General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsVideo-Amina: Topless Tunisian Protester Tells Femen She Was Beaten,Kidnapped & Drugged By Her Family
Amina explains that her early posts criticizing Femen were under duress, as many of us surmised.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TDale313
(7,820 posts)She's a brave young woman. I know that her (and Femen's) tactics have been controversial, but I admire her spirit. I also fear this will not end well for her.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)either time spent in US or extensive experience with US expat community.
cali
(114,904 posts)
RebelOne
(30,947 posts)
Quantess
(27,630 posts)English is an extremely common 2nd language. When speakers of two different languages speak to each other, it's often in english.
So no, she's not necessarily deep in the American culture just because she speaks good english.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)I had a French teacher who was a student, from France, and she spoke English with idioms, as most people do who learn the language, because they learn and practice a lot from watching English-language programs.
This was a laughable attempt to discredit her. But not a surprising one.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)RainDog
(28,784 posts)only, you're not.
You are, however, an apologist for misogyny.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)On Monday, she told The Associated Press she had been in contact with them and they sent her passport to her so she could get it renewed and leave. Tyler said she plans to get a visa to France and take up journalism studies.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/22/amina-tyler-tunisia_n_3134614.html
She said she had consulted Ms Tyler's doctor and planned to report her disappearance to the interior ministry today, while denying suggestions by women's rights groups that the activist had been kidnapped by her own family.
"Some groups are exploiting my daughter's story at her expense," the mother said, her voice choking with emotion.
"There has never been any kidnapping. We are just trying to protect our daughter by refusing to let her go out on her own for the sake of her security," she said.
http://www.news.com.au/world-news/topless-tunisian-protester-amina-tyler-is-missing-says-mother/story-fndir2ev-1226621150447
RainDog
(28,784 posts)And she never claimed her parents hit her - she, in fact, noted that she was lucky because she had parents who didn't beat her.
But you just go ahead and try to twist what has been said with more bullshit.
And then, you can go defend North Korea.
That does ring a bell, doesn't it?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)keep her under house arrest, the ones who supposedly had her 'kidnapped' in the first place.
per femen.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)you are twisting a situation in which parties in different nations could not get full information from one another. This is a common situation when news is filtered by third parties.
Yet you are dedicated to attacking FEMEN. For me, it's not about FEMEN or not - it's about the root of so much misogyny in the world that exists today.
why are you attacking those who oppose religious misogyny? What is the value in that to you?
you tell lies here, repeatedly... one after another, in this little thread. why should anyone believe anything you have to say, or want to see anything you have to say when it is clear you are a propagandist for misogyny by the positions you take?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)femen.
i am attacking fake human rights orgs and fake feminists in the service of empire.
actually 'attack' isn't even the right word. i'm questioning the mainstream narrative, which i mistrust for various reasons.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)and she explained that her family took her to a psychiatrist but he wasn't there.
so, again, second-hand information - which has now been corrected by the two parties involved - in the video in the OP.
...while you repeat claims based upon your own desire to discredit the people involved.
you are no better, and, in fact, are worse than FEMEN by continuing the narrative that she was misrepresented when the reality was that both she and her friends at FEMEN had incorrect information because they did not have direct contact.
And, fwiw, the mainstream narrative in American life is all about supporting religious belief. You aren't contradicting anything of any great importance to insist on trying to smear this group by distorting their actions.
The mainstream narrative is to discredit agency on the part of females - which is what you are doing here, again. And again. And again.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)of knowing that.
i disagree with your framing.
In the same way that actors like Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch and Jeb Bush can coopt the 'civil rights' narrative to push for education privatization, in the same way that actors like George Bush can coopt the "freedom" narrative to make war, so can the "feminist" narrative be coopted by actors with another agenda.
It's the post-modern way, and very convenient, as it allows them to smear anyone who disagrees as anti-civil rights, anti-freedom, anti-female.
what is FEMEN's real agenda - or what is the real agenda of those who are pulling their g-strings?
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Next you'll be telling us that girls who wear short skirts deserve to be sexually harassed and raped.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)on drugs.
I am glad they didn't physically abuse her. Points to them for that. 
But what about brainwashing? What about "let us see if you are a virgin"? Or mental abuse doesn't count in your books?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)RainDog
(28,784 posts)From nations all over the world - not just Europe, but Africa, the Middle East and Asia...
I find it laughable for this person to claim that most people from other nations don't learn language in ways that they learn language. Which is also the way that English-speaking people learn other languages too, tho it's not quite as ubiquitous b/c so few Americans bother to learn another language and often don't have the means to travel. I am, of course, talking about conversational use of languages (which is what was going on here), not the classroom work that goes with, many times.
But that includes people in academia, people who sell fruit at the green grocer in non-English language nations, people who come here to visit...
However, because this person may have family with an anglo-sounding name, she isn't "culturally pure" enough to speak her mind, according to this person. It's like saying someone named Mohammed isn't an American.. yeah, it's that kind of bullshit claim.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Quantess
(27,630 posts)So that's who it is. Yes, you could be right about that.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)board.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)Is that posters' stuff.
cali
(114,904 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)are you hannah?
I remember her and the endless lectures that followed.
sid dithers claims it is.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)
Kurska
(5,739 posts)
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)
RL
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)US. I do not watch American TV. Hell, don't even watch British TV.
Please, enlighten me why do I use the same colloquialisms?
Obviously I must be lying. Yes?
BTW, Amina's English is not "fluent" nor is it "American".
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)not american, perhaps it's indian....
there's that thing about her last name being 'tyler,' too....
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)I know people who learned English fluently in international schools and can speak better than some of our own citizens. Some of them are female. Got any other booga-boogas related to this one?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)'international,' the children of diplomats and the like, who travel a lot.
not sure why you think the 'female' is important -- it isn't to me.
not sure what your point is, actually.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)services families. There are also private schools and schools run by churches NGOs which teach language all over the world. If you don't get my point, either you don't understand what your own post meant or you are being singularly obtuse.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)family member. and by 'some time,' i mean close to a decade. i have plenty of experience & i stand by my opinions on the matter.
not really interested in arguing it with you.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)and was immersed in the culture as part of the extended family into which I had married. You are wrong. You sell children short on their ability to acquire facility with language.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)the university level. i have an Masters in MATESL from the best public university in my state. I know from critical period. amina does not have the fluency of someone who learned a second language as a child. she has the fluency of an adult learner. please don't try to teach me to suck eggs.
my spouse was non-american, I had non-american in-laws, friends, the whole kit and kaboodle. my spouse spoke multiple languages and had lived on every continent but antarctica.
you are very tiresome.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)in discrediting this young woman that you have to dredge up her grasp of English to do so. FYI, the family I married into was a fairly conservative Muslim one and I do have an understanding of what is possible among those who adher to the more socially conservative aspects of the religion.
For someone so erudite as you claim, you appear to have learned little about the possibilities involved in being human. As for sucking eggs, if that is what you want to hear, let me know.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)some people here who posted in a long thread about this.
