This Is What Saudi Arabia's First PSA For Violence Against Women Looks Like

[The Straight Story]

This Is What Saudi Arabia's First PSA For Violence Against Women Looks Like

Saudi Arabia is getting its first ever PSA about domestic violence.

While women still aren't allowed to drive in the country and must be under male guardianship, the powerful ad, made by the King Khalid Foundation (KKF), marks an important step in Saudi women's rights.

The poster shows a woman in a burqa that exposes her black eye. "Some things cant be covered," the text reads. "Fighting women's abuse together."

According to KKF's "No More Abuse" website, "The phenomenon of battered women in Saudi Arabia is much greater than is apparent on the surface. It is a phenomenon found in the dark." KKF hopes to bring the abuse to light.

Memac Ogilvy, Riyadh created the campaign:



http://www.businessinsider.com/saudi-arabias-first-psa-for-violence-against-women-2013-4

[kysrsoze]

1. Yeah, but her fucking head still can. Sheesh, what bad taste!

The whole situation is so offensive. How about the abuse of having to wear a big black blanket over your head in the middle of a giant desert and the consequences of not wearing one. If women there had any real rights and weren't considered property, they wouldnt have to wear one.

Apparently everything else is alright. Fuck the Saudis.

[get the red out]

4. +1

Thank you.

Saudi Arabia is simply offensive in its treatment of women. FUCK THE SAUDIS.

[Matariki]

9. yep. I find that ad pretty offensive too.

"some things can't be covered". Assholes.

[arely staircase]

13. i know, the twisted irony here is amazing

nt

[BainsBane]

21. right, because a veil is so much worse

than having the crap beat out of you by your husband.

[Bonobo]

29. An elegant illustration of a false dichotomy. nt

[BainsBane]

31. FYI

Someone just brought an interesting essay to my attention: http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/04/29/3747543.htm

[Bonobo]

32. Some people will defend their religion to the end.

It isn't just Islam. Religion is a very powerful psychological tool and even those who are victimized by their religion will continue to defend it until they realize that it is inseparable from the effects that it is employed in order to establish.

An orthodox Jewish woman who must wear a wig, is not allowed to even shake hands with a man and must cover up to avoid tempting men is in a similar situation. And she, having grown up in that strong, tight community is quite likely to defend it to the end against critics from the outside. That is how insular in-group mechanics work.

Will I see you defend that kind of restrictive practice in the same way I see you defend the restrictions in some Islamic cultures?

In India, until relatively recently, woman would be burned besides their husbands at their funeral pyres. When Britain (those colonialists) took over, they stamped out that practice. Would you have defended it claiming that Britain was treating the women of India as infantiles unable to decide their own fate?

[BainsBane]

34. Yikes

You so miss the point. I don't think you read the article at all. You didn't have time to. If you had, you wouldn't have gone to the same old thing you say every single time.
I don't defend any sexist practices. Nor do I tell other cultures what should matter to them. Your view seems to be that the entire world needs America to sort them out. Well the neocons tried that, and we're still at it militarily. No, I don't sanction any imperialism, whether military or cultural--particularly since the two reinforce each other. I guess I'm a radical, but I think it's really none of my business what somebody else wears. Now I suggest you actually read the article instead of invoking your tired straw man argument.

[Bonobo]

36. I read it. nt

[Bonobo]

37. You would have left Indian women burning on funeral pyres. Gotcha. nt

[BainsBane]

40. We've been through this example before

and discussed it in great detail. Your memory fails you.

Funny how the only kind of sexism you acknowledge is outside the US. If we discuss rape, it's an attack on you personally and men in general. Women in this country need to keep their mouths shut because it hurts your feelings, whereas women in the Global South don't have a right to determine what issues concern them. I see a commonality here: regardless of where they speak, you refuse to concede women have a right to identify what they see as oppressive. Only you can do that.

[Bonobo]

42. It's really hopeless.

You simply have your fingers in your ears once you have determined that the person speaking is part of the oppression Patriarchy.

You do not see commonality between the example I gave of women being thrown on funeral pyres and stubbornly continue to insist that only indigenous people -despite how victimized they may be - can make a determination as to the state of their oppression.

In other words, you have a dick, so shut up.

[BainsBane]

44. Actually after countless conversations

Where you consistently refuse to consider my views or those of feminists abroad, it's clear to me that you just don't care. You don't engage with any points raised in this article or most any article you respond to. They always seem to provide an opportunity for you to express what you already think. If you had bothered to comprehend the article, you would have read the author's outrage at religiously justified domination of women. Instead you launch into an old script we've already discussed, yet you were so little concerned with my thoughts on that example you gave you can't bother to recall or search for our prior conversation. You want to make it all about your genitals, which don't interest me in the slightest. It's really about your mind. So you're right that it is pointless because again and again you've made clear than views advanced by any feminist are not worth considering. You continually assert that we are wrong. If we mention rape, we are trying to impose guilt on all men (why you think rape is a condemnation of all men, I couldn't begin to understand, but you voice the concern frequently.) When Muslim feminists talk about their concerns, you summarily dismiss them and don't bother to allow their views to enter your consciousness and instead launch into monologue about what you imagine she might have said. The bottom line is you don't appear to care about ideas advanced by others. You did the same thing with the Chechen article, so it may not be limited to women's issues.


Your continual reference to the Indian example only highlights how little you pay attention to my views. I already told you we discussed this previously. While no one's memory is perfect, the reasoned approach would be to search for that past conversation rather than advertising how little you care about my views on that or, it seems, anything else. Not content with simple apathy, you accuse me of supporting something I have already made clear I do not. But my views are obviously inconsequential to you, just as are Randa Abdel-Fattah's.

[Bonobo]

45. That sounded like mainsplaining to me.

Also, stop telling me what you THINK I think.

[BainsBane]

123. What I told you

Is my perception, as inconsequential as you might find it.

[snooper2]

55. Where would you want your daughter to grow up, St. Louis or Riyadh?

[BainsBane]

64. What does that have to do with this discussion in any way?

The issue is whether to respect the views of women abroad or to treat them with imperialist scorn. The issue is whether we as Americans have enough decency to treat peoples around the world with basic humanity. The results of our foreign policy, appalling disregard for human life, and the arrogance displayed by American citizens demonstrates that we do not. The notion of respecting rights to self determination is met with ridicule here. Americans believe themselves fit to remake the world in their own image. So we sanction war, occupy Muslim holy lands, and commit murder in the name of "freedom." So would I prefer my daughter live a life of First World privilege or neocolonial exploitation? Naturally I would want the best possible life for her. But that does not mean I refuse to recognize the nature of my privilege, that I am able to fill my gas tank with fuel acquired through the deaths of hundreds of thousand of Muslims. The results of empire is the rest of the world lives under our dominion. Fundamentalist Islamist extremism has arisen because of a century of European colonialism, US imperialism, and our propping up authoritarian regimes. The Arab Spring overthrew the chains of that political oppression, and fundamentalist radicalism has emerged from the ashes. And then people here with no sense of responsibility to learn about the implications of their own nation's policy abroad have the nerve to look down on cultures resulting from political forces creates by our foreign policy. Our comfort is the direct result of misery and oppression abroad. And to them turn around and treat them with scorn, refusing to even listen to their concerns, is the height of imperial arrogance.

