everywhere.

[Luminous Animal]

12. How do you know that all the women in the pics don't have that option?

But that is not the point. These Muslim women do not want white westerners speaking for them. It's insulting.

[Shankapotomus]

75. Is there a muslim ruled country that grants women that option?

Neither do I think the Islamic faith gives its female practitioners that option in any country. Femen seems to be advocating that religion is not an excuse for controlling women, period, or limiting their freedoms. You may choose a religion freely, but I think Femen is protesting constraints on women within all religions with their own voice regardless of whether what some women within those religions think. I think Femen speak entirely for themselves and any women who support them.

[Squinch]

43. Do you too, then, think that FEMEN is protesting for the right to choose to go topless?

[Shankapotomus]

66. No, not at all.

I think they see it as more as a symbolic battle for control and they are using it because they know that is a very basic battle line.
I could be wrong because men also have to follow a public dress code. However, I think Femen recognizes what keeps women controlled is archaic religious doctrines that have been secularized. And if you don't break that foundation down, women (and men) will be stuck in the roles culture has put us all in.

[Squinch]

67. Then you are thinking that FEMEN is trying to break down the outmoded cultural foundation

based on religious doctrine that controls women?

[Shankapotomus]

77. Yes, it makes sense to conclude that

They have targeted not only Islamism but Christianity and quite aggressively.

[Bonobo]

83. Shankapotomus...

You're like Michael Jordan, scoring everytime you get the ball!

I must say you are now officially my best "new" DU'er.

Keep with the logic and rational approach you are using and try not to get drawn in to messy emotional stuff as I have.

[Shankapotomus]

93. Thanks, Bonobo.

Good to know. As a non-academic, I'm never quite convinced I've presented my thoughts clearly enough.

I see you are entrenched in the gender debate around DU. I have been considering trying to enter that one as a hopeful mediator between the two camps later. DU really has to wrap up the gender war here and unify. But I expect it won't be easy. i have to think of an approach.

Congrats again on hitting 20,000.

[Bonobo]

101. Good luck. It will not be easy for you to do so.

If there were substance issues upon which there were disagreement, I would say you may have a chance.

But unfortunately, I think you have a lot of entrenched anger that bleeds into the discussions -and since there IS NO DISAGREEMENT over the substance of issues, the feelings become the central focus and come to the foreground.

Such a place is not for logical or rational thought. What is really needed is someone to steer the emotional divide.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

8. Are you opposed to the FEMEN group?

[Zorra]

9. Stockholm Syndrome:

Stockholm syndrome, or capture–bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness.[1][2] The FBI's Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly 27% of victims show evidence of Stockholm syndrome.[3]

Stockholm syndrome can be seen as a form of traumatic bonding, which does not necessarily require a hostage scenario, but which describes “strong emotional ties that develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats, threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other.”[4] One commonly used hypothesis to explain the effect of Stockholm syndrome is based on Freudian theory. It suggests that the bonding is the individual’s response to trauma in becoming a victim. Identifying with the aggressor is one way that the ego defends itself. When a victim believes the same values as the aggressor, they no longer become a threat.[5]

Battered-person syndrome is an example of activating the capture–bonding psychological mechanism, as are military basic training and fraternity bonding by hazing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

[BainsBane]

23. You cannot be serious?

We've been fed so much Islamophobia in this country to justify endless war, not people on this site seem heavily invested in it. This is about self-determination, people not in the US or Europe determining what is important to them. That they do not choose Western style of dress doesn't make they Stockholm victims. I encourage you to think about your own cultural biases.

[Zorra]

108. Damn skippy, I'm as serious as a heart attack.

If some women wish to be abused, oppressed, and be degraded to animal status, that's totally their right. It doesn't mean that abuse hasn't crushed them into whimpering acceptance of their enforced submission. But there are a whole lot of women in the Muslim world who would like to be treated like human beings, and they are terrified to speak out; they have no voice because they are not allowed one.

Naturally, some women are comfortable having animal/slave status because they've been brainwashed into believing that it is the will of Allah that they were created inferior to men.


Islamic patriarchy is a captor/hostage system, and men are the captors, and women are the hostages. If women were free to make their own decisons, and act, and come and go as they please, then you would have a reasonable argument. As it stands, I stand by my contention that a large number of women in the Muslim world are hostage, held captive by religion based political and cultural systems that victimize them and cause them to suffer from a form of Stockholm Syndrome.

If all you are allowed to know and experience, solely due to your gender, is oppression and abuse, you will be inclined to believe that is all you deserve and are entitled to.

I encourage you to learn about widespread homophobic and misogynistic oppression of LGBT and women in Muslim countries..

Female Genital Mutilation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation

Women in Islam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_women

Women's Rights: HRW

2011 study of status by country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights#2011_study_of_status_by_country

LGBT rights by country or territory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory

Women's rights in Saudi Arabia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia

[font color="blue" size="12" face="face"]FUCK YOUR MORALS[/font]

[BainsBane]

208. Well, you know very little

About Islam, but sadly echo some of the sentiments of the neocons. All Muslim countries and cultures are not the same. The variety of experiences are great, yet you paint 1/3 of the world's population as backward. That really is unfortunate. You see a Western capitalist culture that commodifies women as superior, despite the high rates of violence against women and rapes in this country. You articulate an ideology inculcated in you as part of an effort to justify endless military aggression in the Muslim World by our own country. That you image all of Islam is the same is woefully uninformed, and dangerously so because it's part of the ideology of endless war. There are aspects of FUNDAMENTALIST Islam that are indeed oppressive, but women in Tunisia had full legal rights to abortion in the 1960s. You show no interest in understanding a people you have been taught to despise. The enemies are sexism, misogyny, war and imperialism, not one of the world's major religions.

[Zorra]

250. Oh, bullshit. Don't you dare try to conflate me with neocons and military actions,

that is so totally dishonest.

You made no attempt to refute the sourced facts I posted, but instead, resorted to insincere bullshit personal attacks on my character, voicing unfounded assumptions and making duplicitous accusations about how I view the world.

You very clearly know nothing about me, yet make myriad false assumptions and accusations about me that have no basis in reality whatsoever, and which could not be further from the truth...but you wouldn't know that, because you have only been posting here for 6 months.

"You see a Western capitalist culture that commodifies women as superior" ~ well, maybe so, to an extent, but only because I have the right to publicly complain about misogyny and homophobia, drive a car, and openly struggle to change it, while women in many Islamist religion controlled states do not. Those are real biggies for most of us. I have to admit, it does give me a warm fuzzy to be able to walk down the street and know that the government is not going to arrest and execute me for being LGBT.

"You articulate an ideology inculcated in you as part of an effort to justify endless military aggression in the Muslim World by our own country. I despise reactionary imperialism. That you image all of Islam is the same is woefully uninformed, and dangerously so because it's part of the ideology of endless war."

OMG, really? Will someone please pass me the freedom fries?

More dishonesty. Geez. Now I'm accused of being brainwashed by Limbaugh and in league with the PNAC war mongers that I exposed and trashed mightily for 8 years, for simply pointing out that many Islamic religious states legally oppress women and LGBT persons

Ain't that a hoot.

And yes, I do firmly believe that religion is the primary force on the planet that is primarily responsible for the nurturing and perpetuation of homophobia and misogyny, and that if religion is not kept separate from state, conservative authoritarian oppression results in every aspect of society and culture. And I do firmly believe that legalized bullying of women and LGBT's is rampant in the Islamist world. It's very well documented, and if you would take the time to read about it, and are able to accept facts that are contrary to your dearly held beliefs, you will find that what I said in this paragraph is indisputable

In any case, please, try to keep your beloved authoritarian religions, and your bullshit, out of my government, my life, and my body.

This western multiracial LGBT woman does not want her country to become like Saudi Arabia, or North Carolina.

And BTW...I am not a source of your honor.

[BainsBane]

335. My point is this entire debate is framed by Islamophobia

Islamophobia inculcated in American culture by the neocons for the purpose of promoting war, not that you yourself seek to promote war. My point is that we need to examine such ingrained prejudices that come from media and politics.

Now, I think your argument would be far more persuasive if you said, for example, in rural areas of Egypt, female circumcision is widespread and a horrific human rights violation, rather than promoting it as something endemic to Islam, which it is not. What bothers me is your refusal to distinguish differences among Muslim countries and cultures.

Women drives cars and complain about misogyny, and some even about homophobia, through much of the Muslim world. Perhaps you would do well to pay attention to what Muslim feminists say rather than blatantly condemning their entire culture, which includes women. That you don't know that speaks volumes in itself. Have you heard of the Arab Spring? Have you paid attention to elections in the Muslim world. How authoritarian do you suppose Turkey is? Does the fact that fundamentalist Islam has arisen in response to secular authoritarian regimes backed by the US enter your mind?

Good luck with your quest to rid the world of religion. I can't think of a more nebulous and fruitless quest.

I get that you hate Islam and religion more generally. I hope that makes you proud. I, on the other hand, despise bigotry and imperialism, both military and cultural. I do not see 95% of the world's population as inferior because they happen to believe in God or dress differently from me. I'm funny that way.

[Raine1967]

270. THANK YOU for saying this.

Especially this:

If all you are allowed to know and experience, solely due to your gender, is oppression and abuse, you will be inclined to believe that is all you deserve and are entitled to.

Entirely appropriate.

[stevenleser]

123. I'm inclined to agree with that assessment.

Not unlike some slaves who didn't want slavery to end.

[Zorra]

147. You got the point. Thank you. nt

[backscatter712]

196. Stockholm syndrome is right!

Hell the same thing happens in the U.S. - case in point: Phyllis Schlafly...

Boggles my mind... "I'm going to vote to take my own rights away!"

[joshcryer]

202. Yep, if this was a "pro-life" post with similar messages...

...the post might be hidden or SOP alerted.

[LadyHawkAZ]

209. The irony is, if it were these women being discussed

everyone would be up in arms about how oppressed they are by their religion- I can't recall seeing a single defender of the FLDS here (there might have been some that I missed). For some reason, it's only the Muslim covering that's defended as "choice".

[BainsBane]

226. This is a small group

The poster is condemning a religion that includes about 1/3 of the world's population. It's like saying all Westerners are bad because of x , y and z.

[LadyHawkAZ]

235. If there were 2 billion FLDS

would it make the faith any less oppressive than it is now?

[BainsBane]

240. There aren't. The equivalent would be a condemnation of all of Western

Culture. And Islam is not a monolith. In Tunisia, for example, women have had rights to abortion since the 1960s. US women killed at 4x than are Algerian women. In some places, women have even been able to carve out spaces of resistance within Sharia law, transporting guns under their burqas as part of a revolutionary opposition, taking advantage of the fact the military will not search them. My point is a huge swath of the globe is not a monolith. Declaring war on Islam makes enemies of the women some say they wish to help.

I'm afraid what is happening in this thread is the all too familiar assumption of American superiority. We've been imbued with Islamophobia for decades now as part of an effort to justify endless war in the region.

[muriel_volestrangler]

256. On the subject of Tunisia and abortion:

Tunisia Loses Ground on Safe, Affordable Abortion

Tunisia is rapidly losing its reputation as a regional leader of safe, legal and affordable abortion. The country that decades ago lowered maternal mortality after legalizing abortion has sharply cut public access to the procedure.

"Women are now obliged to go hundreds of miles away from their homes to get a surgical abortion," Fathia Hizem, head of public relations of the Tunisian Association of Democratic Women, said in a recent phone interview. "Some women find even themselves with no other options than to go to private clinics where the costs of abortion are expensive."