I hope she's alright.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)refused to see what was plainly in front of them. Disgusting indeed.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Why should I respect a culture that systemizes the degradation of women?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)efforts to promote rights for women around the world, but there it is.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts) stevenleser
(32,886 posts)You don't see LGBT making cultural, etc. excuses for Uganda's treatment of LGBT folks and rights.
That a subset of feminists in the west would buy into this argument that it is OK to oppress women in Asia minor because of 'culture' and any effort to oppose it is "Imperialism/Colonialism" is a bewildering enabling of discrimination.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..assuming they've seen this news, of course, and are just refusing to comment because, really.. what can they say?
except maybe, 'I'M SORRY, I WAS WRONG'
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)That makes all the FEMEN protests invalid! Why it hurts the religious sensitivities of a gang of misogynistic douchebags who shoot children in the face for learning to read! Why if they get boobs flashed in their face, they might get all offended!
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)to cite chapter and verse..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022663197#post33
this..
and this..
morningfog
39. Explain the divide. How is it hate speech?
Gravitycollapse
45. It's a racist physical caricature of Arab men. The equivelant of black face.
morningfog
49. Is that hate speech? Offensive does not equal hate speech.
Racism does not even equal hate speech.
Gravitycollapse
52. It is in fact the very definition of hate speech.
emphasis added.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Next, they'll be telling us that because we criticize Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, we must be antisemitic.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)I was disgusted by how many posters used that last video as an excuse to bash Femen simply for the nudity and strong opinions of the women doing the protesting. There is a lot (and I mean A LOT) of room for improvement in attitude for a lot of posters when it comes to civil rights.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)Who post links from Judith Reisman - who is notable as an extremist right winger who attacked Alfred Kinsey's work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Reisman
Who post links from Mormons who want to save women from sexual objectification... I guess so that they can marry 12 year olds legally, or who knows, but at least they won't be wearing revealing clothing.
It's beyond me how anyone can credit and validate those here who do this unless they are also conservatives - because that's the ideology they promote - censorship and sexual shaming.
pnwmom
(108,960 posts)Were the people making excuses for this all women?
That is sad.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)don't you know only Western culture is oppressive??? Women's sexuality and consent is what really oppresses us! All that choice, it melts our tiny female minds! Breasts are patriarchy! The only REAL female agency that exists in the entire world is the one that mandates chooses a burqa or hijab!
(insert sarcasm tag as needed)
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)on "cultural tolerance" with respect to misogynist practices e.g. Burkas and other nonsense, and it was feminists around the world who lead the way on the campaign against female genital mutilation. Watching some here give that tortured defense of cloistering was agonizing. What a sorry situation. Come back! All is forgiven!
dkf
(37,305 posts)For her teenaged daughters and being upset that one daughter wanted a divorce because she was abused I was criticized as being culturally intolerant and told that arranged marriages are fine.
Boy my head was spinning at that one.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)I missed that conversation.
pnwmom
(108,960 posts)are some of the biggest attackers of misogyny in Catholicism.
Response to dkf (Reply #52)
dkf This message was self-deleted by its author.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)And all because they don't want teh menz to see boobz.
BainsBane
(53,016 posts)Rather than imaging you know everything about Islam based on a couple of news reports. You imagine the actions by this family explains all of Islam, a religion that has existed since the 7th century. Have you read Averroes critique of gender differences? Have you learned about the scientific innovations of women scientists like Fatima Al-Majritiya? Do you know of the role of women like Fatima al-Fihri's in forming educational institutions? Did you know that Islamic centers of learning in the Golden Age were filled with women scholars when women in the West were not allowed to seek higher education of any kind? Did you know that women in Islamic societies traditionally had property rights where women in the West were allowed to own none?
What you don't understand is that the fundamentalist extremism that you think characterizes Islam itself has arisen in response to colonialism, occupation, and neo-imperialism. It comes out of a particular political context and does not represent Islam as a whole. In other words, you don't get the whole story from your TV set, shocking as that may seem to you.
Bigotry is not defined by what does or doesn't happen to one woman. It's an inability to understand there is much about Islam people don't know and a refusal to try to learn more.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)BainsBane
(53,016 posts)entirely false. Repeating that kind of stereotype displays a steadfast determination to not learn. It truly is unfortunate.
If Islam itself is by nature oppressive to women, how do you explain the conditions of women in the Golden Age, that I mentioned in my previous post and you ignored? How do you explain Fatima Al-Majritiya, Fatima al-Fihri's, and Ibn Sina's critique of patriarchy?
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)
polly7
(20,582 posts)BainsBane
(53,016 posts)Doesn't want to learn. I provided sources for people to read if they so choose. Many here appear heavily invested in not reading anything that might contradict what they hear on cable news. That's their problem. All I can do is point to sources. Education is entirely an individual's choice.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Not at all ...... I've just been on the receiving end of your intellectual dishonesty too many times. I love education. I scour the net daily for interesting, educational articles by people who've earned respect. 
BainsBane
(53,016 posts)Or the video, so perhaps you'll decide they are worth your time.
http://www.mnvideovault.org/index.php?id=22858&popup=yes&select_index=0
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)The site where I linked cites dozens of verses directly out of Muslim scripture that denigrate women and give men undeserved power over them.
I guess you're too busy stirring shit here to actually be bothered to read it...
BainsBane
(53,016 posts)Last edited Sun Apr 28, 2013, 07:52 PM - Edit history (2)
dedicated to proving Islam is evil and expect me to take your posts seriously? That you actually think there is anything legitimate about that site boggles the imagination. You really don't have the first notion of how to do research or vet sources at all. You don't even attempt to find any analysis of Quranic scholarship. You don't even seem to understand the most basic concept that only Quranic scholars of the highest levels are permitted to interpret the Quran. Scholars study for decades to reach that level. Anti-religious zealots do not qualify, nor do any of the clerics within Al Qaeda. Without that most basic understanding, you think you can list a few passages and pretend to know their meaning within the Islam as a whole? Do you even know which branches of Quranic scholarship promote the primacy of of the passages you cite? How does Sufism consider the role of women in society? How do you explain the differences in the role of women in different cultures, from Turkey to Dubai to Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan? If Islam is really so simplistically monolithic as you imagine, why is there such variation in rights of women throughout the Muslim world? How do you explain the changes in attitudes toward women in the post-colonial period?
I've given you countless examples that contradict your anti-Islamic propaganda, which you systematically ignore, seemingly because they doesn't fit your singular agenda here--to show than Islam and Muslims are inferior. Inferior to what? Do you know that women in the US are killed at nearly 5x the rate than are women in Tunisia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Do you know that women in this country are raped at extremely high rates (25%) and that nearly half of all women in the US military are raped? Or do you simply not care about something as trivial as the rape of murder of women? And you think the problem is with Islam, despise the fact that history shows there is nothing endemic to seeing women as inferior in the religion, despite the fact a group dedicated to spreading hatred about Muslims compiled some passages from the Quran. Big fucking deal. You can find the same thing in laws for many US states and Western nations. What matters is how texts are interpreted, and that falls to Quranic scholars, not random people with no education in the field. Moreover, laws themselves are enforced by courts, and few Muslim countries operate under Sharia law.
How is it that you've missed all of the activism by Muslims, men and women alike, in support of women's rights?