It is similar as to when early 20th-century white Americans, self-satisfied after taking the continental US from Native Americans, looked upon native peoples with scorn because of the poverty their children were compelled to live under. That then justified taking those children away form native communities and placing them in white homes. We created conditions of mass exploitation, and then hold that exploitation against people we judge as inferior. That is precisely what people here are doing toward Muslim women.

Another parallel might be asking if someone would prefer their daughter live in the home of a Fortunate 500 CEO or with a family whose jobs had been outsourced to China, with no way to provide good nutrition, medical care, and education. Anyone would choose the best for their child, but that doesn't mean the unemployed worker's family is inferior because the corporate raider gutted local industry and removed any possibility of decent employment.

[snooper2]

66. America is not responsible for all the World's ills

I protested the war in Iraq in the streets of downtown Dallas so don't think I have some kind of imperialist attitude...

Yes our country has propped up evil regimes in the region, but that's not the whole picture. I'm for equal rights for everyone everywhere. As long as fundies are in control in parts of the World women will be oppressed.

Here's the video I've posted before, fundies and their religion are the problem. It's my right to look down with scorn at a culture where it's okay for 64 year old men to wed 12 year old girls.

[BainsBane]

116. America is responsible for war in Iraq, Afghanistan,

and drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and other undisclosed sites. We did prop up secularist dictatorships in Iran, Egypt, Iraq, and many other countries in the region. I protested the war too, but our tax dollars go to kill Muslims around the world. Those are facts. No, we are not responsible for all the ills in the world, but US foreign policy has caused a great deal of havoc and loss of life.

I believe it important to interrogate our first world attitudes that are a product of empire. I'm glad you're interested in the voice of the woman in the video. I hope you consider some other voices as well.

[snooper2]

164. The OP is ultimately about misogyny in Saudi Arabia

I don't know why you seem to give that part of the World a pass. You state we should look at our American hegemony, be aware of cultural values and not thumb nose because people don't have our western ways.

Got it...

And sure, a number of muslim women probably like to wear the veil, even enjoy the patriarchy within their family structure. (As some christian women do famous family being the Druggers.) But the fact is if you are a woman in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan you are essentially screwed. Women in those countries are treated like chattel. But again that doesn't appear to be an issue with you

[BainsBane]

168. right

That's the take away from that post. I don't care one bit about women's rights. Suggesting you consider the role of US foreign policy in the region or listen to Muslim feminists is obviously far too offensive for you to possibly consider. The women of the world are so fortunate to you have you as their champion.


FYI, Saudi Arabia has long been supported by the US. It is among the oppressive governments we support. Those are your tax dollars in action.

[ronnie624]

153. Excellent post. n/t

[snooper2]

171. most excellent!

[RainDog]

38. same old shit, I see

Ultimately, I do not see Islam as the problem; I see it as the platform for change. I believe in gender equality - including the rights of Muslim women to dress as they please - because, as a Muslim feminist, I value agency, choice and autonomy. Moreover, I have deep conviction that these values are integral to the Islamic tradition, and are not simply ideals imported from the West.

But I also value integrity and truth, which is why I, along with many others, are not afraid to say that the Islamic justifications offered by those men who view women as inferior, or who construct their relationships with women in terms that define them as sexual temptresses, are based on corrupted interpretations of Islam which place religion at the service of men's cupidity.

What is needed is a kind of radical surgery in Muslim countries in order to remove the festering, diseased pustule of patriarchy that attempts to define one half of society as walking sex organs. We need to ask why, if the hijab is supposedly a shield against harassment or sexual objectification - a claim I find highly problematic - are so many covered women in the Middle East groped, harassed, fondled and ogled in public. Why do I feel safer walking the streets of Sydney than I do the streets of Amman or Cairo?

The reality is that, until women tell these religions to go fuck themselves, they will deal with the sexism that is THE VERY HEART of the beliefs about women in them - in the words of the prophet himself, in the words of Paul, in the orthodox Jewish prayer that says "thank you, god, that I was not born a woman."

A friend of mine worked on bringing the issue of female genital circumcision to the attention of the world. People like you would be calling her an imperialist, tho she was working with other women in Africa, because she didn't acknowledge the value of misogyny in ANY culture.

And, honestly, you should stop trying to pretend people here are in line with neo-cons. You must not have been on DU when Bush was in office or you would be aware of just how off base your attempts to smear others here are. It's ludicrous, really, to make such a claim. Yet it's like a mantra for you.

Because you don't have a valid argument to make, I suppose.

[BainsBane]

39. The culturally imperialist attitude toward Islam is influence by neoconcervativsm

Last edited Tue Apr 30, 2013, 03:04 AM - Edit history (1)

And the attitude that people have no right to determine their own destinies is very similar. You seek to remake the world in your own image, exactly as the neocons did. Only the justification is different. It's a different side of the ugly American ethos, stomping all over the globe acting self superior when they are in fact the worst abusers in modern times. It's based on hypocrisy and self deception.

If not for the neocon drumbeat for war, many people here wouldn't know anything about the Muslim world. As it stands many know only what they were fed on cable tv in order to justify the war. It's hard to dismiss the parallels when people here hold such similar views. In both cases, Muslims' rights to self determination are dismissed. They are seen as primitive, unable to make their own choices.

"That same shit" was a link to an essay by woman from Saudi Arabia. Naturally you object to the suggestion we might consider the views of Muslim feminists. She has no right to self determination. She isn't a First World American but only a superstitious brown person. Her views are inconsequential. Only a man in the US, driving cars fueled with oil secured through wars resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Muslims can determine what that woman's rights should be. The subaltern must never speak. Let's put those secular dictatorships back in power. So they massacred their own citizens. They weren't religious, and that's what really counts. Damn Arabs in Tunisia and elsewhere in the "Arab Spring" for thinking they have a right to democracy.

Good luck with your quest to rid the world of religion. I won't be holding my breath.

Of course then you can ignore the fact that the 20th century wrought some of the worst massacres in human history, and those were justified on secular grounds: Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, US funded genocide in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras; brutal anti-communist dictatorships in Chile, Brazil, Argentina, and Indonesia; US war in Vietnam, Rwanda, the list goes on endlessly. But those deaths don't really count because it wasn't in the name of religion. But the problem isn't dictatorship, war, misogyny, or genocide. It's religion. You've made that very clear.

The world must be seen in one dimensional terms because to understand it in its complexity would require actual thought and the acknowledgment that the answers can't fit on the back of a matchbook cover. That would require learning something about the majority of the world's population you hold in such scorn.

[Gravitycollapse]

43. Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot came to prominence because they were treated as deities.

The cult of personality is a mentality allied very closely with that of religious ideology. These leaders had all the characteristics of a real life embodiment of an Abrahamic God. I find it very difficult to look at these historical figures as purely secular even if they did not often use traditional religious doctrine to further their agenda. They were religious figures in every aspect of their unfortunate rule.

[BainsBane]

46. The cult of personality is not religious

Stalin and Pol Pot came from ideologies that condemned religion. Hitler's ideology was clearly secular. While you may see aspects that are similar to religious devotion, they were all secular regimes. In fact, under Soviet-style communism, religion was deligitimated so that those who openly worshiped had no hope of advancing in the Communist party and hence society.

My point is that human beings have committed atrocities while evoking any number of justifications. For the 20th century, most of the justifications were secular. In earlier eras, particularly pre-Enlightenment, those atrocities were justified through religion. Religious justification is no more deadly than secular ideologies. Actually the latter have been more deadly, but that I attribute to the greater mortality of 20th century technologies of death.