Twenty-two abortions were performed in North Africa for every 1,000 pregnancies in that region in 2003, but the only procedures that occurred in safe conditions were those in Tunisia, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

But in the past five years those safe conditions have been mainly lost to budget cuts.

http://womensenews.org/story/abortion/121211/tunisia-loses-ground-safe-affordable-abortion#.UV60H8Vh6Bo

Public hospitals and family planning centers have provided abortion services in Tunisia since 1973, when abortion up until the fourth month of pregnancy was legalized. But residents of some regions in the country, especially in the South and the North West, have complained that abortion services have not been available since the Revolution.

“After the Revolution, some officials decided to stop providing abortion services … Many women cannot afford to go to private clinics,” said Emna Hsairi, coordinator of the sexual and reproductive commission at the ATFD. “We are taking steps backward … This is harming women’s health.”

A reduction in public abortion services is most harmful to the poor, given the higher costs of private clinics, Hsairi said.

http://www.tunisia-live.net/2012/11/10/tunisian-democratic-women-address-post-revolution-access-to-abortion-services/

I think it's Islamism they have 'declared war on'. This is like declaring war on Dominionism, rather than Christianity.

[Luminous Animal]

372. Sounds like the United States.

[muriel_volestrangler]

394. Which is why protests about it are justified (nt)

[BainsBane]

391. Sounds a lot like the US doesn't it?

Unfortunately, some of their protests have not targeted Islamism but Islam itself. There is an image I posted elsewhere in this thread that shows a young woman with "fuck the Qur'an written on her chest. That is as disrespectful to Muslim women as it is to men.

[LadyHawkAZ]

373. I know there aren't

My question stands as written.

Let's bring this a little closer to home. We're under attack here from our own version of the Fundies, just as Tunisia is. There have been laws proposed to ban abortion, block access to birth control, and one state tried to establish a state religion. Some of the people backing these actions are women. Would you offer the same advice to American feminists that you are offering here- don't fight it, don't criticize, you may offend those women's religious beliefs? Would you tell us that it's all just propaganda from people who hate Christians? Would you point to those women who oppose abortion or birth control and say look, American women don't really want these things, here are women who say so?

Or would you join me in telling the fundie fascists to go fuck themselves?

Somehow I would see you more as a GFY kind of woman. So why would you choose to do the exact opposite with this one religion?

My point was that for some reason Islam, and only Islam, gets a pass on being an oppressive and patriarchal religion from a lot of people, where groups like the FLDS do not. I mentioned with no small amount of snark downthread that going by these threads, a person would think that Islam is the only culture in the world where women have free agency, because Islamic coverings are the only ones ever defended as being freely chosen. I do not find this attitude to be reflective of reality, any more than I would buy the idea that the Prairie Barbie look is freely chosen, or that either culture is a wonderful place for women to be. The fact that their misogyny is wrapped up in religion and packaged as godly does not change the fact that it is still misogyny. It doesn't place them above reproach, either.

[BainsBane]

398. a few reasons

1) a lot of that stuff is happening at home, and we need to do everything we can to stop it. I'm much more comfortable making judgments and decisions about my own country than making those decisions for others. 2) what I'm not sure you understand is my objection to the broad brush with which Americans on this site, and more broadly, are condemning a huge swatch of the world's population based on virtually no knowledge of those peoples. Not all Muslim countries have state religions or ban abortion, so I'm not willing to extend a single judgment on millions of people based on stereotype.

I don't think we in the US are in a position to pass judgment on other cultures as people here are doing. We have far too much culpability in atrocities abroad, propping up horribly oppression totalitarian dictatorships in Muslim countries, even installing them in places like Iran and Indonesia. We funded a genocide of Muslims under Suharto in Indonesia. So tell me how much sense it makes to sit back and say your religion is oppressing you while we are in the process of launching drone strikes that kill those same women; while we fund an Israeli occupation that denies those women basic rights of movement, access to water, and the right to political self-determination; while we have kept them under our thumb for decades by imposing right-wing dictatorships? In the face of all that, do you really think the veil is what most concerns those women? Whatever their concerns, I want to hear it from them, not a bunch of 20 something Europeans.

I say Americans need to look in the mirror and examine oppression at home and our role in oppression abroad. In order to support feminist movements in Muslim countries, we have to respect those women. If you don't respect their religion, you don't respect them. And without respect, we only do harm. With respect, we should partner with them in pursuing their goals rather than telling them what we think they should wear and care about.

Lastly, I don't set aside Muslims for preferential treatment. I'll make the same argument for any people abroad. The difference is Americans voice far more pernicious stereotypes about Muslims because we have been taught to think of them as inferior in order to justify ongoing US interventions and wars in those regions. Americans, in general, are more ignorant about the Muslim world than other parts of the globe, as obviously are Europeans. If I see a similar thread about Latin Americans, I'll be the first to speak up.

[LadyHawkAZ]

426. I agree that we have problems here that need solving

I don't understand American fundie culture either. This has not stopped me from fighting the attempts to pass laws that legislate their religious thinking, or from advocating that their churches be heavily taxed.

There are a lot of things I don't understand. I don't understand cultures that allow young girls to be married off to grown men. I do not understand FGM. I do not understand the idea that girls shouldn't be educated. I do not understand the philosophy behind sentencing a rape victim to be beaten for adultery. I do not understand how killing your sister or daughter can be in any way connected to the word "honor". I do not understand the idea that a woman shouldn't be allowed to drive. My lack of cultural understanding of these things has not made me any less willing to call them out as being hostile to women, even though they obviously have their share of supporters. I'm not willing to accept the idea that I can't speak against the idea of a woman's state of dress being a source of some man's honor because it might offend the beliefs of the women who support it (that was what the whole protest was about, if anyone's forgotten). I have to respect their right to believe, but I am emphatically NOT required to respect the belief itself, any more than I am required to respect Westboro Baptist because some women support it, or for that matter drone strikes or Israeli occupation because some women support those.

I also do not accept the idea that I need to live in a perfect society before I speak out against the problems women face in other societies. The end result of that would be that nothing would be spoken against, ever. There's an old saying about how evil prevails.

[BainsBane]

429. the problem is

that you don't understand such practices do not go on in every Muslim country and are not endemic to the religion. I'm all for opposition to injustice. Those acts you describe are horrific, but they do not not justify a condemnation of a huge swath of the world's population--where most of what you describe does not occur--anymore than Steubenville justifies a blatant condemnation of all Westerners or that a human trafficking ring in Eastern Europe means you and I need saving. You need to learn something about what you oppose rather than treating the cultures of the women you claim to care about what scorn.

My Muslim friend from Indonesia drives and always has, and she is from the most populous Muslim country on earth. The Egyptian women I have met drive. Where don't they drive---in our allied country of Saudi Arabia. Get the facts straight. Learn what you're talking about. Sure you can express your views on a computer screen all day long, but you're not doing women of the Muslim world any good if you don't bother to figure out where such practices occur, where they don't, and what those women care about.

[LadyHawkAZ]

430. I didn't say they all occurred everywhere

Those are examples of extremism, which is what Tunisia is moving towards and what Amina was protesting.

Your bottom line seems to be that Islam's treatment of women is above criticism by anyone other than its followers, which is something we are never going to agree on.

[BainsBane]

431. How did you garner that from Amina's protest?

I understood her to be protesting against feared rollbacks in abortion rights and other legal protections.


No, my bottom line is don't paint with a broad brush. Learn about places and people before you condemn them.

[BainsBane]

432. as just one example

Consider how it pisses you off when some feminists imply all prostitutes are enslaved or physically forced into sex work. They do so because they don't know as much about that world as you do. You are making similar assumptions on a much larger scale. You have said that you don't say it happens everywhere, but you continue to equate those extreme examples with Islam itself. Simply treat Muslim women with the same level of respect that you yourself expect. Care enough to learn about what matters to specific women's group in specific places.

[JI7]

252. a better comparison would be to say they represent all American women or all those who have

some faith in Jesus.

even among mormons they are a smaller more fringe type group. and then there are catholics, southern baptists , and many others.

it's the same with the muslim world. iraq under saddam was not the same as afghanistan . lebanon is not the same as saudi arabia.

there are differences .

[bettyellen]

280. there were actually a few supporters here- when they raided the compound in TX

there were those who sided with the FLDS. One was a lawyer from Texas who I normally agree with.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

289. "I was hit with a belt and I turned out OK" -- Sean Hannity, defending Rutgers BB coach Mike Rice.

No additions needed to that quote.

[kiva]

11. No one is telling them to go topless.

And the website is primarily made up of women living in Britain where they can wear what they choose, so no sympathy here.

[JI7]

16. that's because they go to Muslim areas in Brit and other western places and call on

the muslim women there to take their tops off.

[kiva]

29. And they can still wear what they want.

That's the difference, to me - there are many countries where women are told what they can and cannot wear, but Britain is not one. So no, I really don't see the point in supporting a group of women complaining that other women are telling them what to wear when that opinion can not, and will not, be enforced.

[JI7]

34. Uh, Femen complains about what Muslim Women in the West Wear

they are responding back. if you have people who go where you live, work etc and call on you to take off your clothes and claim you are being oppressed , don't be surprised if people will want to respond.

don't muslim women in the west have a right to respond to those who tell them what to wear and say they are being oppresed ?

[kiva]

112. They absolutly do.

And those of us on the sidelines can agree or disagree.

[idwiyo]

224. You mean inviting others to join them equals to forcing them to go naked? Also, can you provide some

evidence that every single woman in "Muslim areas"* is Muslim and doesn't want FEMEN there?

Never mind "they are NOT allowed to walk in there because someone doesn't want them too"

[tammywammy]

14. Protest and a counter-protest.

Seems pretty great to me. Some women protest topless, some do not. To each their own.

[JI7]

17. except the Muslim women aren't demanding other women cover themselves up

in fact many muslim women especially in the west dress like many western women which is jeans t shirt, even shorts, skirts, tank tops etc.

[stevenleser]

125. No, they're just helping prop up a culture that does that. nt

[JI7]

139. how ? ifyou look at the pics some women wear no head covering

some are showing their arms.

[stevenleser]

143. And their message is "We love the forced female dress-code of male interpreters of our religion...

so you bad euro-people leave us alone."

But please continue. Your attempt to reconcile their protest with feminism is extremely amusing.

[JI7]

145. none of the women in the OP are fully covered, some have no covering

what you are saying just makes no sense.

you are claiming they are doing what men want . is the top pic with the women in short sleeve shirt wearing what the islamic males demand of her?

[stevenleser]

148. You keep arguing against something I never said.

I never said they were fully covered.

[JI7]

151. you said they prop up a culture that demands women cover up

how are they doing that considering they themselves are not covering up.

[stevenleser]

152. Most of them are wearing headscarves. I never said they were required to wear burkas. nt

[JI7]

158. but so what ? do you think a woman who wears a headscarf is being oppressed and does so because

a man told her to ?

[stevenleser]

167. Yes, ultimately, that is what it is. nt

[Luminous Animal]

162. Many Muslim women who live in the west continue to wear the hijab

because they like it. Similarly, Many women from India who live in the west will continue to wear a sari.

There are Muslim feminists who prefer to remain mostly or partially covered because they like it.

Muslim feminism is alive and vibrant (and, of course, in some cases, downright dangerous).