Like this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022764236
or this: http://rt.com/news/tunisia-protests-belaid-eu-366/
If Islam is inherently misogynistic, what are these men and women doing protesting for women's rights while remaining practicing Muslims?
So is the problem that Tunisian women might find their abortion rights circumscribed like American women have already faced (because their current rights exceed those of women in many states in the US), or that they have the audacity to practice a religion you despise? I don't see that you care one wit for Amina or any other Muslim woman. How can you when you have no respect for their religion and ethnic identity?
So what is your proposal to rid the world of the evils of Islam? To continue to demonstrate Western cultural superiority by dropping bombs on Muslim nations and wiping those women off the face of the map? Next stop Syria, Iran, and then Tunisia? And you think our culture is superior? What kind of rights do Muslim women have after they've been slaughtered? Even if you do not see such military action as legitimate, how is it that you refuse to consider the role of the West and the US in particular in propping up the authoritarian dictatorships that gave rise to the fundamentalist extremism you conflate with Islam as a whole? Would reading a bit of history really be so objectionable? (And by history I mean peer-reviewed articles in academic journals and books published by university presses, not random crap online).
You show contempt for the religion and ethnic identity of 2 billion people on earth and accuse me of shit stirring? If refusing to sit back and let you spread anti-Islamic propaganda without criticism is shit stirring, that I proudly stand charged. I have read more than I can stomach from you. We will not be having further conversations, period.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)You completely mischaracterize the site I link, which gives the same treatment to the Bible, and the book of Mormon as it does to the Quran. Everything in that site is taken directly from those religious texts. I think it's being quite even-handed.
Islam, as it turns out, being an Abrahamic religion, has the same flaws as Christianity and Judaism. The human rights activism of Muslims, Christians and Jews doesn't take place because these adherents of their religions are following the teachings, but because they are breaking them. You don't see most Christians or Jews refusing to eat shellfish or wear blended fabrics, do you? Paul says in the New Testament "Slaves, follow your masters" and "Women, submit to your husbands." Yet in the US, we had an abolitionist movement, fought a civil war and abolished slavery (despite Southern plantation owners reading the Bible verses I paraphrased specifically to justify slavery...) We had a women's suffrage movement here in the West that brought women some, but not all, of the legal rights and respect they deserve, but even today, we have Christian extremists demanding that women sit down, shut up, submit to their husbands and the male church leaders, and stop demanding fair treatment. The clergy of the Roman Catholic Church is still a boys-only club.
You don't become moral by following the teachings of the Bible or the Quran. You do so by breaking most the rules in those texts, and only picking out the pieces that actually make sense and aren't too incompatible with basic decency. If you want to see what happens when you follow the teachings too closely, see the Westboro Baptist Church. Or the Taliban.
You'll respond to this post. I'll bet you can't resist...
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)opiate69
(10,129 posts)Then links to wikipedia as a source, herself.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Unless you spend years and years and years in seminary or the Muslim equivalent to ensure your interpretations are correct, and you can be trusted with the gift of interpretation.
How dare we atheists sit down, read religious texts for ourselves and point out the nonsense and bigotry! We have to be specially trained to roll the words around in six levels of indirection, abstraction and symbolic reinterpretation in religiously approved psychological framing, so we can get our doublethink working and be able to tell the world that 2+2=5!
If we dare to read the texts straight up, doublecheck the meanings of words using translation notes, and look at the texts from an objective point of view, we're in very serious danger of recognizing the contents as bullshit. Can't have that!
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)in women's rights, they have an interest in defaming islam -- islam in particular, not religiousity generally.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..fundamentalists have a fair argument that *they* are the 'true scotsmen'. indeed they have a much better argument than the revisionists. you would like to argument that not every muslim is engaging in oppressing women, but that is not the point, as you probably know.
the point is that so long as people look to the koran, bible, vedas, gita, etc. for moral guidance, there will be fundies. indeed, the more modern liberal believers revise what they cherry-pick and how they reinterpret patently immoral passages, the less correct they are in their interpretation.
fundies have a better argument 'from the book' for the religious oppression of women than liberal believers do against it. as long as the book contains what it contains, there will be men who read and interpret it *correctly* .. and then beat their wives into submission. until liberal believers can reach into fundie brains and change their minds to *incorrectly* interpret scripture, people will use religion as a justification for violence and oppression, because *that's what it was designed to do*.
that's not bigotry. it has nothing to do with individual believers, but rather the nonsense in which they believe. a point of fact.
..
now then.. your apology, please. for being wrong.
BainsBane
(53,016 posts)Denounce the fundamentalists all you want. Just don't conflate that with Islam as a whole.
You appear to think that religion is the only justification for atrocities. From from it. Look at what our own military does in the name of democracy and American superiority, or what the Nazis did in pursuit of their secular vision of a purer society. Religion provides an ideology of justification, nothing more. For Pol Pot that ideology was secular. For Salafis, it is religious.
If you study history, you will also see that religion provided an ideology to empower resistance movements: Nat Turner's slave rebellion in Virginia; The Males rebels slave rebellion in Salvador da Bahia, Brazil; The Tupac Amaru and Tupac Katari rebellions of the Andean region in the late-Spanish colonial period; and the Contestado movement in Southern Brazil in the early 20th century. There are hundreds of such examples, as well as ways in which religion itself served as a means of preserving the culture of the oppressed. Like any ideology, it has been used to oppress, while the oppressed have in turn taken that ideology and appropriated for resistance.
I'd like to point you to a couple of sources that would give you a different take on Islam. I posted an OP above an article on Sufism. http://www.democraticunderground.com/101661847
The NEH funded a public television show that came out of a conference and public events on Muslims in the Humanities at the University of Minnesota. It is available for anyone to watch on line. http://www.mnvideovault.org/index.php?id=22858&popup=yes&select_index=0 These sources provide just a bit of information, but different from that you see in the main stream media.
Understand that I don't disagree with your outrage at human rights violations wrought by extremism. What I object to is conflating that with Islam as a whole.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..which is that in any given generation, people may go to their respective 'holy book' and interpret it literally, and seek to live by it's contents as exactly as possible.
i contend that any liberal or progressive advances one part of society makes will be undermined by these populations of people who can simply go to the book and, from the text, resurrect traditions that are increasingly out of sync with an ever-more progressive society.
the polarization increases because the orthodox and fundamentalist populations are always stuck at the same point in the evolution of social ethics. that one same point given by an *unchanging text*.
..
trying to make this about *me* attacking islam is just silly. i am talking about the fact that the bible, koran, upanishads, etc. demand adherence to patently immoral (in our age) religious beliefs, and that these beliefs will *never* go away as long as they are *written down* that way.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)by certain political forces, in the US and elsewhere. Fundamentalism is in many ways hard to reconcile with modern life, and that is why it dies, all else being equal.