Erasing religion from the planet will do nothing to curb human rights abuses and oppression. People simply evoke different ideologies of justification. The problem is violent acts and oppressive policies. The Particular ideological justifications are merely window dressing.

[sabbat hunter]

79. actually

their cults of personality (and you forgot Mao), came along AFTER they had power. It is how they kept the people in line, and subservient to them.

[tralala]

87. There was no cult of personality around Pol Pot.

The Khmer Rouge governed as an "invisible dictatorship".

[backscatter712]

53. When calling us bigots doesn't work, call us chickenhawks. Got it. n/t

[get the red out]

62. I knew about Muslim hatred of women long before the wars

I am a woman, and I have always despised the way Islamic countries treat women in the name of their religion. I have no desire to waste our people or treasure bombing any of these countries; but I do despise them and always will because of their misogyny. Whenever I see a picture of some poor woman in Saudi Arabia I feel horrific sadness that she has to live as she does. I will never support that or any religion that treats its women that way. I would be amazed if any "feminist" in any of these countries would dare call a spade a spade and risk her life by insulting Islam in any way, I wouldn't if I were them. I wouldn't have the courage to be a feminist in one of those hateful countries. They tend to not kill women in merciful ways.

I wish our country would have nothing to do with these countries, I wish we would get beyond oil and never give them another penny for their fuel. War is useless and should not be engaged in, but we should try not to have anything to do with them either. Just my dream.

[BainsBane]

65. Muslim hatred of women?

Really? Half of all Muslims are women. Is your contention that they hate themselves?


I will point you to some articles that will "amaze' you because there are active feminist movements in Saudi Arabia and throughout the Muslims world. You would do well to read some of these articles and dislodge yourself from some very ugly stereotypes.

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/04/29/3747543.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/05/15/3503569.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/05/10/3500125.htm

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/03/201332715585855781.html
http://www.npr.org/2010/04/27/126309699/islamic-feminists-transforming-middle-east
http://www.wisemuslimwomen.org/activism/

[get the red out]

67. The reality of how they are treated isn't a stereotype

Though I realize we are only supposed to say that about the religious right here in the US. I know the unwritten rules that many liberals feel the need to enforce that everyone should be an apologist for these cultures because Bush was such a murderous monster. I just choose to break them because I do not support glossing over how women are treated in most Muslim countries.

No, apologist writings wouldn't amaze me at all I'm afraid.

[BainsBane]

73. You obviously couldn't be bothered to read the articles, or even their titles

Or you would not call them apologists. They talk about actions feminists are engaging in, something you don't believe exists. What is so objectionable about learning about activism Muslim women are engaged in?

You obviously haven't read much on DU if you think people only blame the right. To look at these boards, one would think that sexism exists only in the Muslim world.

[get the red out]

76. Yep, a guy being a sexist ass here = a fucking honor killing

Sexism exists everywhere, it's just in horrific proportions in the Muslim world.

I'm glad they are engaged in activism. But Islam still treats them like shit. I don't know how one counteracts the other.

[BainsBane]

93. Just read the articles

and learn something, please.

[Matariki]

81. No BainsBane, HUMAN RIGHTS don't get a 'cultural' pass

Because otherwise cultures can justify all sorts of horrors on other human beings which we're all supposed to close our eyes to.

And you are an awful person if you think that woman's rights are somehow not 100% the same as human rights.

[RainDog]

85. Education is an imperialist plot too, I suppose

And if you don't agree, you are in league with Bush and his foreign policy assholes.

Also, if you don't respect religious misogyny, you hold the world in scorn.

Just so you're clear - this is the substance of the argument from this person.

[BainsBane]

96. No no, education is a dirty word

You have said you resent my trying to "educate" you. You especially resent the implication that you should read any perspectives by actual Muslims. They are just superstitious people. Why should they have a right to talk about the human rights issues that matter to them?

Amazing how you have deliberately misunderstood everything. But I get your argument: religion bad. Understood. Religion bad. Murder, not so problematic. Genocide, no problem. If it's not in the name of religion, it doesn't really count. So have at it with my full blessing. Rid the world of religion. Come back and tell me how that went.

So what is the purpose? All religion is bad, therefore all Muslims are bad. Islam is evil. You are superior. What's next? How do you rid the world of religion?

[BainsBane]

94. Where did I say that?

Last edited Tue Apr 30, 2013, 08:27 PM - Edit history (1)

I said the people dropping bombs don't have standing to determine which human rights are important to Muslim women. I said that people need to pay attention to what concerns women in the Muslim world, and that their propaganda inculcated in defense of war does not suffice for knowledge.

Yeah, dropping bombs and torture are human rights violation, amazingly. I understand people here consider human life inconsequential in comparison to the horror of women not wearing bikinis, but amazingly many Muslim women have other priorities. They get uppity that way, thinking their lives have actual value. But we'll show them. We'll enforce our vision of freedom by wiping them off the face of the map. Aren't we superior. We don't make women veil. We just kill them, including American women, in numbers than drarwf the rest of the world.

[Warren DeMontague]

109. No, you clearly implied that Raindog "doesn't care about murder" unless it is done by a religion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2778418

Add to that the bargle about how "people here consider murder inconsequential compared to Muslim women not wearing bikinis"...



... You're just making this stuff up right out of thin air.

(And yes, jury, when the INEVITABLE alert comes in on this post, please consider that these are the exact words this poster has used about other DU members, in this thread)

Those were your words, so for you to complain about having what YOU say misrepresented, is especially ironic.

And by the way, for the record, Raindog is a she.

[riderinthestorm]

112. And that Raindog considers genocide as no problem at all.

Ugh. Unbelievable lies.

BainsBane may be my very first ignore...

[Warren DeMontague]

115. By The Way...

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
At Tue Apr 30, 2013, 08:04 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Are you drunk!? Raindog has been one of the MOST compassionate DU posters
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2778569

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

personal attack: "are you drunk"

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Apr 30, 2013, 08:15 PM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: Yes, personal.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: This poster is jumping into a thread to pile on. Nuffs enuff...
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: Wow, bains is way under rider's skin. Rider, please relax. It is not healthy to be so disturbed over any poster. Peace.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: The person who needs alerting is the disruptor troll causing all the problems. Who has been allowed to bait good DU members and stir up trouble for too long.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[riderinthestorm]

119. I actually figured it was going to get hid! Amazing. A shout out to DUers!

Last edited Tue Apr 30, 2013, 10:28 PM - Edit history (1)

I was prepared to go down in a blaze of glory because I have very little patience for shit stirring and baiting.

I figured I'd try to stand up for Raindog (since she got shut down for way less than me!) before I got locked out.

Anyway, I've got paperwork to finish so I'm outta here. Thanks for the heads up.

Carry on!

[BainsBane]

125. She specifically said religion is the source of oppression and misogyny

and did not cite a particular human rights abuse of concern. "People here" does not specify raindog in particular. An argument that attributes all oppression to religion by definition leaves out atrocities justified through secular ideologies, which were in fact the most deadly events of the 20th century. The modern and contemporary eras are primarily secular. There are key exceptions, like the rise of Christian fundamentalism in the US and Islamic fundamentalism elsewhere.

I don't see a personal attack in your post so I can't imagine what I would alert on. I have a feeling you'll come through before long though.