Today, I read about 50 blogs and articles from Muslim feminists - some who preferred to remain covered, and most found that FEMEN's preaching to them and their sisters insulting and patronizing.

These women started the counterprotest because they desire to continue to fight for Muslim women on their own terms. They don't want a bunch of white women running through their neighborhoods screaming "Muslim Women, Get Naked." And actually have a concern for that some women in the strictest fundamentalist households may suffer in further restriction on their movements as a result.

I sent a link to this thread to one feminist Muslim scholar that I have been communicating with today. She actually choked up at the Eurocentric ignorance expressed here. She may write about it, if she does, I post it.

[stevenleser]

166. I know. I've read about them. I still regard it as Zorra suggested. Something akin to Stockholm

Syndrome.

You can come to accept and appreciate any loss of freedom under the right conditions. You can even continue observing it long after the coercion is gone. It's still loss of freedom.

[Luminous Animal]

173. And that is the ignorance. What makes you think they accept the loss of freedom?

They simply want to continue to fight for their freedom without western feminists defining what: 1) How to fight that fight, and 2) The issues that they feel is worth the fight right now. And believe you me, their issues are much much huger than the freedom to run around the street naked.

[stevenleser]

175. What makes you think they dont accept their loss of freedom?

We can go back and forth all day except for one thing. The men in their culture can dress anyway they want, but the women cant. That is the objective fact. The rest is us arguing about what is in the women's heads. Even there I have the upper hand. They are arguing in support of the status quo where the men in their culture can dress anyway they want, but the women cant.

[Luminous Animal]

181. Because I spent 10 hours reading and communicating with many Muslim women today...

including one that initiated this action.

Maybe you could spend a little time on that, too.

[stevenleser]

184. I've spent a lot more than 10 hours. I've actually spent long visits to Muslim countries.

I don't need to cram. But thanks for the suggestion.

[JI7]

189. these women are mostly from europe

[Luminous Animal]

195. And yet you seem to know nothing about Muslim feminists or the strategies and

goals of their organizations.

[stevenleser]

198. Oh I've read all about them. They remind me of GOProud and Log Cabin Republicans.

Or as someone said upthread, chickens for Col Sanders.

[idwiyo]

222. FEMEN demands other women go naked? Where did you get that one from?

[The Straight Story]

20. So now it is Femen oppressing women

The whole world is one big meta of late.

Some women take off their shirts, some don't. But let me see if I can help out here.

The ones that are not taking their shirts off are doing what they are doing because us men control society. Their values about keeping shirts on were forced upon them by a religious patriarchy so those signs they are holding are simply pointing out how we have kept them down and they don't even know it.

Can you imagine if a woman held up a sign that said "I like it when men hold open a door for me"??

Jesus lord almighty it would be like a world war with nukes going off all over the place. People would be up in arms that those women had no idea how others were oppressing them and would launch a campaign to educate them about such things as not letting someone help you fix a flat, pick up a heavy box alone, etc.

These women need some help to see that they are not doing things the right way.

[ismnotwasm]

22. You really don't help

Drop the stupid door opening bullshit already. I'll open all the doors I can, and I'll walk through all the doors opened for me without a thought aside from courtesy.


Are you actually questioning these women's agency to speak for themselves? Or offering a different viewpoint?

[Luminous Animal]

26. Apparently, Muslim women are too brainwashed to articulate their own needs

and desires and need white women to tell them that they are doing it wrong.

Alas, the white feminist's burden.

[ismnotwasm]

33. I guess not only 'first world' Women

Suffer from hubris.

Oh, the irony.

[LadyHawkAZ]

76. Funny about that...

After reading around DU for awhile, it seems that most of us white women have the same problem. We're all brainwashed by the patriarchy, see, so if we choose sex work or stripping or porn or promiscuity or bikinis or topless protesting, we're really just doing it to please the men. It's not really a choice, because liberated, smart women don't choose such things. We're incapable of making such a choice ourselves, because patriarchy, sex etc. We need white women to tell us we're doing it wrong.

But Muslim women, they're all awash with agency.

When did Islam become the only non-patriarchal, totally female-liberated society on the planet?

[Luminous Animal]

86. Islam is not a society.

[LadyHawkAZ]

88. "Culture" suit you better?

When did Islam become the only non-patriarchal, totally female-liberated CULTURE on the planet?

[opiate69]

126. Funny how she goes all "word-police" on you..

When she obviously doesn`t understand what the word "dictate" means.

[LadyHawkAZ]

134. Compliance is protest!

Modesty is feminist!
Nudity is patriarchy!
War is peace!
Ignorance is strength!
Freedom is...

etc.
rinse
repeat as necessary

[ismnotwasm]

90. White women have something called 'privilege'

Personally I please myself.

And; What the fuck are you talking about? These ARE Islamic women activists. Islam is one if the most oppressive religions toward women in the world, at least in parts of it.

Those pictures are agency. What, because they don't choose to be prostitutes or strippers or watch porn or wear bikinis or protest topless or are promiscuous under an oppressive patriarchal religion they are less than those that do?

[ismnotwasm]

259. Hell no WD

You all don't bother me. She made no sense. It was a bait and switch and made no sense at all. When I ask 'what the fuck are to talking about' that's exactly what mean.

If you want to talk about consent and patriarchy start a thread about it

[ismnotwasm]

262. Heh.

Think so do you?

You so crazy.

[polly7]

294. Perfect.

It makes me wonder what some think women have been fighting for? If you don't have the right to do with your own body as you please ....... what else is there? I find it beyond ironic that while claiming to buck the system, they're trying so hard to keep certain women trapped in it. Authoritarian, hypocritical b.s.

[LittleBlue]

325. Holy sh*t

OMGcat is impressed

[backscatter712]

274. Some of them are brainwashed.

Others are terrorized into submission.

[The Straight Story]

28. Well now, that is the heart of all this isn't it

"Are you actually questioning these women's agency to speak for themselves?"

No. And there are plenty here who don't like others questioning their agency to speak either. Telling a man or a woman what they should be thinking is at the core of this - tell a man he held open a door because he is sexist, tell a woman she let someone buy her dinner on a date because she is brainwashed by the patriarchy, etc - it gets old.

One could say, if they were a group here on DU, that these women don't know better because they are part of a religion that is based on oppressing women (you hear the word patriarchal a lot when it comes to Christians - and rightly so I might add). There often follows a lengthy analysis of why such women do what they do and how, if they would just listen, they could be set free to make real choices instead of the ones they are now making.

People get tired of being labeled and told who they are and what their actions mean.

[ismnotwasm]

61. Islam is a Abrahamic religion

Just as Christianity and Judaism are. They all developed and are part and parcel of patriarchy. Im not one who condemns FEMEN, I simply find it sad and ironic that naked women get attention and other activism barely gets a nod.

And just musing, I have a friend who is a devout Muslim, and also very liberal. He and I discuss the similarities and differences in the oppression of women. One covers them up by law, presumably for protection--and blames them for being rape, the other is encouraged in false body images, fashion and social pressure dictates plenty of skin-and they are blamed for being raped.

The loss of agency, the reason ANY protests are needed, occurs under the oppressive system patriarchy, which I'm gathering you don't believe in.

Oy.

There is not a country in the world without oppression of women. You'll find certain common themes in all.

I'm also completely non-religious.

What is it with you and doors anyway?

[The Straight Story]

85. Well, allow me to explain :)

About the doors (in a moment).

"I simply find it sad and ironic that naked women get attention and other activism barely gets a nod."

We can both find this sad, but the fact is that it does bring attention where before there was not. Our media sucks and people know that they have to do 'wild' things to get attention. I still remember streakers being covered back in the 70's (it was a thing back then).

But we cannot fully blame the media here - they give us what we want. I have posted many, many, stories here that get no attention that should have gotten more. As have others (and they have posted threads I did not kick or reply to either).

I look at oppression from a large view - not just of one group but of many. I harp on your body, your choice - because I see limiting choice to any group as bad for all groups. When I apply that principle to some things I am called a libertarian. Which brings me to what you said:

"The loss of agency, the reason ANY protests are needed, occurs under the oppressive system patriarchy, which I'm gathering you don't believe in. "

I do believe in, if you would like to call it that 'patriarchy' - but I think it has less to do with men and more to do with the wealthy and powerful. Yes, they are mostly men. For now. But at the core of what they preach/believe/do is controlling the 99%.

It is not just women rising up against power, but men also. And they, the ones in power, like to divide us and see us fight against each other.

---About Doors
"What is it with you and doors anyway?"

It is now a classical reference here on DU, like pit bulls and the Olive Garden. It comes from the thread where benevolent sexism was discussed and the whole idea that a man holding open a door for a woman was an example of men being sexist. Across the globe, and even here, we have women being beaten, killed, etc, and some folks here on DU were telling men that opening doors for them was, in some ways, just as bad.

As noted elsewhere, my mom taught me it was a polite thing to do. A woman taught me this. I can post a ton of threads which have something to do with oppression but a few here jump on things like this.

I can use a lot of time looking up stories, posting them, hoping folks will see them - but then get told I don't care because I am just a sexist pig because I opened a door or laughed at a dongle joke.

[ismnotwasm]

97. Well I'm not calling you a sexist pig

In fact that term went out of fashion some time ago. I don't know you. Holding a damn door open doesn't make you one. Let the door thing go.

This is our essential difference I'll bet; in my opinion all inequities, including those that form socio-economic injustice, arises from a system of patriarchy. It would take far more time and current resources than I have right now to explain why I believe this is so.

You, I believe, think inequities arise from socio-economic injustice-- what creates the 99%.

Close?

[The Straight Story]

121. What it boils down to:

On DU - it comes down to a few people who berate the many. And that is where we see all this conflict coming from.

In the real world I do think many of the inequities arise from socioeconomic injustice but I also get that many also arise from religion and patriarchal rule (which I think comes from both religion and economics).

We are oppressed because the few want control over the many. The few dictate what they want to us. We, you and me, rise up against them. They divert that to me, you, and others being the enemy to detract from them.

Example: One might say they are pro-choice. They believe in your body, your choice. So they and others fight for that. Then another topic comes along where the same principle applies and people abandon that principle. We fight against each other over it all while those with wealth and power don't have to worry about those same things.

Keeping with the example above - if you are wealthy you don't have to worry about getting an abortion. You can have one. You don't care if you have the choice whether or not to go to a bar that allows smoking or one that does not because you can pay to have all of you friends flown in to your private bar.

You don't care about guns because you can hire people with them to protect you. You don't care about what laws you pass because you are not subject to them.

Women, men, the disabled, gays, etc and so on are kept down by the few who enjoy freedoms they do not want us to have. And here we are, just like they would like, beating each other up instead of attacking them.

We complain about those with guns while our government uses drones that kill innocent people. And those killings (murders) are covered up by other governments(posted proof of that and not a word). We focus on language others here might use while ignoring the attack on our environment over the XL pipeline (there was a conference call where they were asking for input from the public - which I posted about....only one person replied).

All of us are in this together. Fighting for the same things. That is why we post here and not some rw website.

Yet time and again there are a few here that attack fellow posters over the most inane things and tell us we don't care about issues involving women - when we do.

Those same few people are making du suck for many. We are told time and time again we don't care about women, feminism, etc. It does not matter what we do in real life, what we post here day in and day out - it all comes down to how we reacted to dongles, doors, ads, etc.

[Phillip McCleod]

254. does somebody miss meta?

because all i see is a bunch of whining and condescension.