In these times, all else is not equal, and economic inequality is another force that encourages fundamentalism.
the poster is not 'wrong'. the poster disagrees with you.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)i think rather that the chasm between the progressive front, which moves slowly, and the regressive rear, which is static and based on unchanging texts, is widening.
that the people involved in these social movements employ propaganda and are financed by wealthy members of their respective ideological groups isn't exactly a deep insight into the problem.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)funding 'islamism' are wealthy. Wealthy international businesspeople.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)the people funding *democracy* are wealthy.. but then this is again entirely beside the point. unless the point is to deflect from the uncomfortable argument which so far has been neatly skirted:
as long as it's written down in a supposedly holy book that women are inferior, there will be some .. some poor people and some rich people .. who will read those words, believe them, and act on them. the bible and the koran and the rig vedas don't need wealthy businessmen to promote them. they can be read and interpreted literally by anyone who can read.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)that the rich people who fund governments in the west are funding 'democracy'. they aren't, they're funding capitalist oligarchy, same as the muslim brotherhood, saudi princelings etc are.
a different variety of capitalist oligarchy, but still oligarchy.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)you're talking right past the point because you have no response to it.
do you deny that the koran and the bible, when taken literally, advocate for patently immoral behavior by modern standards and that poor but literate people can read these books, take them literally, and then behave immorally by modern standards?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)things, even advocate things, which are immoral by modern/western standards. so what? so do all historical documents generally.
yes, people *can* read those things and take them literally, even in modern times. and they *can* guide their behavior by them.
but that doesn't mean they inevitably *will*, which is what you are claiming.
i'm claiming that's not inevitable, but a product of certain environments. one of the constituents of such environments might be when rich people fund fundamentalism & offer social rewards to its adherents and leaders. another constituent might be economic deprivation side by side with great wealth. another constituent might be when those possessing the wealth want to control those who don't politically and socially.
you are looking at the phenomenon as a pure ideological manifestation -- 'true believers' and all that. I don't.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..here's a link to a thread in 'religion' with an excerpt and link..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/121878678
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)thanks for keeping such an open mind to other points of view.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Judaism? Sure, absolutely.
Please, inform me about treatment of LGBTQ people than and now. I would love to learn how it changed throughout the ages.
pnwmom
(108,960 posts)Just on certain misogynistic, oppressive practices of some particular individuals and groups -- that other people here were defending.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I never knew bare boobs were patriarchy, but there you go.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)But, didn't you know? You're not allowed to criticize a culture and a religion where women are beaten and repressed. That would just be bigoted!
See, we have to turn the other way when the burqa's used to hide bruises. Otherwise, we're being Western imperialists, imposing our culture of human rights.
HOW DARE WE TELL THEM NOT TO TREAT WOMEN AS PROPERTY! WE MUST RESPECT THEIR MISOGYNISTIC CULTURE!
randome
(34,845 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Quantess
(27,630 posts)And that IS the viewpoint you will commonly find among Islamic cultures. The men allow the women to do some things.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)That doesn't mean they're not oppressed. They shouldn't even have to ask.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)males are the shepherds and females are the sheep. Younger brothers keep their older sisters in line. It's their job to control the females in the family. This is deeply ingrained in the culture.
I once read a medical article that was translated from arabic, about childbirth or maternity wards or something, I can't remember exactly. What I do remember is that the words "we allow women to..." several times in a rather defensive tone, apparently intended to convince the western world that they don't oppress women in Saudi Arabia.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..for merely suspecting that this was what happened..
..owe the rest of us a big round of apologies.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)those folks are going to refuse to apologize, because boobs.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)it's this great new ploy .. everyone's doing it these days!
if person A does something violent in the name of religion X, then by the redefinition of religion X as a non-violent religion, person A was never really a member of religion X to begin with.
confusing, i know..
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)sheesh. is nothing sacred?
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts).. in the original thread .. being such a 'bigot' for merely wondering if amina had been coerced.
unfortunately they took me off 'ignore' shortly after.. apparently this individual really gets a kick out of going around finding excuses to call atheists 'bigots'. i've even asked them to put me back on ignore twice now but to no avail..
now i really hope that individual hasn't gotten around to it so they can read this..
'you owe us an apology for calling us bigots. you owe femen an apology for taking amina's parents' side, and approving so wildly of their coercion of their daughter. and most of all.. you owe AMINA an apology for willfully disbelieving her original political statement 'fuck your morals' while gullibly believing her 180 degree about-face.'
until i hear an apology from these individuals, they are each on my shit list.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)So I'm gonna maximize the humiliation for them.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)what the hell? might as well join you.
let's relive some of the choicest moments shall we?
here's what brought the buckets of digital spittle down upon *my* head..
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022663197#post2
2. but there's no reason to suspect coercion, right?
i mean.. fundie muslim parents are notoriously even-handed an open-minded with their teen daughters..
..right?
you?
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)It's always only a matter of time before some dumbass takes it waaaaay too seriously, and uses it as license to beat up women, attack those not in his tribe, fly airplanes into buildings...
Fuck Islam. For that matter, Fuck Christianity, Fuck Judaism, fuck every other set of fairy tales involving asshole skydaddies that are used by narcissistic sociopaths to scare and control people.
Religion poisons everything.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)yes i hear this argument all the time on the 'Stephanie Miller Show', which i listen to, dare i say, religiously. i love steph and the mooks but they make the no true scotsman fallacy *every time* esp. john. it's the lamest cop-out ever, and serves purely to reassure the religious that indeed 'god is on our side'.
first there has to *be* a god before it can pick sides.
when privileged liberal western believers are the *first* to jump in and defend the rights of those oppressed in the name of religious dogma, instead of dragging their feet *every single time*, then their argument for moral superiority might hold some water.
until then.. someone's gotta keep pointing out the blatant hypocrisy. that's why Amina, FEMEN, and yes.. posts like yours backscatter, are going to continue to be news.
until 'Fuck Islam' is no longer offensive because nobody gets offended by it, not because nobody says it..
until 'Fuck Christianity' is no longer offensive because nobody *cares* that you wrote it, not because it was hidden so nobody had to see it (which BTW just encourages ppl to read it anyway)..
until the dude trying to KICK a peaceful protester pisses people off more than the topless woman who 'provoked' him or the photographer for capturing the moment..
until then yeh.. we might as well, 'fuck liberal religious privilege' to the list, too.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)There's no getting around this reality.
Any religion which assigns attributes of "god" only to males is a misogynist religion. It teaches an entire culture to view females as lesser beings.
It doesn't matter if you associate with "liberal" versions of this religion. If you hold a belief in a god that is only presented as male, you're engaging in misogyny, too, even if you claim you are a feminist.
Since there is no historical validity to the claims of the nature of god for any of these religions, women choose to reinforce misogyny by choosing to associate with those religions that present god as a male.
So, honestly, they have no business claiming they speak for feminism when they align with the most misogynist institutions in the history of the world.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..so so many must be feeling these days.. hasn't contributed to the complete atomization of the progressive movement in the last 20-30 years or so. it's damn hard to reconcile progressive values with any religion, abrahamic or otherwise. instead, we've seen the invention of whole new religions like wicca and neo-paganism to embody more modern ethics. 'abracadabra! dissonance resolved, and i can keep believing whatever made-up shit i want!'
RainDog
(28,784 posts)Before Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son (an act that should disgust anyone who isn't part of a homicidal cult), monotheism killed the divine feminine that was even part of the Abrahamic tradition.