[Warren DeMontague]

127. Making a criticism of one thing does not intrinsically imply "not caring" about another.

And let's not backpedal, shall we? When you say "people here" in the midst of this giant thread full of your posts about DU and specifically the views of DU members, what do you suppose the take-away is going to be?

I suppose people here can all read and judge for themselves.

The bottom line- and if you want to take this as a personal attack, you can, but it's more about your arguments than your person- is that you are all over the map, ideologically and logically. Defending Islamic fundamentalism in an attempt to fight misogyny; it doesn't work-- and it's so ludicrous as to almost be like those parodies of "liberal" views which we saw during the Bush era; you know, how us anti-war pro choice people secretly wanted Sharia Law.

As for your "feeling"; honestly, if you took me off ignore to make predictions about what I'm going to say next, you may be disappointed- but, then, you did once tell me that I "enjoy hurting people" (that's a direct quote) because I posted a picture of Sophia Loren in a bikini. (Boy on a Dolphin, 1957)

You also have continually argued that the only reason many people (on DU, again) care about womens' rights in Fundamentalist countries, is because we
a) just hate religion,
b) are cultural imperialists who love war, and
c) that's the only way we're going to get to see teh boobz.




Is pointing that out a personal attack? I don't think it is. However, it is an indication -to me- that you might want to recalibrate your interpretation of other people, their words, and their motivations.

[BainsBane]

132. I don't think people love war

I think people don't interrogate the extent to which ideas spread in our culture to justify war influence their views of the Muslim world. I think people look down on foreign others while refusing to consider their own role as taxpayers in funding human rights abuses perpetrated by our government abroad. I find troubling that many look at Islam and Muslims with such disdain while showing no awareness of the particular historical and political circumstances that gave rise to Islamist extremism--conditions in which our own nation was central.

I think cultural imperialism is ugly, whether expressed by the neocons or those who despise the neocons. Both share an assumption that Muslim peoples are not fit to make their own choices. It goes beyond Orientalism because it lacks the reverence for exoticism implied in that view. I see it as a more naked form of cultural imperialism. I see people imaging that we as Americans, and liberals in particular, are better than Muslims because we are not benighted by religion and we wear less clothing (for some freedom is directly measured in inverse proportion to the amount of clothing). Some have gone so far as to claim that higher death rates of women in this country don't count because the murders are not religiously based, as though death is less consequential if its justification is secular. The idea that some here feel so entitled to determine what they think is best for Muslim women is all about First World privilege, privilege made possible through war and exploitation abroad.

I, on the other hand, believe we do Muslim women no favors by disrespecting their religion--a core aspect of their identity-- or refusing to consider their views. Reading what Muslim feminists have to say is a staring point for addressing misogyny and oppression in that part of the world.

As for my ignore list, I recently cleared it out. I did not take you off for purposes of this thread or to respond to you in particular. Sorry to disappoint you there. Of course I will add people back if necessary. I know well enough your pattern. You are unlikely to risk a personal insult here. You're far more likely to gossip under cover of the clubhouse.

Your old excuse about Sophia Loren is demonstratively false. My frustration with you had to do with your following me around the web posting girly pics in response to virtually every post. If I recall correctly, none were nearly as lovely as Sophia Loren. They were typical, unimaginative cheesecake photos. The point was you did it because you knew it bothered me, and you took particular pleasure from that fact. I've told you this before but my views on my own feelings aren't important enough to register in your thought process.

[Warren DeMontague]

152. Okay, let's go through this slowly.

I think people don't interrogate the extent to which ideas spread in our culture to justify war influence their views of the Muslim world.

Well, this seems to be a lot of your problem- you assume, bascially, that no one has bothered to think any of this stuff through besides yourself, you've taken it upon yourself to "educate" the masses, and you're perpetually gobsmacked that folks here are not, all, ecstatic to be privileged enough to audit your lectures for free.

And you get awfully ... is angry an acceptable characterization? that people don't appreciate "education", even to the point of your going on upthread about how "I guess education is a dirty word"... no, it's not. But anyone can tell anyone else anything, presuming themselves in a position of some authority on the topic. That does not automatically confer the title "education" onto what they're attempting to do. When Ken Ham tells people that Jesus rode a dinosaur, he may think he's "educating" people (and he's awfully sure he's right) but the fact of the matter is, he's peddling a ridiculous line of flat-out bullshit. "education" doesn't enter into it.

I think people look down on foreign others while refusing to consider their own role as taxpayers in funding human rights abuses perpetrated by our government abroad. I find troubling that many look at Islam and Muslims with such disdain while showing no awareness of the particular historical and political circumstances that gave rise to Islamist extremism--conditions in which our own nation was central.

Yes, you do apparently think that, but you also are taking one and inventing the other from whole cloth. I don't understand why; you were around, for instance, on DU during much of the Bush Administration and the Iraq War. Did people here "not get it"? Were people unable to reconcile opposition to Islamic Fundamentalism with opposition to wars of choice then? No, they were not. Because we can walk and chew gum at the same time. And we can criticize totalitarian regimes and worldviews without always being in a position of somehow enabling invasions and wars. Likewise, one can understand the historical significance and fallout of Eisenhower and the CIA overthrowing Mossadegh, and still think Ahmadinejad is an asshat.

Now, as for "cultural imperialism" or the rest of it; I'm sorry, but I DO happen to believe that some worldviews, some outlooks, some basic ground rules and some basic approaches to governance, thought, logic and human rights ARE better than others. I do. I'm sure as shit not going to apologize for it. I have not seen anyone on DU argue that women who, themselves, want to wear hajibs or burqas should be prevented from doing so; but I *have* seen criticism of cultural institutions -upon penalty of arrest and jail, or worse- which force women to cover up. That was what the previous threads were about. To somehow transplant that into a line that people on DU are "mad because some women somewhere aren't wearing bikinis"... do you read this stuff before you write it? It'd be funny; seriously- if you weren't serious.

I see people imaging that we as Americans, and liberals in particular, are better than Muslims because we are not benighted by religion and we wear less clothing (for some freedom is directly measured in inverse proportion to the amount of clothing).

I believe freedom is better than a lack of freedom. I believe choice is better than restriction. I do. Whatever that makes me, I sure as hell feel that way; Saudi Arabia is, by most yardsticks, one of the most Totalitarian regimes on the planet. Whether that totalitarianism is based on someone's "religion and culture", doesn't make it right. North Korea has a xenophobic and racist culture and a religion which venerates the ruling family. Are the horrors perpetuated by that regime- the concentration camps holding families for 3 generations- are they to be excused because of belief systems?

How far down the road of excuses are we to go for peoples' "cultural practices"? The Death Penalty for Gay people? FGM? Some of these things are deeply ingrained, based on religion or tradition or some mix of whatever. Do they "deserve our respect"?

No, they are not. No, they do not. Because freedom is better than totalitarianism. It just IS. And one can say that, and mean it, without being a cultural imperialist or war-enabler. Now, I feel that freedom, liberation, and dare I say it education are internal processes- like the Zen parable of the goose in the bottle, there's no way to get the goose out of the bottle without breaking the bottle- the goose has to get itself out.

There's a song I like with the line "you aint gonna learn what you don't want to know"- that applies to all of us, indeed it does... but to erstwhile self-appointed "educators", sometimes, most of all.