[ismnotwasm]

260. I wasn't a Meta groupie

You?

[ismnotwasm]

261. Ok, I agree with that

My guess is we'd differ on who is attacking who though.

Do you write for a living?

[The Straight Story]

263. No, tech support

although I do write poems and short stories for fun.

Used to have to write a lot of documentation and my former girlfriend was a newspaper editor and English major who drilled a lot into my head when it came to writing I still hit her up on FB when I find errors in news articles (not that my grammar is all that - but I don't get paid to write and those folks do).

[JI7]

24. considering the shit you post , you have problems with this ?

did anyone say Femen is oppressing women ?

you think women don't remove their clothes because of men ? what stupid shit.

[The Straight Story]

31. I don't have a problem with any of it either way

And I am merely acting like others here do - trying to find oppression and sexism where ever I possibly can.

Sucks when other people act the same way doesn't it?

[JI7]

36. at least address the issue, i notice you ignored your own thread on African Women

protesting when you realized what you posted didn't say what you thought it did.

[The Straight Story]

56. I knew well what it said

Which is why I posted it.

There are differing schools in the world about feminism and how it is applied - it depends on a great many factors. What works in one place may not in another.

Using a single template won't work everywhere for everyone.

Look at someone making a joke about a dongle - some might yell sexism, others might laugh. Are the ones that laugh not smart enough to see that it is sexism? Or do they just have a sense of humor?

Different people react in different ways, and if we don't respect that diversity than we are trying to shoe horn everyone in to our way of thinking.

I have worked for many years in fields such as manufacturing and computers and known women who could toss out jokes that here would be alerted on in a NY minute - by a group of people who would see them as wrong for not saying those jokes were sexist.

Making accusations of sexism all the time gets to be like the person (don't want to say boy...) who cried wolf.

[Bonobo]

44. Yes, they did say Femen is oppressing women.

The first photo throws out the term "patriarch".

Isn't the the term to describe the "oppressors"?

[JI7]

50. "patriachal states OR eurocentrist feminists"

[ismnotwasm]

21. When I went to The One Billion Rising protest

Some of the The strongest voices were Muslim Sudanese women in Hijabs. They sang, they danced, to told poems and shared their culture. We celebrated in solidarity the fight against violence against women worldwide.



And all the attention that WORLDWIDE protest got on DU was amazing.....oh, wait, no it wasn't. A few quickly dropped threads. Thank God DU isn't representative of women's activism.

[BainsBane]

25. Somali women here in MN are also politically engaged.

They wear hijabs and vote solidly Democratic, even against the proposed amendment to put a ban on gay marriage in the constitution. I can't imagine what they would think reading some of these comments.

[Cali_Democrat]

39. Ya, but the problem is that in many muslim countries

women don't even have the OPTION of deciding for themselves whether or not they want to wear hijab.

That is oppressive.

[JI7]

47. what has that got to do with Muslims in the West, as the OP shows many of them are not covered up

Tunisia itself does not require covering and in fact many women can easily dress similar to women in the west.

[Cali_Democrat]

69. Ya, but other muslim countries require women to be veiled

I didn't say all countries require this, but there are Muslim countries that do require women to be veiled.

That's what I have a problem with. When women aren't even given the option.

[JI7]

73. but this protest was based on what they said is happening in Tunisia

they protest by going to mosques and muslims areas in the West. which is why the muslim women in the WEst are responding as shows in the OP .

and really, do you think the problem in places like Saudi Arabia and Iran for women isnot being able to go out topless ?

it's like wingnuts who tried to pass a law to prevent laws like Bloomberg is doing in regards to obesity with the limits on drink sizes.

there is a point at which is comes off more as a joke.

[Cali_Democrat]

80. I'm not really focused on the Tunisia thing or even Femen

I'm just bringing up the point that women aren't given an option in many countries. This seemed like a good thread to bring up that point.

And I'm not talking about women in certain countries being able to go out topless. We don't even allow that in the US.

I'm talking about the ability of women to go out in public without hijab. In places like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, it's against the law.

That's awful.

[stevenleser]

200. Well, for the record, the debate in Tunisia is whether to go to Sharia law. That's what got Amina

upset enough to bear her breasts in protest and what has Femen supporting her. They all know what Tunisia going to Sharia would mean for the women there.

[ismnotwasm]

48. This is true.

When they come to the US, many still wear the Hijab, presumably it's a choice by then, aside from family and social/religious pressure.

[BainsBane]

51. I understand

as was it oppressive when US backed regimes, like under the Shah in Iran, ripped veils off women's faces when they walked down the street because their dress didn't fit the Western ideal they sought to emulate. This renewed expression of Islam comes out of a long history of Western imperialism in the region.

I don't believe women in Tunisia or Egypt have to veil. Do you know differently?

[Cali_Democrat]

72. I didn't say all Muslim countries require women to veil

but there are Muslim countries that do. I have a problem with that.

That is oppressive and women shouldn't be forced to veil themselves.

It's just wrong.

[nadine_mn]

253. You make it sound as if all Muslim women here in MN CHOOSE to wear a hijab

Just because Muslim women wear hijabs in the US doesn't mean they choose to...esp for recent immigrants here. The Somali community is very large in MN, true...but also very close knit. In some instances...not all...if a Muslim woman chose Western style dress she would be ostracized from her community and family or worse.


Yes many make their own choice what to wear, but many do not. Just because they are living in a Western society does not mean they have left cultural oppression behind.

Obviously this is not true in all cases as I am sure you will point out while ignoring what else I have said.

[BainsBane]

279. No, I do not make it sound like all women choose to wear a hijab

and nor do I share your assumption that the hijab is culturally oppressive just because it isn't what you happen to like. Are you aware that Somali-American women veil more than they did in Somalia? What oppression do you attribute that to? I see it as a sign of cultural and religious expression.

[nadine_mn]

285. Sigh... you always miss the point

I never said the hijab is culturally oppressive - YOU read into things that aren't there.

ANY time ANY woman HAS to wear ANY thing - be it a bikini or burkha - because she FEARS what will happen to her if she doesn't is oppression.

Get it?

This is not limited to Muslim women - women all over the world are treated as though what they do or wear brings shame to their husband or their family. It should be their choice to wear or do WHATEVER they want - without fear of being ostracized, kicked out of their community, stoned or killed. It happens here too. Unfortunately, religion is often used as a justification to treat women like objects - misguided or deliberately misinterpreted religious texts used to enforce the idea that a woman is subservient to a man.

What a woman does should be a reflection on herself - NOT her husband or family - she should be treated as her own person.

Immigrants to this country face isolation and fear to obey - usually men - out of fear. Not all immigrants but many.

I don't know why it is so hard for you to understand that not EVERY woman in the US has freedom to choose.

[BainsBane]

288. I agree with that general point

but that isn't the case of women in Minnesota, at least in terms of the law.

We can't know the pressure that husbands and families bear, but you appear to be singling out the hijab as the manifestation of such pressure. I understand that every woman in the US doesn't have full freedom to choose. What I object to is your implication that Muslim women and the hijab in particular are evidence of that, as opposed to the many ways in which husbands pressure wives into wearing something or another or parents limit what their children can wear.

I know Muslim who do indeed choose to veil, and I know Muslim women who choose not to veil. I have to wonder if you actually know any Muslim women.

[nadine_mn]

290. Oh sweet mother - does it hurt to deliberately twist things?

Yes, of course I know Muslim women and in particular Somali women. I have worked closely with the community in the past to deal with family violence issues and learned first hand many of their struggles here.

I did not single out the hijab - YOU did, I responded to YOUR post in which YOU singled out the hijab

"They wear hijabs and vote solidly Democratic, even against the proposed amendment to put a ban on gay marriage in the constitution. I can't imagine what they would think reading some of these comments. "

I did not imply anything - I said that oppression exists all over and religion has been used as justification. The only reason I mentioned Muslim women women was responding to YOUR comment. If you had been talking about Mormons, I would have mentioned Mormons.

And honestly - you are going to compare women to CHILDREN?

"...husbands pressure wives into wearing something or another or parents limit what their children can wear."


A parent telling a child to cover up because it is cold outside is a heck of a lot different than a husband telling a woman to cover up or dress sexy because it reflects on HIM.

And it isn't just "pressure" - it is direct threats of violence that men use to force women of ANY BACKGROUND to wear or behave in certain ways. I have worked with domestic violence victims for over 15 yrs - I have seen first hand oppression in all types of women.

[BainsBane]

389. that was the post you chose to respond to

Last edited Sat Apr 6, 2013, 06:37 AM - Edit history (1)

that was the issue you raised. I mentioned the hijab because that's what the OP is about--shocking, isn't it that I should talk about the subject of the thread?!

I did not "twist your words." I responded based on what you wrote. You became angry because I said SOME Somali women in MN are politically active yet wear hijabs. You then said they carried over their oppression from the home country, and ignored the point that more veil here than did in Somalia. What evidence do you have that most Muslim women in MN veil by threat of violence? It appears to me that you are assuming oppression because you identify Muslim women, even those in MN, as a foreign other. Your experience working with battered women, as commendable as that is, may give you a skewed view of that community. The women I know are highly educated professionals. That community includes both ends of the spectrum.
Just as their are many American born battered woman: 1 in 3 women in this country are either battered or raped by their partners, so obviously that will include immigrants as well.

This entire discussion is about Islam and an obvious contempt for Muslims that many in FEMEN and on this site feel. There are many kinds of oppression women face. I think clothing is only a symptom and hardly the most serious of markers. I fail to see so many, include femen, see nudity
as an expression, indeed the only legitimate expression, of liberation.

You mentioned families. If you meant men, you should have said so. I mentioned children because I happen to find interesting the ways in women Muslim teenagers in the Twin Cites adapt veils and hijabs to their own style. I think that is the population most likely to be forced to wear something they might not choose because teenagers always want to wear what their peers do.

I find your continual anger tedious and not conducive to a productive discussion, so I'll leave you to carry on without me.

[nadine_mn]

406. Again you continue to only read what you want to

You never said "some" Somali women wear hijabs in MN. Please retread your own post.

I did not respond to your post because of your mention of hijabs...it was your mention of Minnesota. You seemed to have a rosy view of what life is like here in Minnesota... That women here are magically free of oppression... I wanted to correct that.

I do not have a skewed view of women because I work with domestic violence...and many women I know who have been battered are also ..to use your word...professionals. I have served on committees with Somali women to address issues in their communities...but maybe that is still not good enough for you.

You have a narrow view of the women in this state and in this country. Because you know a few Muslim women you project your experience to all. I have repeatedly...which you have ignored from my first response...stated that not all women here are lucky to have the freedom you have observed.

I did not address your comment about more women veiling here than in Somali because that really was a non sequitur.

I am not angry...just frustrated at your continued blindness to the reality of oppression...it does exist in Minnesota. I have conceded your point that some have freedom yet you refuse to see that some don't.

I know it may seem tedious when someone expresses a different viewpoint than yours so I can see why you no longer wish to discuss this issue.

I have no idea where you get the idea that I see Muslim women as "other" ...that is such a disgusting accusation but I guess you have nothing conducive to say so you attack.

You speak from such a position of privilege that you cannot see anything that doesn't fit your worldview. I find that sad because you are missing out on opportunities to help women from all backgrounds.

[Warpy]

30. It's a losing battle to try to dictate to women what they must wear

unless the government approves of roving bands of male vigilantes with clubs to enforce it as they do in the more repressive Islamic countries (and quite possibly in a few off the wall cults here).