Yahweh is a lesser god, a jealous, nasty and mean god and, honestly, it's astounding to know that people still endorse religions that engaged in ritual animal sacrifice - and, worse, that claim ritual human sacrifice as a divine action. That's the action of a sick, repulsive being - but, the reality is that it's the action of primitive, fearful humans.
Wicca and other pagan stuff has been around longer than the Abrahamic religions in one form or another, so they're not new. They may be revised for modern times, but they come out of traditions that are older than monotheism. And they were persecuted because they didn't kowtow to the nasty hateful monotheistic belief system.
I'm with you, as far as my inability to grasp how anyone can hold specific tenets about religious belief beyond Deism - b/c first causes are not determined - though, based upon any understanding of evolution, there is obviously no intelligent design to life on earth. But if someone thinks something "deistic" set reality in motion, I can only argue based upon the unlikely probability that some supernatural force would exist - and, based upon reality, it is obvious, if such a force does exist, it has no impact upon the day to day existence of life on earth based upon every scientific understanding of the present world.
However, when people will defend such myths, they indicate they don't give too many shits about reality and that includes the reality of the lives of women in this world who suffer because of religious superstition.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Let's keep this thread kicked for a while since we're not getting one.
BainsBane
(53,016 posts)No one act defines an entire people. To say this proves something nefarious about Islam makes as much sense as saying that someone robbing your local convenience store defines all of the Western world. You don't prove anything about Islam here, or religion in general.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Then why are entire nations no-go zones for women who don't want to cover themselves head to toe?
Yes, there are moderate cool Muslims, but there's a huge amount of fundie insanity that is tolerated in the Muslim world. Little girls should have to worry about having their brains blown out or having acid thrown in their faces for the crime of going to school.
BainsBane
(53,016 posts)and a horrific violations of human rights. There is no question about that. And I stand with you in being outraged about violence at amazingly brave girls like Malala Yousafzai in Pakistan. But that is not the case in every Muslim country and it does not describe Islam as a whole. I suggest you consider condemning the act rather than the religion or the people. Remember that the women like Amin and Malala that you are concerned about are also Muslim. If you cannot respect them, are you really helping?
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)why is it more wrong to protest the oppression of whole classes of people based on religious dogma, than it is to oppress whole classes of people based on religious dogma?
who gets to decide where the lines are between tradition, fundamentalism, and human rights abuse lie?
you would have us let the foxes guarded the hen house.
BainsBane
(53,016 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 27, 2013, 06:16 PM - Edit history (2)
The same reason I don't use my cell phone or other electronics when I attend shabbat dinner at the home of an Orthodox Jewish friend, or that I don't bust in and sit among the men at temple. They have invited me into their community and I respect their customs.
Foxes guarding the hen house is a good point, and you identify the principal Fox--the US military. Do you know how high rape is in the US military? Yet you focus on the fact they veil in Saudi Arabia? What exactly disturbs you about their veiling? That Americans don't get to determine how everyone dresses across the world? That these might not satisfy the male gaze for a short while? So you're worried that they veil while out in public in Saudi Arabia, not that half of them are raped by fellow American soldiers?
Islam is a religion that like all, is multi-dimensional. It has a 1700 year old history with an array of different interpretations of the Quran. The difference is you take one thing you hear in the news and think that substitutes for knowledge. It isn't. All Muslim women do not veil, and some actually choose to do so. Women in Iran under the Shah had veils torn from their faces by the police, who agreed with you that the only acceptable role for women was to emulate Western dress. Muslim women and girls in France are forbidden from veiling in a variety of places, including schools.
I submit that when it comes to women's rights, those women themselves get to decide. Who doesn't get to decide is someone who can't be bothered to educate himself on the differences between Islam and Islamicism or Salafism. Who doesn't get to decide is a bunch of Westerners who pay tax dollars for drones that drop bombs on the Muslim women they claim to care about in places like Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Yemen. How can you possibly claim to care about the human rights of women abroad if you don't even respect them? They do not target Islam as the object of their oppression. They are far more likely to name the US, you and me as their oppressors than Islam itself.
Is it really so hard to focus on particular acts against individuals or particular practices rather than condemning an entire religion and billions of people around the world? That really only depends on if your concern here is Amina or women in Algeria or if your goal is to instead denounce Islam.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)i submit that yes women get to decide where the line is for them.
as amina did. as femen does.
to have a western privileged believer dictate the terms of the debate is as unacceptable to me as it was to amina.
do you condone what her parents did?
BainsBane
(53,016 posts)And I suggest you try to actually read my words. You can hardly judge a coherent argument when you don't bother to read it.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..and already formulated my response, with which i remain content.
..
still waiting for that apology, however.
BainsBane
(53,016 posts)Not hating 2 billion people on this planet because they practice Islam?
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)..that's *what*.
BainsBane
(53,016 posts)If I called anyone a bigot, it is because they condemn all of Islam and Muslims. That is the definition of bigotry. I never claimed to know the circumstances of Amina's life, not once. Your willful misreading of my posts does provide insight into why you have so much trouble distinguishing an act or practice of oppression from an entire people and religious tradition.
I have nothing to apologize to you for.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)i should not challenge your ignorance? i should accept your word as law because you cast yourself as more enlightened than i? well i do not so accept your portrayal. in fact i resent it greatly and until you apologize, i suggest you realize that you have made an enemy.
you are wrong about me. you called me a bigot and i am not. i am an atheist and i will speak my mind. you don't like it and you try to broadbrush every atheist as a 'bigot' for one simple reason, as near as i can tell, based on your previous posts..
..and that is this..
*you* are the one engaging in *anti-atheist* bigotry.
BainsBane
(53,016 posts)When? Where?
BainsBane
(53,016 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 29, 2013, 03:05 AM - Edit history (1)
Is my saying I think it's the same as any other belief system. You call me bigoted because I refuse to recognize atheism is superior?
RainDog
(28,784 posts)what are the mental constructions that make atheism a belief system akin to religion?
Since you want to make this claim, how can you back it up?
BainsBane
(53,016 posts)My point of difference is with those who proclaim themselves superior because of their belief or disbelief. I'm not going to critique atheism because I could care less what anyone believes. What bothers me is Americans and Europeans who look down on the rest of the world with no awareness of their own role in global oppression.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)You were simply making a statement that you can't back up and trying to pass it off as valid.
BainsBane
(53,016 posts)I made at all. I never characterized the nature of atheist belief.
You seem to have taken exception to the suggestion that atheists might not be superior to the rest of humanity simply because they don't believe in God. I, on the other hand, don't care what people think or don't believe about God. It's really that simple.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)That atheism is a belief system. People can be atheist and believe fairies create circles on the forests, etc. etc. There is no dogma and no belief system to atheism other than a statement that someone does not think a god or gods exist. No one makes a profession of belief to an organization and no one is required to note if a person decides, on one way that they don't know if some god in whatever abstraction might exist or whether that abstraction is not something that makes sense to them. Someone can be an atheist and reject science. Someone can be an atheist and be ethical or not, because atheism does not have a set of ethical principles - it is merely a statement about whether or not supernatural agency is part of reality according to that person's understanding.