And national liberation- or the liberation of peoples or groups- or the liberation of the self- is likewise an internal process. Occasionally interventions are probably unavoidable- WWII springs to mind- but generally, the way to get people out of their cages- real or mental- is to help them see the bars and figure out where the keys are.

As for your fixation on clothing; this has been said before and you've blown it off, so this will be the last time I'll say it; fighting for someone's right to wear (or not wear) what they choose is NOT the same thing as telling them what to do.

Some have gone so far as to claim that higher death rates of women in this country don't count because the murders are not religiously based, as though death is less consequential if its justification is secular.

....really. That's what they said? REALLY? Or did they say something else, and you've inverted the meaning, much as you have inverted people saying "women should be free to go topless" into people being "mad that any women anywhere wear shirts".

I, on the other hand, believe we do Muslim women no favors by disrespecting their religion--a core aspect of their identity-- or refusing to consider their views.

Except you're only considering the ones who espouse the position you like, just like everyone else in these arguments. And you're presuming to speak for them- assuming you're not a Middle Eastern Muslim Woman- just as much as anyone else here.

As for my ignore list, I recently cleared it out. I did not take you off for purposes of this thread or to respond to you in particular. Sorry to disappoint you there. Of course I will add people back if necessary. I know well enough your pattern. You are unlikely to risk a personal insult here. You're far more likely to gossip under cover of the clubhouse.

Now, THAT is projection. *snork*

Your old excuse about Sophia Loren is demonstratively false. My frustration with you had to do with your following me around the web posting girly pics in response to virtually every post. If I recall correctly, none were nearly as lovely as Sophia Loren. They were typical, unimaginative cheesecake photos. The point was you did it because you knew it bothered me, and you took particular pleasure from that fact. I've told you this before but my views on my own feelings aren't important enough to register in your thought process.

Actually, it's spot-on. Your memory of that is faulty; however, since meta is inaccessible- and that's where it took place- neither of us can "demonstratively" prove jack. I am fairly sure that you did, however, state that I "enjoy hurting people"...

now, how harmful the alleged unimaginative cheesecake bikinis may or may not have been, that was a ridiculous thing to say and frankly a lot nastier than anything I've ever aimed your way.

Fortunately for me, I guess, I don't get too worked up about random insults from random folks on the interwebs. C'est La Vie. People say silly shit. However, since I brought it up it obviously did "register in my thought process".

[BainsBane]

157. . . .

Education: I know very little about the Muslim world. I've been able to learn enough for certain professional purposes, but my knowledge is woefully inadequate.
Sadly, the little I know seems to be more than many around here. What I did, rather than presume some authority, is to provide links to articles by Muslim feminists people could choose to read.

It's obvious people know very little because they take one act and attribute it to all of Islam, not even a particular country. There is no question Saudi Arabia is among the most oppressive regimes. Yet people here say things like "Islam is bad news," "Muslims hate women," and Islam is the source of misogyny. They show no interest in distinguishing the differences among Muslim nations or the understanding that historically Muslim women were afforded greater rights than in the West. I think this point important because it shows that the current reactionary bent among Islamist fundamentalists is not necessary or intrinsic to Islam itself, as many have argued. Now some ethnic Muslim feminists are secularists and agree that Islam is a source of oppression. Far more, however, continue to practice Islam and see power and control as the source of their oppression, as is the case in the first article I cited earlier in this thread.

You may think "freedom" is better, but your notion of freedom is the product of a capitalist, imperialist culture. You may think you can separate militarism from belief, but the ideas you and most of us--including my own--are framed by our own cultural experience. For Americans, our sense of national identity is predicated on a sense of superiority, we "the best country in the world," the "freest," etc. The socialist critiques of American freedom are more familiar to many. The idea that freedom is constricted by the marketplace, that it doesn't allow many a base standard of living or access to decent medical care, which contrasts with countries like Cuba. Some Muslims, I'm sure, have their own critiques of American notions of freedom.

I don't defend any of the human rights abuses you posit. My position is very simple. Read what Muslim feminists say rather than preaching at them. They don't support the atrocities you suggest, but not all identify veiling as a major concern. Some, however, do. Some see Islam as forming a moral basis for gender equality and women's liberation, while a smaller number are secular in their approach to women's rights. Their notion of freedom need not mirror yours to be legitimate. In fact, they may consider your view of freedom oppressive. Reading what they have to say is the way to determine that.

Someone did make that point to me about the deaths not being relevant because they were not religiously motivated. You can find that in the most recent thread about Amina.

Your straw woman about FEMEN's nudity is tiresome beyond belief. I didn't raise the issue and have no intention of defending some imaginary position you attribute to a fictive feminist. I will, however, direct you to this recent comment from a former Brazilian activist in FEMEN. She grew frustrated over the lack of concern FEMEN displayed for the cultural reality of feminism in Brazil, which this woman argues has a longer history than feminism in the Ukraine. I know zilch about the Ukraine so I couldn't say whether she is right. http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=433401410030315&id=117869604995016 A number of Muslim feminists regard FEMEN as racist. The first article I provided makes that argument.

I don't know how you think I'm presenting positions "I like," as though it makes any difference to me whether a woman chooses to veil or if she is secular or religious. What I care about is that people respect women's voices. There are plenty of different positions to read, and hundreds of feminist groups already active in the Muslim world. In this thread and elsewhere people have denied the possibility of feminist movements among Muslim women. Most show no interest in distinguishing between Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Turkey or Tunisia. The oft repeated references to Islam and Muslims or as X or Y make that clear. When I provided links to articles above, someone said she refused to reach "apologists," and that there were no Muslim feminists. The articles are far from apologies. They critique religious based patriarchy. Only one person seemed interested in reading any of the articles I pointed to. No, I don't just point to women that express what I want to hear. I don't have a preference of what I want them to care about. What I want is for people who say they care about the position of Muslim women to take some time to read what some of those women are doing to promote their own liberation. Is that really so objectionable?

As for Meta, you are actually sitting their telling me I don't know what bothered me? You are not the authority on my feelings. That is one thing I can be certain I know far better than you. What you did was refuse to consider how I felt and rewrote in your mind an interpretation that suits your particular agenda in singling out certain feminists for scorn. I absolutely did say you enjoyed hurting people. I see no other reason why you would continually do something after someone has told you it bothers them. You clearly meant to cause offense.

Unimaginative cheesecake is the nastiest thing that could be said, nastier than endless coffee clatch gossiping threads in your clubhouse? Really? Nastier than continually repeating insults you have been told bother someone? Nastier than using the men's group to belittle rape victims who are clearly in tremendous pain? Not even close. Heaven knows I've made more than my share of inappropriate comments and done some supremely stupid things in life, but I have never deliberately been cruel, particularly to those undergoing trauma. I'm not seeing a reference to unimaginative cheesecake as rating very highly on the scale of inappropriate behavior.

[Warren DeMontague]

158. ...what are you talking about?

If a picture of a woman in a bikini bothers you, don't look at it. That you take a picture of someone you've never met as a personal insult to YOU- I don't even grok how you get there from here. To claim, as you did, that it means I 'enjoy hurting people' --- that is absurd.

And that was the nasty comment. Not the thing about cheesecake. You're bright, you realize that.

No one "belittled rape victims". NO ONE. I made one slightly flippant comment referring to one well-known attribute of a DU member that they, themselves use to identify, without fully understanding their backstory, and once I did, I apologized.