Keep yer big trap shut unless you're asked for advice, in other words. It's the safest. sanest and most compassionate policy.

By the way, did I miss something here? Did FEMEN try to insist that every woman in the world join them in some topless protest?

[JI7]

37. France actually Does Ban full covering , so there is some dictating in that way which i have no

problem with.

Femen goes to muslim areas(in westeran states) and calls on women to take off their clothes and reject their religion.

[ismnotwasm]

45. No FeMEn are independent

They're simply protesting in a way they believe is effective. I think what's got people riled up is the attention they're getting because they're naked, not the relative effectiveness. I like many, think its kind of sad, and I don't think the protests are sustainable. However, If they are change agents, good for them. It's messed up of all the protests that go on, all the activism for women's rights. it has to be the one of naked women that gets the most attention. I wonder if it would work here in South Dakota?

But,

In my mind they're making the same mistakes many white feminists make and have made--thinking the shared experience of being female means shared circumstance and understanding.

[Warpy]

49. No kidding, and that's white, upper middle class feminists

Those of us down in the trenches with the whole rainbow of humanity were a lot less concerned with shattering the glass ceiling and a lot more concerned with things like child care and finding low cost dentistry to fix their teeth. Both are in shockingly short supply since so much effort has been wasted on that glass ceiling.

[ismnotwasm]

64. OT

That is the exactly the strongest criticism of the '"Lean in" book, which I'm going to read so I can make my own damn opinion

[Warpy]

96. Ha! I haven't read it either

My vision is still not up to par so my reading is still pretty restricted.

There's a lot of recent stuff I've been unable to read since I've been at various stages of blindness for the last 10 years.

[ismnotwasm]

104. Oh that sucks.

I'm really sorry to hear that.

I'll read it and let you know if it was worth it. I'm not sure how much will apply to me because I have zero interest in management right now.

[Bonobo]

38. Even when criticizing other women, they use the term "patriarch".

It is funny. I guess it is the definition of everything bad.

[MadrasT]

41. Good for them. I love this. n/t

[MellowDem]

52. They need a better strawman and some logic...

"Muslim heritage"? Seriously? Kinda says it all. When you're willing to engage in one sort of cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty, you'll engage in all sorts. Now a belief system is inherent at birth, and FEMEN protesting with nudity is forcing Muslim women to do so as well?

I mean, yeah, I guess FEMEN doesn't represent subservient religious women who want to stay that way. That's the whole point.

Reminds me of moderate Republicans who come to the Democratic Party and demand that the Democrats moderate their message.

[Luminous Animal]

79. Yes seriously. I have a Catholic heritage... many generations.

Heritage can also mean tradition.

And you have no evidence that these women are subservient. You make that assumption based on the fact that they are Muslim.

That is the point of the counterprotest.

[MellowDem]

92. If you are a Muslim woman...

and not engaging in cognitive dissonance or intellectual dishonesty, you indeed believe in being subservient to men, according to your own belief system. I suspect cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty are at play here.

No, one can never "inherit" beliefs. One is indoctrinated into beliefs, and calling it tradition doesn't change that fact.

I have no idea what the point of the counterprotest is.

[ismnotwasm]

81. These women are recognizable and public

Hardly subservient.

FEMEN, in my mind is more than welcome to protest however they like. They don't need my, or anybody else's permission.


These women are saying they, too are activists, and feminists and can speak for themselves.

[MellowDem]

94. Muslim women are by their own beliefs...

subservient. It's all over their belief system. Any who say otherwise are engaging in cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty. It's like identifying with the KKK and saying you aren't racist.

[Luminous Animal]

109. There are many feminist Muslim women and organizations.

Similarly, there are many practicing Christian feminists. Christians use the bible which certainly promotes subservience of women. Will you also assert that those women 's beliefs are like identifying with the KKK?

[MellowDem]

113. Yes...

All Christian and Muslim women who claim to not be misogynists are engaging in mind-boggling intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance. They go through the worst logical hoops to try to fit their views with a belief system that is misogynist.

I suspect that's a large part of the problem the world faces in making cultural advances. All this baggage that makes it impossible for people to be even halfway honest with themselves.

[Zorra]

163. Well said. nt

[SpartanDem]

142. You don't know a thing about Muslim women

I have female friends that are Muslim they are not subservient. Tying getting a fucking clue.

[MellowDem]

149. Then they're intellectually dishonest...

They're identifying with a belief system that says they are subservient while saying they are not subservient? Then they're engaging in cognitive dissonance. They are the ones that need to get a clue and stop identifying with Islam if they don't believe it.

Or, they can equivicate with bad logic and jump through all sorts of logical hoops and do mental gymnastics or even try to redefine or Islam with poorly reasoned apologetics, in the end, they're just engaging in intellectual dishonesty.

[JI7]

159. for many people religion is more like culture, they don't believe everything literally

and that should be a good thing.

[MellowDem]

160. Looking at religion like culture is not a good thing...

because it gives power to religion on false grounds. Identifying with a belief system with harmful beliefs because you like the tradition and rituals is bad because it means you are supporting a belief system with bad beliefs, which is obviously bad in and of itself, but also it's bad because you're doing it even though you yourself don't believe it.

Cognitive dissonance and intellectual dishonesty are never good things to engage in, and viewing religion as culture requires both.

Is it good they don't believe their misogynist belief system? Yes (though note that quite a few will not actually say this out loud, or even admit it to themselves, which is bad). Is it good they are still willing to identify and in many indirect ways support that belief system? No.

[JI7]

161. i'm Atheist and celebrate christmas by getting a tree and gifts for others

that is causing harm ?

[bettyellen]

170. Xmas trees are the best thing ever! I could not throw that baby out with the bath water either.

[MellowDem]

267. Not sure where you got that from my post...

you don't identify as Christian because you don't believe in it. That makes perfect sense. You can still engage in the culture you were raised in without identifying with the belief system you do not believe in.

[JI7]

65. the Femen Protests kind of Remind me of the Anti Mosque Protests in the United States

because of 9/11. you know how wingnuts protest building of mosques and especially the muslim center in ny ?

this is what the Femen protests kind of reminded me of. they sya they are doing it because of somethingthat happened in another country . so they go to Muslim areas in the WEst like UK, France and call on Muslims living in those places to take off their tops and bash their religion.

[Arcanetrance]

107. Forgive me I'm a guy and I try to support feminists as much as possible

But I seem to be missing something most feminists I know are against objectification. But it seems to me by using their breasts in protest they are objectifying themselves and woman because it seems they're message doesn't seem to get past hey they have breasts. This is my opinion as a guy and I may be wrong thanks for reading

[randome]

111. Maybe you're overthinking.

Maybe the point is simply that men can be topless whenever they want but women can be arrested for the crime of being topless while female.

Objectification is in the eye of the beholder.

[randome]

122. I commend you for that!

[Luminous Animal]

136. They readily admit that they go topless to get the attention of the media.

I read probably read 150 articles and blogs today and not one even hinted that they were protesting boob liberation.

[Squinch]

138. .

I see you've taken the veil...

[stevenleser]

179. Which is generally part of the purpose of any protest. nt

[Apophis]

127. But they'll let the men in their lives to dictate what they wear?

[stevenleser]

131. Exactly. WTF indeed. nt

[randome]

133. So it would seem. Which is their choice, in a way.

But other women pointing out that they don't have to submit is hardly the same thing as trying to force them into the same way of thinking, as some on this thread seem to believe.

[JI7]

137. which one is letting the man in her life dictate what she wears ?

[Apophis]

192. Um, they're Islamic women.

Men control women in that religion.

Was that a serious question?

[JI7]

194. not all Muslims are the same, i know many muslim women who dress how they want

there are christian families where the men control thingsl ike the duggars .

not every single muslim is the same .

[99Forever]

135. Good to see that ...

... divide and conquer still is a working strategy.

Nice.

[lunasun]

141. Last pic says it all IMO

[Buzz Clik]

157. Awesome. Time for reflection or spontaneous combustion? Let me guess...

[Zorra]

174. Well, Amina, Femen, and topless protests have all proven to be successful.

Amina's protest and subsequent persecution sparked Femen's topless protest, which has led to worldwide discussion of the legally enforced inferior status and captivity of women in most religion controlled Islamic states that support legalized bullying of women by men.

Awareness of the problem has been raised manyfold.

[stevenleser]

177. Its simple isnt it? Yet we have folks in this thread arguing the message is confused. It isnt.

Femen's message is clear as day.

[Zorra]

213. Yes. The message is simple, and crystal clear.

All these strawwoman arguments.

And why? It's so silly. Exact same thing happened with Occupy.

"They have no message"

[link:http://femen.org/en|Titslamism
Free Amina]

International Revolt Against Islamism

Do Your Topless Action Near Embassy of Tunisia In Your City. Bare Your Breasts Against Islamism.

They were screaming "Freedom for women", "Free Amina", "Topless Jihad".

"They have no message"

Uh-huh.

[RainDog]

197. exactly

today was international topless jihad day

and the protests were taking place in front of embassies and mosques in support of Amina Tyler.

people who know how to play the media get their message heard. why do you think African-Americans in the south went where they were not wanted and knew they were facing arrest for sitting at a lunch counter? why did they put themselves in situations in which the brutality of their existence was broadcast on national television as police officers brutalized them?

it wasn't b/c they wanted to be brutalized. it was because they knew what would happen if they spoke out in a way that would provoke a reaction.

[Number23]

219. Spot on. I admit that this thread has me very conflicted

But your post is the perfect encapsulation of what's happening in the world right now. And both sides of this -- clothed and not -- are to be commended for raising awareness on this important human rights issue.

[idwiyo]

230. +1 Bravo!

[Squinch]

354. Do you think the people supporting FEMEN did not understand before the protests that women in

Islamic states have an inferior status to men?

[backscatter712]

190. WHEEE! WOMEN FOR SELF-OPPRESSION!!!

They must be fucking masochists.

You'd have to be a moron to vote or agitate for taking away your own group's rights.

During the women's suffrage days, there were lots of opposing women (let's just call them what they are - IDIOTS) who opposed giving women the right to vote, or the right to run for public office, or giving them the right to go into "male" professions such as medicine (as doctors), law, business, the sciences...

What would be a good name for the woman equivalent of an Uncle Tom? "Please! Throw some acid in my face!"

[Nye Bevan]

191. Meh. So much drama over breasts.

You want to go topless to make your point, fine. If you don't, fine. You're happy with your hijab, fine.

[JI7]

199. topless or hijab ? many women don't do either

[Warren DeMontague]

207. That's where I'm at, too.

I leave it to the reader to decide who they think is likely more emotionally invested in controlling the behavior of others; the topless secularists, or the religious fundamentalists.

[Le Taz Hot]

193. Excellent!

Good for them for speaking out and representing the 99% of women who find it possible to bring attention to a topic without feeling the need to disrobe.

[JI7]

201. This Thread shows why so many Americans easily supported the War in Iraq

and thought IRaq had something to do with 9/11 even though Iraq was considered an enemy of al qaeda/taliban and other fundamentalist muslims.

it was still a mostly muslim country even though it wasn't an islamic state and people think they are all the same.

just as you have people here trying to blame Muslims, mosques in France and the UK for the things fundamentalist muslims in afghanistan and saudi arabia.

they are all the same.

[RainDog]

203. Your spin just doesn't resonate

Neither did the monarchical/theocratic French video.