What the person here has responded to is codified religions and rejects all of them.
Theists are partial atheists - they don't believe other descriptions of god are deities, or truth, while they believe their own description is reality.
You, instead, focus on Islam and say this person's objection to Islam is bigotry. You have made this claim against others, as well. You think you have to label them as bigots if they reject belief systems. You think you have the need to school them but you don't -because what you object to is someone stating an opinion about belief. Yet, you say you don't care. This makes no sense since you spend so much time here calling others bigots based upon your assumptions about them.
I can't and don't speak for this person, but I can read and what has been said is that the texts that create the dogma of variations of religious beliefs demonstrate the lack of wisdom in those beliefs - by quoting from those beliefs' own texts to indicate how limited the beliefs are, how bounded by human error and historical era those beliefs are - which would, for anyone who would look at this outside of the culture of this or that belief, indicate the lack of greater wisdom, otherworldly understanding, etc. - iow, the texts of the religions demonstrate the falsity of the claims of some sort of revealed knowledge.
...Unless someone accepts that human progress is against the workings of the god that was created at the time the texts were created - which is why someone said fundamentalists have more of an argument for holding a belief. Yet even those believers pick and choose which parts of a regressive religious system they want to follow and which may be discarded. Funny how fundamentalism always chooses to maintain those beliefs that discriminate against "others" while allowing themselves to discard beliefs that contribute to their own ease or happiness or convenience.
But this truth about beliefs would indicate the beliefs are historical relics, not wisdom from some omnipotent mind, because an omnipotent mind would not, oh so conveniently, mimic the misogyny or xenophobia, etc. etc. of those times in which they were constructed, would not be entirely false regarding things that are now considered givens about the nature of the world in which we live - unless the sciences are false - and, in regard to the way in which humans exist in this world - the sciences are what make the world understandable in ways that create human progress by creating a frame that does not require "revealed truth" as the standard for one person's treatment of another. But science isn't atheism or a belief system. It is a way of examining the physical world and verifying whether or not statements made about it correlate to observed reality.
If you don't care what people think or believe about god, you wouldn't be on this board constantly accusing people of bigotry.
So, while you may claim that's your position, your actions indicate that you think you should serve as hall monitor to allow the continuation of religious superstition without comment from others.
This board does not have a policy that right wing thought and beliefs are protected simply because many people hold on to those beliefs.
You try to frame this as bigotry as a way to censor others.
BainsBane
(53,016 posts)It is invoking religion as a justification for Islamophobia. They attribute a single act to all of Islam. They imagine, based on very little information, that all of Islam is a certain way based on what they see on cable TV. They know nothing about the history or current state of the Muslim world and work hard to make sure they learn nothing. You may find such views acceptable, which is entirely your problem. I do not view people of different ethnicities or religions as inferior to myself, nor do I deny their right to practice a religion. When I see stereotyping and scapegoating, I will speak up. To fail to do so would be to sanction prejudice and cultural imperialism. Such ideas are a product of an ideology promoted in this country to justify endless war in Muslim countries. I find it repulsive on every level, whether it comes from the neocons or those who are simply influenced by the neocons. The neocons use democracy as their justification for imperialism; some here use religion, or antipathy toward religion.
It's one thing to object to rolling back particular rights in Tunisia, like abortion rights or women's education, and quite another to use that as an excuse to spread hatred of other peoples. I'm all for denouncing mistreatment and abuse abroad. What galls me is taking that as an excuse to denounce an entire people. I have yet to have anyone explain to me how they think they are doing Muslim women any good when they don't even respect a core aspect of their identity, which is both religious and ethnic. It appears to me that some here care far less about conditions faced by women in the world, including the Muslim world, than in denouncing Muslims as inferior because of their faith.
Our country is responsible for the worst sorts of human rights abuses in many Muslim countries, and no on here seems to care at all about that. Instead they wag their First World fingers at other cultures that have the audacity to pray differently from them. It takes a lot of nerve for people from a country that has killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims to imagine that Islam, more than their own government, is the source of oppression in the Muslim world. You resent that I point out historical conditions that contradict the idea that Islam is inherently evil. You want to pretend that British/Euroopean colonialism and US backed dictatorships had nothing to do with the rise of Islamaist fundamentalism. Less information never furthers understanding, but it does enable people to cling to simplistic views of the world. Education is a choice. There is plenty available for people to read about the rise of radicalism in the Muslim world and how Islam has been practiced in the past. You get pissed off that I point some of that out. Too bad. I have no illusions that most people here want to learn anything that challenges their culturally imperialistic world view. Their privilege vs. the rest of the world depends on massive exploitation and oppression abroad. That they consider that privilege natural is evidenced by the fact they refuse to interrogate it while turning their noses up at the benighted folk of the Global South.
So if you feel a need to proclaim yourself superior to the 90% of the world's population who engage in "religious superstition" that is entirely your problem. I see no evidence to justify that sense of superiority.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)What sort of ass assumes that people on DU receive their information from tv news - and then goes on to assign attributes to them based upon this erroneous assumption?
You, apparently. You invent a straw man and attack that, rather than read what someone is saying about religion, and particular Abrahamic religions, in regard to the position of women around the world - and that includes the U.S.
You're obnoxious in your claims against others that have no basis in others' statements. I have no tv, for instance. I don't know about others here, since I don't have your crystal ball of bullshit to make such a claim.
You do this again with the lie "so if you feel the need to proclaim yourself superior." You are dishonest to the core. That was NEVER said by me concerning this issue, and others are saying they find religious statement abhorrent. YOU ARE THE ONE creating this bullshit argument about superiority.
And, if you have ever read studies about fundamentalism as a cultural phenomena, you would know that it is a reactionary movement to change - and it doesn't matter if that change is imposed by those outside of a nation or within it, as American fundamentalists demonstrate.
You use opposition to revealed religion to make a claim about imperialism that is limiting, rather than looking at fundamentalism itself, while others here don't limit the issue to one religion's fundamentalism.
You assume others here have no knowledge of the history of Islam - and, again, indicate what an obnoxious pov you bring to DU in your claims that you and only you are the true representative of women who live in Muslim cultures.
Your problem is all the unwarranted assumptions you are making based upon your own lack of knowledge about others.
Get over yourself.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)idwiyo
(5,113 posts)How about you stay on topic instead of trying to derail this conversation by any means possible.
If you are so concerned about rapes in US military, do start another OP and I would be more than happy to discuss it.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)true believers can never admit they are wrong. remove one brick from the crumbling facade that is their faith, and the whole thing will come crashing down on them.
instead.. they turn and snarl and attack.
octothorpe
(962 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts) octothorpe
(962 posts)backscatter712
(26,355 posts)octothorpe
(962 posts)I've always wanted to be a ninja.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts).. and yeh the might come in handy.. there's some supposedly progressive believers on this site who would be more likely to buy that explanation than that her muslim parents would coerce their daughter. after all, we all know how enlightened muslim parents are toward their daughters.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)with their boobies just *there* for *anybody to see*!?!
what will the militant islamists think? don't want to hurt their religious sensibilities. they might form an offended mob and try to kill her. won't happen you say? *can happen* i say, and has for less.. to cartoons lars vilks. in europe. all a few zealots need is the fatwa.. the *excuse*.. and any old fatwa will do, for some..
backscatter712
(26,355 posts) 
Raine1967
(11,589 posts)Thank you stevenleser.