It's still there- I don't want to dig it up, but if you think that's some sort of "gotcha", that's ridiculous. You go ahead and find all the mean, inappropriate personal attacks I've made. Go look.

While you're at it, have a look at your own transparency page sometime, the personal attacks, etc.



Okay, you're right, then... I guess we have no business criticizing governments that stone gay people to death, or societies that don't allow women to drive or leave the house unchaperoned. By all means, let's not let our "innate sense of imperialist superiority" delude us into dangerous territories where we might actually say "hey, that's fucked up". Absolutely. Nope, nothing I can say to that fusillade of echo chamber babble.

As for the rest of it, waaaay tl;dr.

Have a good one.

[BainsBane]

160. It's obviously pointless to try to engage in a serious discussion with you

You are either incapable or uninterested in understanding my points and insist on trivializing everything to the point where it fits a one dimensional view of the world. No wonder you're so taken with the three word slogans by FEMEN. Sorry to make it so complicated by developing an analysis that doesn't fit on a matchbook cover. I won't make that mistake in the future.

[Warren DeMontague]

175. Okay, again, point by point.

1) I didn't "follow a person around". You were trying to assert- wrongly- that somehow EEOC laws applying to whether or not a picture of a woman in a bikini (again, yes, it was Sophia Loren that you were talking specifically about) constitute a "hostile workplace" somehow are relevant to DU, which is NOT a workplace but rather a voluntary association on the internet where things like the appropriateness of Sophia-Loren-in-a-bikini pictures are determined by community consensus. I note that in the time since you've been in the lounge and seen plenty of similar material, so maybe you've figured out that it's not quite the EEOC violation that you thought it was. You are to be congratulated for working that out.

2) I don't know what "gossip" you're talking about. Is it because you had a sock puppet identity that was banned by skinner, and we were talking about that? This being an internet message board and sock puppetry being a unique form of disingenuous disruption particular to internet message boards -and one which, frankly, I had NO idea until recently just how popular it actually, apparently, is- sock puppets are a legitimate topic of conversation, as bothersome as that may be to folks who are trying to get away with that stripe of cleverness. To imply that discussions around known games like sock puppetry constitute "personal attacks"-- well, it begs the question, for one, which person?

3) In that vein, I can think of things that are more boring- like members (or previously banned members) of this site going off-site to start little enclaves from which they discuss this one and its members. That's the point at which I think it's time to find new hobbies. The rest of us have actual shit to do, most days.

4) There was no "stealing penises" thread.

Since you were moderator of the group, you were responsible for allowing that to go on.

Really? And where is that rule? Specifically? Is it next to the rule that says people can create additional accounts to get around the alert limits? Is it next to the rule that says all posts must conform to Federal EEOC workplace regulations?

Because
a) they are "hosts", not "moderators",

b) have you been a host? You don't seem to know what the job is, or isn't. If hosts are responsible for everything that is posted or said in their groups that will come as quite a surprise to groups that have had some exceedingly nasty material shared in the past. They're not.

and
c) I locked the thread when I became aware of it, which is the maximum extent of what hosts can do.

[BainsBane]

159. Drone strikes

As you know, many on this site support drone strikes in Muslim countries, so you're assertion that there is universal condemnation for war is not accurate.

[opiate69]

166. The best post on DU in years, Warren. Well done.

[BainsBane]

170. How about them Vikes

[opiate69]

172. Being in the North West, I'm more of a Seahawks guy.

And the dishonest way the Vikings acquired Steve Hutchinson from the Hawks a few years ago still sticks in my craw.

[opiate69]

178. Well...it is a dogs life...

If only you were nearly as clever as you think you are
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022756887

[BainsBane]

180. I do love dogs

They are the greatest.

[RainDog]

83. Your arguments are dishonest

You have done this here repeatedly.

Who the fuck do you think you are to come onto this board and tell people they wouldn't know about the middle east if not for the neocons? This is your favorite straw man argument on this board lately. It's also a lie.

You know fuck nothing about others.

I didn't say she has no right to self determination. I was pointing out that misogyny is the underpinning of all monotheism. That's a fact, jack, whether you like it or not, or whether others who practice those religions like it or not.

Your attempts to paint me as a racist indicate what a vile person you are.

"That same shit" was your lies about others here.

To claim that someone excuses genocide because it is not done in the name of religion is yet another one of your disgusting tactics, and to claim someone holds the world in scorn because someone can look at the fucking evidence to indicate the sorts of cultures that achieve the best outcomes for equality among genders, races and cultures indicates, again, that you don't care about reality - you care about trashing people on this board.

[opiate69]

84. The extent of that persons integrity deficiency is breathtaking.

[RainDog]

86. Yeah. She does the same thing that seabeyond did

And, I assume, still does, but I no longer see her attacks on others here. I find it hard to believe that she has the gall to claim that people on DU are aligned with the neo-cons.

And this same person created a sock to argue against another woman on this board when Bb was, apparently, blocked from making her baseless accusations against that person. Polly linked to the thread where she did this.

Such integrity.

[opiate69]

88. Back on DU2, I used to spend most of my time in thr religion group...

When BBC showed up here a few months ago, a little birdie tipped me off that she used to go by the screen name "imenja" back then.. after going back and looking at some of our past interactions, all one can say is, "the more things change,..."

[RainDog]

89. And she goes to her protected group

and creates an OP full of the same lies she's trying to pass off here.

I guess some people are gullible enough to fall for such bullshit. And I feel sorry for them, if that's the case.

[opiate69]

92. Yep yep...

Last edited Tue Apr 30, 2013, 06:29 PM - Edit history (1)

Edit: there's so much straw in that thread, I had to put my cigarette out while reading it on my phone, lest I burn all of Tacoma to the ground.

[BainsBane]

103. Here is where you referred to Muslims as superstitious

You said this in context of a discussion where I pointed out there is no monolithic Islam, that sexism and misogyny are about power rather than endemic to Islam itself.

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.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2772765

[BainsBane]

100. I'm not sure whether to be flattered or creeped out

over your fixation with me. You've got to the lengths of searching my old posts from 6-8 years ago? I'm going with creeped out.

That little birdie was me. Someone asked what my former name was and I responded.

[opiate69]

148. What did you do, make another sock so you could see my posts?

[BainsBane]

149. Nope, just cleared out my ignore list.

That can easily be changed if necessary.

Your fixation is really strange. I can't begin to imagine why you would want to spend any time thinking about me.

[BainsBane]

95. Yeah, don't actually read what I say

Just make stuff up.

[Warren DeMontague]

106. Irony alert!

[BainsBane]

99. I know what people write

and I see their steadfast refusal to consider what Muslim women write.

Your point isn't tough to understand. Religion is bad. Terribly insightful. Unfortunately, it doesn't really offer any way of combating human rights abuses. I can't imagine what you think your goal is. Is it simply to denounce believers, or do you actually care about bringing about change? Since religion--and not particular acts of oppression or misogyny--are the problem, what do you think should be done? How do you eradicate this evil of religion from the planet?

You have pointed exclusively to religion as a form of oppression. I do not discount that religion has been source of oppression and atrocities around the globe, particularly in the pre-Enlightenment period. I have already pointed that out.
But studying history also tells me that it has represented an ideology of empowerment. Like most ideologies of oppression, those engaged in social movements have turned it to their own advantage: Nat Turner, the Males rebels, Tupac Amaru II, the Contestado rebels--I believe I have cited such examples to you before.