Neither does this claim that people here are ignorant. People disagree with you.

[JI7]

231. no, because people are fucking stupid and thought Saddam had something to do with islamic

fundamentalism

[idwiyo]

233. Americans supported Iraq war because they wanted to look at boobies and Iraq didnt allow nekkidnees?

is that it? oy...

[JI7]

234. no, because people were fucking stupid and thought Saddam had something to do with Islamic

fundamentalism .

[idwiyo]

237. It was a joke, relax. Though still not sure why you are so bothered by FEMEN and their boobies.

[Kurska]

206. I find what Islam does to women and gays in the middle east far more offensive than anything

FEMEN has every said or done about Islam.

A right to freedom of religion doesn't also automatically grant a right to have no one criticize your religion, especially when elsewhere is being used to rather brutally oppress people.

[Kurska]

227. Righteous indignation at the bare human body makes for strange bedfellows doesn't it? n/t

[Deep13]

236. "Islam" doesn't.

Like Christianity, there are many varieties of Muslim culture. Those countries that have been on the receiving end of Western commercial or military imperialism tend to read their nationalistic values into their religion. They get defensive of what they consider basic Islamic (and therefore native and anti-imperialist) values and they hold onto those often recent norms as a hedge against cultural imperialism.

The Iranian revolution of '78/9 was a direct reaction to the 1953 overthrow of the parliamentary government by the CIA. Mohammed Reza Shah was an American puppet ruler who kept oil concessions available. Various political factions from secular and Islamic liberals to Islamic hard liners and even communists lined up behind Kohmeini whose anti-imperialist rhetoric was often expressed in religious terms. Most of them were pretty surprised by the hard-line theocracy that replaced the monarchy.

As far as gays, yeah, like the other Abrahamic religions, Islamic societies are pretty much anti-gay. That's unfortunate and I'm sure many suffer needlessly because of it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

241. Yes it does.

The Qu'ran contains instructions actively encouraging sexism, and many other kinds of immoral behaviour.

[Deep13]

284. Yes and no.

First, you are reading modern, industrial era assumptions into a seventh century book. In the early Middle Ages gendering of society was an assumed fact, as it had always been. What many of the Qu'ranic provisions do is limit sexist practices that already existed. While women had virtually no rights in the classical age, the Qu'ran limits traditional abuses. For instance women could own property in their own right far earlier in Muslim societies than they could in Christian ones. It also imposes real limits on polygamy requiring a separate and equal household for each wife. It prohibits killing other Muslims and restricts the worst aspects of slavery.

Unfortunately, since it is supposed to be holy writ, what seemed like good ideas in the 7th century are not normalized by Islam as divine commands, fixing the perception in 7th century standards. The Christian Bible has the same problem, of course. If the social rules of Islam had been written by some wise person who was not claiming divine authorization, we would the Qu'ran as progressive for its time, but understand that we have moved on since then. Holy books need to be read as primary source documents in the perspective of their own time, but generally they are not.

Even worse, holy books can usually be read selectively so that someone at a university in Istanbul with give it a very liberal reading understanding the context while Wahhabi-ists will give it a harsh, misogynistic reading consistent with their cultural norms. Both will claim divine privilege for his interpretation. Add to that the corruption and hypocrisy of any established religion and you have what now exists.

[Warren Stupidity]

345. Yeah, no shit. But let's pretend none of that is happening.

[Deep13]

228. It is a criminal offense for a Saudi woman to show her face in public...

...or forearms or ankles.

Muslim women like any other kind of person are not a monolithic group. Many take the attitude suggested here: that the insistence of liberalizing modesty rules as an effort to de-legitimize non-western culture. Of all the concerns women might have in the Middle East and elsewhere, head scarves seem a pretty low priority. Further, headscarves were never a big deal until Westerners started complaining about them as a marker of everything they thought was wrong with Muslim culture. In reaction, many women who had been indifferent insisted on wearing head coverings or even veils.

Still, it's a lot easier to take that attitude when it is a choice and not compulsory--either by law or custom. When I was in Jordan last summer, where the law does not mandate hair coverings, every Muslim woman I saw was wearing one, while few men wore the keffiyeh and most wore Western short-sleeve shirts. women covered everything except faces and hands. They may not be required to do so, but I wonder how their career prospects or social standings would be affected if they didn't. In some countries of course, the use of clothing as social controls is more palpable in Iran and even more so in Saudi Arabia. Oddly, social control in urban Turkey is through suppression of head coverings.

If I remember right, the FEMEN was protesting the concept of masculine or family honor being tied to female modesty. In extreme cases, this can lead to so-called honor killings if any kind of sexual impropriety is suspected, even rape. Frankly, the women participating in this protest have every right to express their dissent in any way they want. It they want to make a point by getting undressed, then they are not the first feminist protesters to do so. Perhaps some prefer native patriarchy to Western imperialist patriarchy, but they're are both patriarchal and those who push back against it ought to have our support.

[HiPointDem]

245. and yet, the brave women of femen have yet to take on the saudis. they prefer less dangerous

targets, like tunisia, the most liberal country for women in the arab world.

[Deep13]

287. They're not willing to be martyrs.

Anyway, electronic communication spreads everywhere. As a practical consideration, one can usually make a lot more progress--however one wants to define that--working the margins than the center.

Jordan is legally pretty liberal, yet honor killings and other abuses still happen there. I do not know the exact situation in Tunis, but I wonder if the protests are a push-back against Islamist revolutionary policies.

[HiPointDem]

295. but wait, i thought they were at risk of being arrested. imprisoned & stoned? so i'm constantly

told by the booby feminists here.

yeah, they leave the martyrdom to the real prptestors. the ones who don't jet all over europe & don't get press.

[Deep13]

297. Depends where they are.

It should surprise no one that provocative protestors feel free to protest where it won't get them killed. Anyway, those are the places where fellow Muslims are likely to be on the fence and able to be won over.

I think the whole point of the unclothed protestors are that the human body, especially those of women, are not shameful. What's more is that to the degree masculine honor is tied to the modesty of "their" women--this kind of thing ends that honor, replacing it with personal ownership of one's own body. Nudity is not necessarily sexual and that is part of their point.

To put it in terms of the protest against rape culture, these women are not "asking for it" in terms of punishment for dishonor or immodesty.

[HiPointDem]

298. have you seen any interviews with the leader? she's a ninny.

[Deep13]

299. ad hominem?

or in this case, ad gynem?

[HiPointDem]

310. no, she's just a ninny. or plays one on tv.

[Deep13]

302. Also there is a class distinction at work here.

The kind of visible feminism that jet-setters are promoting tends to be an upper class phenomenon. These are the ones who accept a relatively Western perspective and want their society to join the modern (however one defines that) world. The middle class feminists are far more concerned with what can be called bread-and-butter issues and don't really care about modesty rules. I think they are the ones mostly protesting FEMEN. The working and agricultural classes generally are not involved.

[JVS]

244. FEMEN will have a slam dunk in this exchange when the next honor killing in Europe happens.

[Squinch]

356. How so?

[HappyMe]

255. Good for them, and good for Femen.

Take your top off, or leave it on.

I don't think any women should be dictating to other women what to wear, how to protest.

[itcfish]

257. You Miss the Whole Point

Your sisters are trying to support your freedom of choice. Wear whatever you want as long as you make the choice and not have been brainwashed to do it. No one is telling you what to wear. It is about freedom in all parts of your life, not your wardrobe.

[stevenleser]

275. It's even more than that. This all started because Tunisia is considering going back to Sharia...

Up until now, Tunisia has been pretty liberal for a Muslim country. They are considering changing that and going to Sharia. That is why Amina took off her top and went into the street in protest with the words that she used "my body is mine and is not about your honor, etc."

She was thrown into a psychiatric hospital for doing that.

Femen supported her by doing the things THEY do which is topless protest.

This is not about the right to protest topless. This is about the legitimate fear that Tunisia is going to go to Sharia law and what that would mean for its women.

[Shankapotomus]

264. I have question for the women in the pictures

and any on DU that agree with them:

If a Muslim woman in an Islamic country wants to opt for the other choice, the choice of not wearing a shirt, is she still a Muslim? Should she be arrested?

If you truly believe it to be your body, I'm sure you would be tolerant of the other Muslim women who would opt to go shirtless and defend Femen's advocacy of that option, correct?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

266. Sure, and there are women who stand outside abortion clinics with signs that read....

"I made a CHOICE to have my baby".

It's the other side of the question that they don't want to answer.

[Arugula Latte]

276. It's "my choice" to wear oppressive clothing because I've been told

that my sinful hair and my sinful body are too tempting for the poor defenseless menfolk to resist.

[Brigid]

282. Some of the women in these photos . . .

are not even wearing the hijab. And those who are, apparently do not see it as a form of oppression. And yet, instead of respecting their feelings, FEMEN and some others are trying to tell women like the ones shown here that they are "brainwashed" or something. I've seen the photos of the FEMEN protesters--they just look silly to me.

[Prism]

291. Totally bookmarking this awesome thread.

All this awesome, illiberal hypocrisy conveniently set down in one place.

When American women make choices that second wave feminists don't like, they're simply doing it to please the patriarchy.

When Muslim women speak out in support of far harsher cultural norms pushed on them by a far more patriarchal structure, they are strong women in full possession of their agency.

Holy hell, this shit has totally dropped all pretense of being rooted in pro-woman ideology. It's like a horrible, body strewn train wreck that depresses the hell out of you, but at the moment of explosive impact your juvenile reptile mind is thinking "Awesome!"

This thread is awesome in precisely that way.

And what is with the magical power of Islam? I speak out about how oppressive Christianity is to gay people, and I'm hailed as an equality activist.

Criticize Islam in exactly the same way, and I'm an intolerant Islamophobe who doesn't understand the nuances of teenagers getting stoned to death.

There is apparently nothing more romantic to some than a culture they know they themselves will never have to live under.

Defending Islamic patriarchy now. On a liberal website.

Good God, Lemon.

[stevenleser]

300. The full implications of the hypocrisy you point out are mind-boggling

I am beginning to wonder if it really is as simple as some folks, despite their protestations otherwise, really do have just that big of a hangup with nudity and sex such that it overrides all other considerations and beliefs.

And the backdrop is, we have a country, Tunisia, that is seriously considering abandoning their more moderate government in favor of one that implements Sharia. That is the original cause of Amina's protest which included her deciding to protest topless. That got her thrown in psychiatric hospital and has the government threatening to stone her to death. That in turn provoked Femen to protest on her behalf and of course we know how femen protests.

In the wake of that, we have individuals, as you aptly pointed out, cheering on the agency of the muslim women attacking Femen so they can be happy about wearing their hijab's while Amina is in danger of being stoned to death for protesting a form of government that is horrific toward women and has a real chance of being implemented.

But who cares about that right? There are naked boobs involved. That should be the real outrage.

[Prism]

305. I think it's a simple equation.

After having read a thousand or two posts quietly and without much comment, the overarching sentiment expressed by the anti-Femen contingent seems, in distilled form:

"Somewhere, there are some men drawing pleasure from looking at exposed breasts, and that is intolerable."

The oppression of women around the globe. Sure, that's kind of important. But somewhere out there, a man is getting an erection from looking at naked women, and that is clearly a source of evil far more deserving of their scorn and attention.

I can't figure out if this strain of "feminism" is poisonous or just pitiably goofy. Kind of leaning towards goofy.