I'm still amazed at this particular chapter of DU history.
polly7
(20,582 posts)RainDog
(28,784 posts)I thought it was unbelievable that so-called "feminists" on this board were attacking this woman for her actions and siding with misogynists simply because of the type of protest in which she engaged. If your "feminism" is consistently aligned with censorship and right-wing religion, your feminism isn't feminism.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)and that makes it true and accurate. Really? What else is she going to say to them.
This young woman seems very adept at creating quite a maelstrom for herself. What seems to be the most consistent thing is that she is playing both sides against the middle. No doubt she wants independence for herself and is seeking a way out of her current life, but she knowingly chose a tough road for herself. It's as if she wanted to create an insurmountable wedge for herself to return to her previous existence. She says what each group wants to hear.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)here's the thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2663197
Here's a translation of what she said that indicates the OP was twisting her words. She wasn't saying what each group wants to hear. Her words were misquoted and she was denied outside contact to verify things she had heard that were done in her name.
Don't try to spin this as some unreliable female. She was told things that were not true. However, she indicated her support for FEMEN the entire time.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/subject-of-femens-topless-jihad-questions-the-groups-tactics/274790/
polly7
(20,582 posts)matters here ......... because it's STILL all about naked breasts and how these FEMEN women are reinforcing the PATRIARCHY just by giving the menzzzz something to leer about and so have diminished all other women everywhere, especially femenists here who've spent so much time educating us rubes on the dangers of exposing breasts for horny men everywhere. Amina's message was never actually a consideration in all of those mega threads, neither was the issue of Islam and oppression. It's the patriarchy. 
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)Not *THE* patriarchy. It's about *Western* patriarchy and the horrible oppressiveness of our own sexuality- women's choices are oppressive, patriarchal and generally horrid. Islamic patriarchy is verboten for discussion and indeed, from reading some of the posts, seems not to exist at all.
polly7
(20,582 posts)It was a real eye-opener to see how Islamic patriarchy is given a pass, considering how vehement they are about it here.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)is that since it promotes "modesty" and discourages women from sexual activity (very strictly discourages, in fact), it's exempt from criticism. Because how you dress and how much skin you show doing it is such a huge factor in your value as a person to society, right? That's feminist! Right?? Not patriarchal at all!
Islam honors women! Showing breasts, now, that's oppressive!
I have to wonder sometimes if people ever read their own writing.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)Those who tend to flock together on these issues seem to share bourgeois views while claiming they're radfem - which is a joke.
when this issue was revisited here, I followed links from links I posted below and when anyone said FEMEN is effective in bringing attention, whether someone likes their tactics or not - some people were simply in denial that this is reality.
(that includes the person on this thread who seems to know this group is really an iteration of Austin Powers' femme bot fatales.)
In another thread, when I was asking about the social constructions of sexism, someone was quoting a bible verse to correct me when I explained that simply hating on men isn't a sufficient explanation for social structures - tho, apparently, this person and others think this is a perfectly reasonable position. Which is pretty astonishing in its stupidity, but there you are.
And het men like to look at boobs. impudicam ergo odérunt
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Let me give you the opportunity to rethink that one. If you still think what you wrote to me makes sense, I'll address it.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)That seems de rigueur for teenagers everywhere, some being more extreme about it than others. Most teenagers reject their parents "morals" on many levels and carve out a life of their own, Muslim or otherwise.
And no, I'm not saying that Amina is a silly female as someone posted that I was trying to imply. Not at all. She is very brave. I just think she comes across as conflicted and maybe manipulative of the situation and she is using both sides for her agenda, whatever that may be. I didn't actually say that FEMEN was coercive. I was saying that Amina seems to be playing both sides for her advantage at the moment. She does seem committed to striking out on her own and is willing to burn bridges to do it. It just seems she's not the best example to use regarding true feminism for either side (whatever "side" means in this situation...feminists vs. Muslims?).
I'll look at the links someone posted. Thanks.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)and you want me to believe that you are not trying to smear Amina as a silly young female?
Keep digging.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)Talk about silly. You extract 11 words out of what I wrote and you think I should take you seriously?
As far as I see, I don't think anyone owes an apology for not buying into FEMEN's propaganda or this video. If this is posted as some kind of "proof" of anything, it's really kind of trivial (at best).
It's still on video that Amina has said what each "side" wants to hear when she is speaking to them. That was my main point.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)R B Garr
(16,950 posts)It's just about personal attacks, and I guess they had their fill.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)No one else to blame but yourself.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)Your arguments, I mean. You reek of desperation and FAIL.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)What a joke
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Last edited Mon Apr 29, 2013, 04:16 AM - Edit history (1)
Quantess
(27,630 posts)Is it the bared boobs? Is it the bold words such as "FUCK YOUR MORALS", etc? Is it because you don't appreciate Islam being criticised, or you don't appreciate middle eastern cultures being criticised, or...or what?
Can you just spell it out for us, please?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)On the one hand, they are trying to claim that Amina is saying what anyone wants to hear. But every once in a while, their true motive comes out and that is that they are anti-Femen. And why would anyone be anti-Femen in particular. Why would anyone single them out among feminist groups?
It's the boobs.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)this also explains the backlash against anyone who is not cisgender.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2628557
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2616415
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2617310
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2663197
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)obviously. Doesn't she know there are moderate Muslims out there that use terrible logic and cherry-picking, not to mention reams of intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance, to fit their religious text with modern morality and ideas? This makes all of her criticism of Islam bigoted, hate-filled neo-imperalist propaganda.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)tiny dancers on the head of a pin religious apologists... that doesn't quite scan as well as the originals, does it?
...that was a mash up of St. Elton and Sir Thomas (does a bear shit in paradise?) Aquinas
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Those people really ought to be ashamed in light of this revelation.
Not naming names obviously.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)One of them is masochistic enough to make an appearance in this thread...
randome
(34,845 posts)They want to drag all of us into arguing about the tiniest detail about this woman.
When the ONLY thing that matters is that she is standing up for what she thinks is right. That should ALWAYS be applauded and the conversation should end there.
BainsBane
(53,016 posts)Provide proof for your allegations. I never had a negative thing to say against this woman. My problem is with people that use her as an excuse to voice their hatred of Islam and much of the world's population. Some here seem to hate just about everyone on the planet, including Amina, because they practice a religion of some kind. It truly is extraordinary.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)to protest against Islamic extremism, etc, etc.
Or did I read you wrong?
Kurska
(5,739 posts)
My friend, Meta is long gone and I'd prefer it stay that way.
I also refuse to engage in displays of public shaming, again unlike some other members of this board.
People who I am talking about know who they are.
BainsBane
(53,016 posts)are how you prefer to go. Gotcha.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)
Meta was terrible for a reason, I know some people miss it, but call outs are dumb.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Because as you point out, this is not Meta (as it no longer exists). Callouts are generally hidden by juries in groups and forums whose name is not Meta.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Never mind BOOBIES! In PUBLIC! And COLONIALISM!!!!