You have shown yourself far more concern with ideology, and a theistic ideology in particular, than actions. You haven't identified particular acts that concern you, particular human rights abuses, or particular laws and practices. Instead, your focus is entirely on religion. I get your single goal in life is to rid the planet of religion. Fine. I don't see that as having the slightest impact on human rights abuses. People always find justifications for their oppression of others. The most cursory understanding of 20th century history demonstrates as much.

You outrage is clearly noted. I would submit that if at any point you had been interested in a thoughtful conversation, you might have refrained from personal attacks and stuck to issues. You have refused to do that. Why you think I should grant a particular respect to someone who has systematically ridiculed me strikes me as strange.

[riderinthestorm]

101. Are you drunk!? Raindog has been one of the MOST compassionate DU posters

S/he has a library of posts that demonstrate you are making shit up about her/him (I don't know if Raindog is male or female).

Its an ugly pattern of distorting plain meanings and twisting them into lies. You've done it many, many, many times when a DUer doesn't agree with you. You create a position out of the blue (how do you know Raindog has never considered what Muslim women write? FFS!), and assign it to that person no matter what they say or what their post history demonstrates.



Ugh. So dishonest.

[BainsBane]

102. Then provide evidence

for what I have made up about him.

[riderinthestorm]

104. How do you know Raindog has "steadfastly refused" to consider what Muslim women write?

What evidence do you have that Raindog believes that "Murder, not so problematic. Genocide, no problem.?"

Otherwise you are just making that stuff up.

[BainsBane]

108. I answered that in another post

Just a minute ago. He is far from alone in that. The people to which I directly posted those articles also chose not to consider them. One poster said s/he would not consider "apologists," obviously not even bothering to look at the links, since they were by feminists who were anything but apologists. That kind of dismissive attitude toward peoples of the Global South is far too common in the US, and sadly the core issue that concerns me. People here feel so sure that they know what is best for the rest of the world--based on very little knowledge of those cultures--that they don't seem compelled to pay attention to those women's voices. I submit that step one in a combating misogyny and human rights abuses of women in the Muslim world is to read what feminists already working there have to say on the subject. In doing so you will find a wide variety of opinions--some from secularists who reject Islam entirely, others from practicing Muslims who believe that Islam itself provides a moral basis for women's liberation. You will also find discussions of issues that most concern them.

While I realize this is gratuitous, I am again posting some of those articles. This list is far from inclusive. A google search will turn up more.

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/04/29/3747543.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/05/15/3503569.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/05/10/3500125.htm

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/03/201332715585855781.html
http://www.npr.org/2010/04/27/126309699/islamic-feminists-transforming-middle-east
http://www.wisemuslimwomen.org/activism/

[riderinthestorm]

110. Now you're just spamming the thread with repeated lies about DUers

I'd alert but I really want everyone else to see your ASSumptions about DUers.

You don't know they haven't even bothered to consider or look at your links or any other information out there on the world wide internets and reached their own conclusions. You don't.

You simply don't like their conclusions.

So you launch smear campaigns against anyone who dares to disagree.

[BainsBane]

113. Spaming with voices of Muslim women

That really is a travesty. The outrage. No one here would possibly object to reading such articles, or call them SPAM.

[riderinthestorm]

114. Another lie. I said you are spamming your LIES, not your links.

I ask again, are you drunk?

[BainsBane]

118. see post 67

It is hardly a lie.

[pacalo]

155. As a feminist who has no reservations about lecturing others about what they deem as "sexist",

I'm puzzled as to why you continue to refer to RainDog as "he" & "him".

RainDog is a "she" & if you didn't know that, the polite way to refer to RainDog is "he/she", imo.

[BainsBane]

162. Yes, I have acknowledged my failure

In not being clairvoyant or having the ability to see someone's gender through the computer screen. As for lecturing, you're a broken record. I understand that is what you call every response not approved of by your pals. As appalling as you find this, I have as much right to an opinion as anyone. Your solution is simple. Don't read my posts. We will both be much happier as a result. I know very well that the content of what I write is inconsequential to you, so just don't read it. Let's just agree that we will never ever have anything in common.

[pacalo]

163. I'm sorry that you are not clairvoyant or possess superpower abilities.

Since you do not, it would be wise -- & more becoming of an "expert" on what is or isn't sexist -- to refer to DUers that you do not know as "he/she" rather than committing to one gender over another without knowing for sure.

Thank you for acknowledging your failure. How refreshing.

Also, thank you for appropriately addressing me here, rather than sending me another nasty PM & then using a sock to deflect your true identity.

[BainsBane]

167. When a thread is locked

I can't respond in it. Have you gone to the rape survivors group to lecture them about how they should be dressing? That's real feminism.

How about them Vikes?

[pacalo]

192. It wasn't locked at the time!

Vikes? What is that supposed to be about?

[BainsBane]

193. it was locked

It was locked and later reopened. Never mind about the rest. It's all water under the bridge. Take care.

[pacalo]

194. "How 'bout them Vikes?"

Would you explain that, please?

[BainsBane]

105. How we had refused to considered what Muslim women write

I cited a series of articles above from Muslim women authors. His response in the subthread where I sited that article was "the same old shit." He chose not to read the article or engage with any of the ideas discussed and instead focus on his antipathy toward me.

Whatever you or he thinks about me is far less important than considering the views of Muslim women rather than imagining we as Americans should determine what is important to them. I will again site those articles on the off chance you or others decide that is something you wish to consider:

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/04/29/3747543.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/05/15/3503569.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/05/10/3500125.htm

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/03/201332715585855781.html
http://www.npr.org/2010/04/27/126309699/islamic-feminists-transforming-middle-east
http://www.wisemuslimwomen.org/activism/

You can do a search of your own an uncover a variety of points of view. That last link is to a site that lists a number of Muslim feminist organizations.

[riderinthestorm]

107. So because Raindog didn't agree with you, you decide to make shit up. You did.

You say it yourself.

You have absolutely NO idea whether those links were read or not. Raindog says they were. But you LIE and assume they haven't, stipulating that as if its a fact.

Newsflash! Sometimes people can read the same thing and come up with different conclusions.

How do you know I haven't read and considered those links? Here or elsewhere? Now you are making shit up about me.

"Whatever you or he thinks about me is far less important than considering the views of Muslim women rather than imagining we as Americans should determine what is important to them. I will again site those articles on the off chance you or others decide that is something you wish to consider "

FWIW, I'm Irish. Guess you can now lump the Irish into your warped paradigm that this is all a neocolonialist plot!

[BainsBane]

111. Well this is a US discussion board

and while I of course know that's an Irish flag, it's not unheard of for Irish Americans to display it. I did not see Raindog said he read the links. I only saw him continually say that religion was the source of oppression. He showed no indication of reading the posts, and when I mentioned them he referred to "that same old shit."

People can read the same thing and come up with different conclusions. When they show no signs of understanding the positions, however, it's hardly surprising that I would conclude he hadn't read them. He seemed far more concerned with me personally than the issues in question. You're obviously extremely angry and not interested in discussing the subject matter but instead in engaging in personal attacks, so if you don't mind I'll leave you to that yourself.

[riderinthestorm]

117. Lol, this is child's play and you aren't worth getting angry over!

(I'm having a bit of a giggle over that...)