[randome]

306. I think you boiled it down to the essentials.

[LittleBlue]

344. You just destroyed

all their shenanigans in 2 posts. Impressive.

They do seem to obsess bizarrely over men getting boners.

[Bonobo]

396. + 100 Prism, you nailed it.

They are so outraged that "teh boyz got to see teh tits" that it has overwhelmed all sense of balance.

And as for poisonous or goofy, I agree that it is goofy.

[Luminous Animal]

301. Way to miss the point. These women don't want to be nannied by neocolonial feminists.

And several have identified themselves as feminists.

Muslim Women Redefine Feminism

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/culture/2013/04/muslim-feminists-activism.html

La Fabrique, a French publishing house, published a book with a red cover and the striking title: Islamic Feminisms. Zahra Ali, a 26-year-old French-Iranian woman, is working on a thesis dealing with the women's movement in Iraq since 2003. She coordinated the publication of this collection of texts, which are penned by women from Malaysia, Iran, Pakistan and Morocco. The book, which starts with a traditional basmala (incantation), has already become a go-to piece on the subject. It might sound like the result of two decades of discussions carried out under the label of “Islamic feminism,” but it remains a starting point, because the intellectual project remains open and the fight is raging now more than ever.

'Liberated' Muslim females

In the 1990s, the term "Islamic feminism" made its appearance in different parts of the world and in various contexts. In 1992, Shahla Sherkat, an Iranian who took part in the revolution of 1979, published the first issue of a feminist magazine, "Zanan" (meaning women in Farsi). The magazine is now banned. In 1996, a Saudi woman named Mai Yamani published "Feminism and Islam," a book that went down in history. In Turkey, academics believe a new type of feminism has emerged that is nourished by faith. Meanwhile in the West, female activists freed themselves from secular feminism and jointly asserted their female rights as Muslims of foreign origin.

Fatima Mernissi is a Moroccan woman who has started a project that involves examining and critiquing both sacred and profane texts. Determined to obtain full equality without abandoning their faith, many Muslim women — who are no longer satisfied with traditional Islamic discourse — have begun to dismantle the edifice of religious patriarchy.

According to those who follow the Islamic feminist movement, female Muslims see two things standing in the way of their emancipation. On the one hand, they find a conservative Islam that prevents women from having access to religious knowledge and hampers the achievement of the equality prescribed by the Quran. On the other, there is what they call "colonial feminism," which was born in the North and was laced with Orientalism. This type of feminism dictates to the women of the South the manners and framework of their emancipation, arguing that it is impossible to be both subject to God and freed from the power of men. “These are two essentialist discourses, which, ironically, come together and share the same definition of Islam and the same definition of feminism,” Ali jokes.

Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/culture/2013/04/muslim-feminists-activism.html#ixzz2PcLTo5m0

Muslim feminists in Malaysia
http://www.wluml.org/news/malaysia-muslim-sisterhood-sisters-islam-empowers-feminist-muslims

I could have turned my back on Islam like many Muslim feminists do and declare that there can be no liberation and justice for women in Islam, or in any religion, as many believe. But that was never an option for me because of my upbringing and my utter faith in a just God.

We felt the urgent need to re-read the Quran to discover if the Text truly supported the ill-treatment of women. This need also became the more urgent because the women’s groups in Malaysia were campaigning to make domestic violence a crime. The government religious representatives were saying that such a law could not apply to Muslims because a Muslim man, they claimed, had the divine right to beat his wife, and no human law could deny him that right.

This was really when we decided that enough was enough. We needed to go back to the Quran, to study it for ourselves, to ask it questions and search for answers that make sense to the realities of our lives.

Europe’s first gay and lesbian-friendly mosque opened last year

Its founder, French-Algerian gay activist and practising Muslim Ludovic-Mohamed Zahed, will also encourage women to lead Friday prayers, smashing yet another taboo.

“It’s a radically inclusive mosque. A mosque where people can come as they are,” said Zahed, 35, whose prayer space will be the first in Europe to formally brand itself as a gay-friendly mosque, according to Muslim experts.

http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2012/11/30/paris-muslim-activist-to-test-islamic-taboos-with-gay-friendly-mosque/

[randome]

304. How do you think these other groups got the word out?

Did they, maybe, oh, I don't know, talk to people? Advertise? Word of mouth? Demonstrate, even?

By your logic, you'd think they'd be insulting women who DON'T want to be lesbian or feminist.

How is any of that different from what FEMEN is doing?

[Luminous Animal]

316. They are working in their own communities in their own cultural context.

Thus, they would know far better how to communicate and advance their the interests in the community.

If FEMEN was interested in advancing women's rights in the Muslim world, they would ask them what assistance they needed. They would ask them how to help.

Contacting these women would have been a good start.

http://www.wluml.org/node/5408

[stevenleser]

318. And they are failing. Sharia is a serious possibility for Tunisia. They can claim to be feminists

but if they are more interested and invested in attacking fellow feminists who are desperate to save them from living under Sharia than in accepting any help at all to avoid that awful fate, they are doing it wrong.

[randome]

322. So only community protests are 'allowed', then.

International organizations need not apply. OF COURSE an international organization is not going to speak for EVERYONE. But they believe -and I do, too- that they speak for the majority.

[Luminous Animal]

327. I never said that. I said that there are already Muslim femnists active in their communities...

they understand that community. They know how to negotiate the intricacies. They understand the nuances of communication. They know that the hijab is not the first step towards freedom and equality.

If the international community wants to be a part of their liberation, they need to take the lead from that community rather than advancing western standards that simply will not work.

They can start here:

http://www.wluml.org/node/5408

[riderinthestorm]

340. Amina is a Muslim woman working in her own cultural context in her own country

Why is her FEMEN protest not as authentic as any of the ones you (presumably) believe are "better"?

She's protesting Tunisia's current movement towards shrouding women...

[Luminous Animal]

347. Have I said anything about Amina in this thread? No I haven't.

I have actually defended Amina in other threads. I find her action brave because she actually confronted the fundamentalists in her own country and do I feel that she deserves global support if she is in any danger.

But the Muslim women protesting yesterday weren't responding to yesterdays action. They took the opportunity to use what was sure to be a media circus around FEMEN to put a little bit of the spotlight on them. The annoyance from Muslim women (and many of them feminists) has been building for a while and their message is pretty clear as the source of their annoyance...They don't need the influence of westerners to fashion their own feminism.

Also, I do not feel that images like these help either:

[riderinthestorm]

368. Wait, what??!! Of course they're reacting to yesterday's action!

Their signs are ALL about that.

I'm not stupid and presumably neither are you. Amina's (and FEMEN's) actions have hit a deep chord that's just NOW provoked this backlash. Its ridiculous to presume the posters from your OP aren't responding to FEMEN and Amina.

Amina is NOT a westerner - she's a Muslimah like them. To discredit her embrace of this particular form of protest mocks her courage and her real impact. She's sparked an enormous reaction. Your OP is proof of that as those poor women demonstrate even more starkly how enslaved they are to patriarchal bondage in reaction to her baring the very "jewels" (a Quranic reference) the patriarchy tries to control.

[Luminous Animal]

371. Um no. They are using yesterdays action as a springboard for their own.

It is a quite simple PR tactic. Using a more "sexy" media friendly group to slip your message in.

Nobody is discrediting her embrace of naked protest. Not one of those signs mentioned Amina. Most of the women who posted live in the west and are annoyed with Femen's "advice" that getting naked is the key to their emancipation.

IF, Femen were really worried about Amina (they shout FREE HER but they have no clue if she even needs to be freed) then how about contacting feminist orgs in Tunisia, there are many, and see what they are doing on her behalf. How about working with a community that can offer her support WHERE SHE LIVES rather than creating a global performance art project that may drive her further underground because there is a target on her back. Will this TEENAGER'S only recourse be to leave her family and community to be safe? These are all avenues that responsible activists (yes, even radical ones) can explore.

And then there is the big giant question, does Amina even want this.

P.S. The Christian patriarchy is no friend to women either.

[riderinthestorm]

377. NO! Most of the pics on that site are protesting FEMEN. Amina IS FEMEN.

You (they) can't denigrate FEMEN and their tactics without factually denigrating Amina's action. This is what they do.

The women in those posts are too uncomfortable to tackle Amina in their posts because she's one of their own and it doesn't mesh with their faux outrage at Euro-FEMEN.

Well they (you) can't have it both ways. Amina is a proud member of FEMEN. She's either a proud Muslimah, having her own protest in her own country fully aware of their cultural norms as a FEMEN member, or she's not.

Disassociating her from any part of who she is - all parts of her - is an inconvenient truth. Frankly, I find your comment that there's even a question whether Amina may even "want" this as condescending to the max, as though she weren't brave enough, or had enough foresight, to see/endure the shit storm ahead.

You appear to be the one wanting to define Amina's/FEMEN's protest as something problematic (along with your friends in the OP). I firmly, 110% disagree.

[Luminous Animal]

383. You are making assumptions not in evidence.

I spent 10 hours yesterday communicating with some of these women and other Muslim feminists and you are just flat wrong.

Most support Amina, they do not support Femen driving the dialog. Contact them, see for yourself. Have that conversation. There feminism would challenge DUs HoF. One of their biggest concerns is that they've put Amina (A TEENAGER) in more danger because of their focus on a person rather than a system.

But they are also pissed off that they have co-opted own agency to direct her own protest. Yes, it is important to know what Amina wants. Does she want a target on her back. Does she want to escape to the west. Does she want to fade into obscurity.

In the many years into the lead up to Roe v Wade, feminists orgs could have dragged many unwilling women into the spotlight to make their case. But they waited for that one woman who was willing.

[riderinthestorm]

385. The women you've linked to in your OP absolutely don't support FEMEN

and so by extension they don't support Amina who has chosen this group to "front" her actions.

I'm making "assumptions" based on the evidence in front of my very own eyes in the link you provide. If they have some kind of ulterior motives that somehow prove differently, they certainly don't show it from the link you provided. I don't have 10 hours to dialogue with this group to suss out their nuances.

They are judged by what they've put out there for public display.

Just as Amina has been.

They have chosen to reject her - reject FEMEN.

If you aren't willing to understand the dynamics of what's happening to women in Tunisia as expressed by the protest of Amina - a woman of Tunisia - and instead want to issue some kind of blanket condemnation of her and her actions, as your OP appears to do, then I'm sorrier for you than Amina. Your (and the rest of the women in the link in your OP) misguided and deliberate mis-interpretation of her position, and your deliberate embrace of patriarchal oppression, is laid bare for all to see.

[stevenleser]

349. They don't want to talk about Amina or the deadly serious reason she did what she did.

They would rather talk about people being bad for showing naked boobs and others who might be turned on by naked boobs than to worry about the boring prospect of Tunisia going to Sharia law which would oppress an entire country full of women. Why would a feminist care about that when there are naked boobs to rage against?

[The Straight Story]

308. And yet when it comes to catholics you state:

Nobody here hates Catholics. They protest against bigoted stances of the...

institution and question those who support a bigoted institution.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2505127

And some here question those who supported a bigoted institution as well.

Some folks in the Catholic church don't want to be nannied by neocolonial feminists either.

[Prism]

319. You have this exactly backwards

These women are coming from a cultural heritage where their modesty was strictly enforced by men. Now, they can choose however they like, but let us not lie to ourselves about the fact they are speaking from a place of patriarchal heritage.

Femen, on the other hand, is coming from a purely pro-woman perspective, casting off all attempts at male control and using their naked bodies as powerful symbols to achieve that end.