Did I mention that FEMEN is sponsored by Jewish millionaires and bankers, MOSAD, German and American capitalists, CIA, various American organisations who are on payroll by neo-cons, Russian secret services FSB, various mega rich people not affiliated with the above, porn industry, aliens, and fuck knows whom else.
I wish I was joking, but I am not. Just do the Google search and you will see all those accusations.
Jewish connection is most prevalent in Russia, Ukraine and Belorussia. Though they don't shy away too much from accusations of German and some American sponsors. Its seriously vomit inducing.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)
kwassa
(23,340 posts)I found it extremely difficult to hear and to understand what she was saying. I thought she was also having trouble expressing herself in her limited English, and the bias of the Femen interviewer trying to get her to make certain points was annoying.
What I didn't hear was that her parents were involved in this process. Cousins, uncle, yes, but not her parents.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)It was all done without their approval?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)We knew they were going to try to use some crazy spin. They couldn't just simply admit they were wrong.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Talk about hypocrisy...
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)Thank you for posting it!
kwassa
(23,340 posts)Spell it out.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)kwassa
(23,340 posts)idwiyo
(5,113 posts)BainsBane
(53,016 posts)As long as you ignore rape and murder statistics in non-Muslim countries like the US, and ignore stuff like this:
http://www.examiner.com/article/christian-misogyny-megachurch-pastor-tells-women-they-must-submit
"Women are “quarrelsome nags,” and must “submit” to their husbands, according to Mars Hill Church Pastor Mark Drucill. In a sermon dripping with Christian misogyny, Driscoll told his flock that God wants women to submit to their husbands, and that being married to a woman is like torture, a life sentence.
Driscoll, leader of the Seattle based megachurch, found support for his overt misogyny in the Bible, basing his sermon in part on the text found in Ephesians 5:22-33, which says wives should "submit" to their husbands. Driscoll also used the book of Proverbs to fuel his misogynistic rant.
The following is an excerpt from Driscoll’s sermon:
And some women – you're a nag. You're disrespectful. You're quarrelsome. Being married to you is like a life sentence, and the guy's just scratching on his wall every day, 'One more day. Just one more day.'
Proverbs talks about certain women – they're like a dripping faucet. You ever tried to sleep with a dripping faucet? Plunk, plunk, plunk, plunk, plunk. It's what we use to torture people who are prisoners of war. A wife is like that."
Then you can always read about the misogyny in the US mocked here: http://manboobz.com/
randome
(34,845 posts)Calling women 'quarrelsome' is not even close to advocating their deaths for disputing the men in their lives.
BainsBane
(53,016 posts)Killing women is close. And women in the US are killed at 5 x the rate than in in Tunisia.
randome
(34,845 posts)No matter how 'mega' the megachurch, Drucill won't have devoted followers to that extent.
Total comparable deaths is not the issue to me. Comparable deaths because of religious underpinnings is the difference, IMO.
BainsBane
(53,016 posts)Dead is dead, regardless of the justification or reason. I thought the point was abuse of women. Evidently it isn't. Obviously I could tell that wasn't the concern based on a number of posts in this thread, but it's good to have confirmation. The problem is not that some kill or abuse women; it's their religion. Just so we have that clear.
randome
(34,845 posts)Same as I will be bigoted against the next American cult that surfaces that engages in impregnating teenagers, multiple wives and virtually enslaving its members.
That includes the Catholic Church.
BainsBane
(53,016 posts)who kill while invoking a secular justification. 
I myself am more concerned with human rights than the particular ideology or excuse someone invokes to justify murder or abuse.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)And not just of women. Same with different governments, other religions, philosophies, etc.
I call out rw fundies quite a bit and consider myself a non-denominational Christian.
I respect my sister's choice to be a fundie but saw for years how the church used their influence in a negative way, she finally started to go to a less 'legalistic' church (she used to wear head scarves to church, women keep silent sort of thing, etc). I don't think she was fully aware of other views and interpretations of things but that changed over time.
Calling out a mainstream religion in one particular area of the world I don't have a problem with either. Even if it pisses off some of those people it gets out information and awareness that there are other choices.
I posted something about pat robertson the other day on FB and my one jumped right in and told me basically it was left wing christian hating drivel and why did I hate christians, etc. Explained to him that in my view there were a lot better representations of the faith out there and he was bilking people out of money and nothing wrong with bringing that to light.
I don't want to remove peoples' choices of faith and such, but I don't think calling them out on it is all that bad really. Educate, explain, complain, compare and contrast, make people aware of broader things - and you can still respect their choices at the end of the day - especially by not trying to codify choices you prefer in forced actions/laws.
We were told men would not have cared about this whole protest thing if it didn't have boobs in it. But it seems the ones most distracted by that were the ones complaining about it so loudly. I see many men complaining about the crap that goes on in the middle east when it comes to how people are treated, from Iran hanging gay people to women being stoned to death for being raped. But no, the only reason we paid attention was a half naked woman.....
Islam has serious problems right now in some countries where the hard liners run things and women there don't have a fighting chance. Instead of applauding someone who shed a lot on that through her tactics she got vilified.
And just because we have problems too does not mean we can't bring to light problems elsewhere.
BainsBane
(53,016 posts)until you had to go back to your straw man arguments. 
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Have you so soon forgotten that beating and oppressing women is acceptable, even admirable, when it is quasi-sanctioned by organized religion?
The all wise and knowing Ipapasapa of the Sacred Order the Not Even Really Sisters of Perpetual Bullshit is obviously not pleased with your OP; I'm sure it would have alerted on you already if had not already used up its allotment of alerts.
Perhaps the Novitiate of Socks is heeding the call, and alerting on this post as you read it.
Freeper trolls, corporate trolls, Third way trolls, gun trolls sexist trolls, homophobic trolls, and now we have the Holy Trollers
Are there any other conservative groups left, that you can think of, that will be sending their pied pipers to DU for a shot at influencing the lovable but gullible and naive among us?
Flat Earth Society trolls maybe?
The DU Direct Line Personals:
Living, loving, friendly, playful but very lonely Universe who no one understands seeking direct, real connection with serious, loving human beings interested in growth.
Religion and book worshipers need not apply.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I didn't cause the folks who are upset to be upset. They are upset because they intentionally bought into statements by Amina obviously made under duress, attacked anyone who pointed out what was obvious and now they feel foolish and rightfully so. But they thoroughly earned and deserve feeling foolish.
The above doesnt even account for folks who self proclaim to be feminist but attack a feminist group because of the way they express their feminism. Egads, boobs!
Breasts, which all mammals of both sexes have, we can't be showing those, at least not if we are female, because a man might be turned on and that invalidates the protest and makes the protesters stupid. That's what the message is from some self-proclaimed feminists here.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)this thread.
I see only one of the original gang behind all the boobie outrage.
The rest seem not to be able to show their faces.
Conspicuous in their absence, they are -as Yoda might opine.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)And it would take actual courage to own up to one's mistakes.