And when resting those two perspectives side by side, the feminist impulse should be to side with the remnants of brutal, woman-dominating patriarchy?

No. Just, no. And this argument and position would never ever fly, not for one instant, if we replaced Islam with American fundamentalist Christianity. Hell, Carrie Underwood can't even say she would leave her job if her husband asked without condemnation or tut tutting around here.

But defend patriarchal Islamic standards? That's as pro-woman as it gets!

All this ideological contortion and hypocrisy, and for what? Because men seeing boobs cannot be borne.

This is the kind of luxury feminism that is only ever promoted by incredibly comfortable Westerners, where people can possess whatever inconsequential idea they wish, because it affects their lives not in the least.

[Luminous Animal]

323. Really. You do realize that the reason why they decided to go full frontal was to get the attention

male dominated media, don't you? They've said as much multiple times. They first protested in bikini tops with slogans written on their backs and got no notice from the press so they decided to go full frontal.

So, I see both FEMEN and these women speaking from a patriarchal heritage. One, group practicing imposed modesty to please men. The other group, practicing nudity to gain male attention.

For what it is worth, I spent some time yesterday communicating with a feminist Muslim scholar, one of the points that she made was that FEMEN, by confronting Muslims in their European communities, would likely result in girls and women becoming more isolated. That many fundamentalist men would ban the wives and girl children from leaving the home, altogether.

But again, you are missing the point. Many Muslim feminists reject the tactics of FEMEN because it mutes their efforts. They would prefer to work with western feminist organizations rather than have a neocolonial standard as their guide.

[Prism]

337. And to that I say, so what?

You use the tools at hand to get the job done. They used their breasts to command attention. Do you understand why it was so effective? Because of the context of the culture they're living in.

I live and work around Berkeley, CA. I see breasts at public events all the time (and penises for that matter). No one here particularly cares. It never makes headlines. Why not? If these male-dominated media are helplessly susceptible to a boobfrenzy, why am I not reading all about it?

Because in this very liberal culture, it just isn't a big deal.

In Islamic culture, it's a massive deal. Islam, rightly or wrongly, is perceived in the West as a highly oppressive society towards women. When we see topless women flipping off Imams, that is a novel, radical act to our perceptions. It commands our attention. It's something the West doesn't see everyday.

See, the problem with this whole kerfuffle is that it laments nudity and sex being effective without ever really addressing why it is so effective in this context. The rational is lazily supplied as "Men are horny perverts. That's why."

Not only is that an explanation in service to a bias ( and a misandrist one at that), falling into it creates a tunnel vision that necessitates by default a misunderstanding of where Femen is coming from and why what they're doing is important.

In other words, your ideology is setting you up for failure right out of the gate.

As for muting other voices and women. Phyllis Schafly and people like Concerned Women For America have been saying that about liberal women for decades.

That's what is so odd to me. People are taking the Schafly position here and calling it feminism. And only because they're patronizing another culture. Well, those Muslims shouldn't be held to Western standards. If they want to slam their leftists radical feminists while promoting conservative culture, who are we to say?

Who, indeed.

And because those Schafly types are against this nudity, and you don't like the nudity, well, what the hell.

Maybe this is a crazy notion, but I'm a liberal without borders. What I would not put up with here, I will not put up with anywhere else.

[BainsBane]

400. They are also coming from a Western imperialist perspective

That looks down on Muslim women, tells them how much their men oppress them, while dropping bombs on their homes.

[RainDog]

303. This thread is entirely revealing

I know who doesn't speak for me - but I've known this here for a while.

[Catherina]

334. Ah Prism, if nobody's told you they loved you today, here you go

I love you for expressing my precise thoughts on this. The hypocrisy is astounding. Unsurprising but still astounding.

Thank you

[riderinthestorm]

342. +1. I almost didn't post on this thread at all. Same people, same scolding nt

[LadyHawkAZ]

365. Exactly. n/t

[redgreenandblue]

292. Right on.

Intercultural relations boil down to one thing: Respecting ones differences.

I find it ridiculous when female European or American politicians put on a veil to appease Muslim politicians. The Muslims need to learn to accept that we are different. Likewise, it is inappropriate for Europeans or Americans to lecture Muslim women on wearing the veil. If they choose to do it, it is no ones business except theirs.

Unfortunately many people have the nasty habit of thinking the "other" needs to be "fixed".

[randome]

296. I don't see any group lecturing another.

FEMEN is saying they don't need to be oppressed. If a group of Muslim women WANT to be oppressed, or they don't feel it IS oppression, who is trying to force them to see things differently?

[Luminous Animal]

307. How extraordinarily patronizing and without realizing it, you are emphasizing these women's point.

You don't think that there are many Muslim women fighting their oppression? They have their own feminist organizations, strategies and goals to achieve their equality and freedom and they don't include a handful of half-naked white women marching through their communities declaring jihad.

[randome]

311. No one is saying they HAVE to embrace FEMEN.

It's telling, however, that 'half-naked' means anything to you in the context of a protest. I think that's your main objection to all of this.

It's called INTERNATIONAL TOPLESS JIHAD day, in case you've forgotten. It's not WHITE AMERICAN TOPLESS day. Women are oppressed all over the globe. What could possibly be wrong with an international organization that recognizes that and that pushes for better treatment?

Oh, that's right. They're 'half-naked'. That's what's wrong.

[Luminous Animal]

348. As I have pointed out before,

their nudity is likely putting females who live in the communities that they target (in the west) at further risk of isolation. The fundamentalist patriarchs of many families are apt to put yet more limitations on the freedom of movement for the women in their households. So that is why I focus on the half-naked. I've been an activist for a long time and it foolish to bust into anyone's culture and demand that they make changes that conform to your standard.

And clearly, in the case with Muslim feminists, it's backfired. In a year, they've gone from generally supportive of FEMEN to being annoyed.

I have no problem with public nudity. I support the naked guys in San Francisco. I've been naked at pride and halloween in the Castro. I've lolled about in the baby pool in my backyard in full view of about 25 neighbors. But go ahead. Pretend anything you want.

[idwiyo]

409. Damn, they are not buying "menz & titties"... YAY! FEMEN makes wemmenz unsafe with tiities!!!

Nice change of tactics!

[Nika]

312. It's always good to see women do good activism, whether I believe in the message or not.

[alp227]

353. What was the point of the Lynne Ali photo?

These type of "religion saved me from broken society" stories scare me, as a secular humanist.

[RainDog]

363. Surrender

it's a "feminist principle."

in an alternate universe.

[Nika]

370. I went to the Face book site and found it interesting.

I do not agree with the sentiments, and am more aligned with the Femen point of view; but I find this form of dissent against the Femen form of political advocacy fascinating.

And as the header was not the only graphical offerings on that page, I felt I would add what I found to be an interesting one too into the mix of the thread.

[Cleita]

314. I don't know if anyone is dictating what they should wear.

They should be able to wear what they want or not wear it.

[Quantess]

350. Really, no one is dictating what women should wear? Because that is EXACTLY what many Islamists do.

Not sure what your argument here is, Cleita.

[Cleita]

351. This is in the so-called free world isn't it?

No one tells women what to wear, except maybe in France. Yeah, I know in some Sharia run Islamic countries it's not the case, but it seems the women with those signs are free to dress as they want to and are proclaiming it. When I lived in Los Angeles, I knew many Persian women because I lived in a neighborhood that had been infused with Persian families, not all muslim, some Jewish, some Bahai, and some Christians. There was a variety of choice in what the women chose to wear, from traditional to chic modern.

[Quantess]

355. I get what you are saying, but, the intent is to reach worldwide audiences.

Regardless of where it's happening.

Or maybe I don't get what you are saying... no way, you are not that ignorant, right? Do you really believe there is no one telling women they need to cover their hair? Yes, in the "free world".

[Cleita]

357. In my day they did. They wouldn't let you into church if you weren't wearing a hat

or scarf of some sort. But it wasn't a law and I could choose not to go to church. Now, maybe within families that is going on, but it's not a law. Those women can and have told their elders to go to hell at times.

[closeupready]

328. It's very simple - if you are a liberal, you support these women

their right to wear a head scarf if that's what they wish to do.

Many who claim to be liberal, are not, such as those who support repealing the Second Amendment.

K&R

[Quantess]

343. No, it isn't "very simple".

There are some things that are "very simple", but this issue is not one of them. Can we at least agree on that?

Hair-covering-scarves are no big deal for anyone who is not into fashion policing. However, when it comes down to men thinking that women who don't cover their hair are whores, well yes, that is a big problem in my mind.

[closeupready]

387. Okay, I can agree that it's not a simple issue.

I don't disagree with any of your points. We probably don't disagree at all, if we talked it out.

Cheers.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

416. Half right, half wrong.

Supporting the right to wear a headscarf is a core part of liberalism.

Supporting the decision to exercise that right is not.

I may support your right to say what you have to say, but I will defend to the death my right to disagree with it.

[closeupready]

418. Nope. You're so in love with your logical pretzel-ification,

you're making sense only to yourself.

Some women are coerced into wearing it, others wear it because they want to.

[TimberValley]

360. I think a lot of Western feminists don't even realize how condescending they are at times.

They treat women from other cultures with the attitude that they (the Western feminists) are the liberators here to enlighten, teach, inspire and rescue women from their poor, ignorant, downtrodden plight. These feminists often don't even consider how they are coming across to the people they are trying to help.

[RainDog]

364. except Amina is Tunisian

so much for pretending this is about western feminists.

[stevenleser]

413. And predictably there is crickets to your response. They are intent on ignoring Amina.

Femen's actions are to support a Tunisian woman doing what she wanted to do to protest Sharia and support women and feminism.

I'm going to repeat this again for those who don't seem to want to get it. The European based Femen's protests are the secondary act to support the primary act which was a Tunisian woman protesting the potential implementation of Sharia in Tunis.

Amina is in lockdown in a psych hospital in Tunisia for her actions, so she is kind of unable to protest further at the moment or speak on her own behalf. You would think self-proclaimed feminists would support other feminists' drawing attention to her plight and supporting her.

But no, as Prism pointed out, for some reason, a subset of DU's feminists are invested in attacking the secondary supporting actions, spinning this as being about Femen and boobs and imperialism.

[Rex]

442. Very eye opening thread.

nt.

[HappyMe]

449. +1,000,000

[Luminous Animal]

367. Yep. Femen fan's response to Muslim women included these:

"Stupid muslim women. Made brainless by Quran."

"Stupid slaves!"

[kwassa]

379. Many African-American feminists feel marginalized by white American feminists.

The concerns are quite different sometimes, but the white feminists are, as many in the world are, self-absorbed, and unable and uninterested in putting themselves in the shoes of others. It is duly noticed.

[Deep13]

378. They're not. Your home societies are.

in response to the OP's title.

[opiate69]

390. I wonder which side these feminists would side with?

[Bonobo]

397. FOR THOSE STILL READING THIS...

If you want to read the post(s) that win the entire thread, that crystallize the dynamic here, you can do no better than to

Do a search for "Prism" and read his comments.

It sums it all up and places it into a rational, understandable context and kills it, stuffs it and hangs it on the wall in plain sight.

[BainsBane]

401. You aren't paying attention

I clearly won this thread

He completely overlooks the very important point about imperialism. I think it's time we stop trying to remake the world in our own image, quit dropping bombs, and let them tells us what reforms are important to them.

[Warren DeMontague]

428. right here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022616415#post305