Several more wrong things:
1. Raindog is a female.

2. Raindog has never said that ALL oppression is religious.

3. When someone indicates that they disagree with your position it doesn't mean they are uneducated, they simply have come to a different conclusion and labeling them as bigoted, prejudiced, unconcerned about genocide or murder or whatever - is dishonest and disagreeable. Your persistent lies about Raindog (and others) is a serious conversation killer (but maybe that's your intent? To shut down dissenting voices?)

4. I've never heard that DU is a solely American discussion board. Can you provide a link that says only Americans can post here? Even if there is such a thing, your perpetual broadbrushing of "Americans" as agreeing with the policies of their government is naive and DU amply demonstrates that.

[BainsBane]

120. Really?

So you insult people when you aren't angry? That isn't a function of getting overheated? You have yet to provide evidence of a single lie. Instead, you hurl insult after insult. I had provided evidence for my points, which you choose to ignore. I would submit a conversation killer is making a discussion personal rather than talking about the issues at hand. So you despise me. Point taken. I'm not sure how that advances a discussion, but it seems to be terribly important to you.


Speaking of distorting, I never said solely American. I'm sorry I lack the requisite powers of clairvoyance to see where you are posting from or what gender someone is. Sadly, I'm a mere mortal and cannot peer through a computer screen across the country or world.

[LiberalAndProud]

121. She visited the United Arab Emerates and met women from across the Middle East.

Then she refers to "our western views," which leads me to believe that she is not from Saudi Arabia, but rather a Muslim living in the western world. In other words, she is interpreting through the lens of her own experiences, as we all will.

[BainsBane]

122. Are you referring to the article I cited?

I had the distinct impression she was a Saudi national. It turns out you're right. Here is her info page. http://www.randaabdelfattah.com/biography-randa-abdel-fattah.asp

I cited a series of other articles above you might be interested in. That same site has a number of interesting pieces.

[LiberalAndProud]

128. I started to read the second article in your list.

At the second essay, I realized I wasn't the intended audience. From a western perspective, as I watch nuns and clergywomen in our Christian churches continue to struggle for equal footing, I'm afraid I have an anti-religious bias that may cloud my perception. The idea of rebelling against the bad parts of any given dogma in an effort to retain the -- I don't know -- is it the security of believing that we understand our universe that religion offers? Truly, having relinquished that in my own path, I don't think I can be swayed that women working within the framework of a misogynistic belief system is bound to be very successful in the end. There are always those pesky passages that we just can't explain away.

But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the husband is the head of his wife, and God is the head of Christ. Any man who prays or prophesies with something on his head disgraces his head, but any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head--it is one and the same thing as having her head shaved. For if a woman will not veil herself, then she should cut off her hair; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or to be shaved, she should wear a veil. For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection of God; but woman is the reflection of man. Indeed, man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for the sake of woman, but woman for the sake of man. For this reason a woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
1 Corinthians 11:3-10

YMMV

[BainsBane]

133. Your views are understandable

and I respect them. I see no reason for you to accept religion or any manifestation of misogyny in your own life. There are also articles that talk about activism by Muslim feminists rather than Islam in particular. Someone recently drew that website to my attention, but it is about religion and ethnics in particular. You can search for other sources or consult the list of feminist organizations I cited.

My point is really a simple one. We need to consider the views of Muslim feminists already working to bring about change in their societies if we are to have any hope of aiding their cause. It's important to understand that Muslim is an ethnic as well as religious identity. They are identified in the world by their religion. Our determination to reject that identity without their consent does them no favors. Just as you have a right to make choices regarding your own relationship with religion, so do they.

Randa Abdel-Fattah points out that misogyny is about power and domination, and that religion is an excuse rather than a cause. I agree. I see so much misogyny in secular contexts, I know that religion is not it's sole domain. Domestic violence, rape, rape culture, and murder of women are key examples.

[The Straight Story]

137. Well that is your best post in the whole thread we agree on some things:

"My point is really a simple one. We need to consider the views of Muslim feminists already working to bring about change in their societies if we are to have any hope of aiding their cause. It's important to understand that Muslim is an ethnic as well as religious identity. They are identified in the world by their religion. Our determination to reject that identity without their consent does them no favors. Just as you have a right to make choices regarding your own relationship with religion, so do they. "

No need to really expand on it when it comes to Muslim women but the principle is one I have spoken about a long time in our own culture.

I don't know where you stand on a lot of things - but one contention I have had over the years having been on all sides of the political and religious spectrum myself is that there is room for culture and discussion without the fear and hate.

To wit: As I have mentioned many times in my past at my elementary school we had little Christmas and Hanukkah parties and decorations. I wasn't Jewish. Some kids were probably atheists, and I know my one friend there was Jewish.

We didn't get into the religion of it all, it was more of a cultural celebration of our histories and heritages. We sang about Rudolph, had a play (which I always hated....), spun the dreidel and sang the song, etc and so on.

We didn't hop around praising jeebus. It was just a part of who we and our families were and our traditions.

Now such things are considered bad. We leave our culture at home and focus more on being drones and passing tests. Fear of 'religion' in schools has pushed out a rich heritage of many kids from many cultures.

We have melded together in our minds religion in a religious sense with the cultural side and don't see the two as even remotely separate when they can, and I would argue many times, are (Most the people I know in my hood now never see the inside of a church but still light up for the holidays - it is just tradition). I don't even think a person I know outside my dad here even knows where a bible is in their house and probably think John 3:16 is a play call in college from a guy in a clown wig.

If a woman wants to wear a head cover out of tradition, so be it. But just like here people will be suspicious of the why and in some cases rightly so. Deny the choice? Nope, I am about as pro-choice as a person gets.

I, and others, were looking for a brighter future for the women of Afghanistan, sadly that has not panned out as well as it could have - so in a place like that one might be hard pressed to believe someone is exercising a choice out of tradition versus one of fear.

[BainsBane]

138. I have made that point many times in this thread

and elsewhere. I have been reprimanded for not understanding that misogyny and oppression in general is caused by religion (alone, seemingly). I recall agreeing with you during the Catholic witch hunt days here on DU. My view on Islam is similar, even though I have no personal connection to the faith other than I have Muslim friends and colleagues whom I respect. One even veils.

I share your lament for the direction Afghanistan has taken. I think the take away is that we as Americans typically do more harm than good when we intervene abroad, even if we go in under good intentions.

[LiberalAndProud]

146. How do we have any hope of aiding their cause?

Regardless of any disapproval we may express on gender inequality or theocracy or cultural mores, we are outsiders -- the other -- and have no standing. Sure we have opinions as to the injustices we perceive. Should we remain silent in the face of those injustices because we may have a cultural bias? I don't see how that could aid their cause either.

These concerns are all separate from our country's propensity to impose our culture by military force, which is a different conversation altogether, inasmuch as any of these issues can be disentanged from the other.

[BainsBane]

147. Good question

One can provide financial assistance for feminist and human rights groups. Anyone involved in feminist activism can partner with those groups, invite Muslim women to appear as speakers in public functions, and use their groups resources to help in other ways. If someone works at a university or with any community groups, he or she might invite Muslim feminist to speak at a forum. We can help their cause by spreading awareness, awareness of their points of view rather than simply our own.

Some Western feminists, like FEMEN, have targeted veiling as a concern, yet haven't consulted with local feminist organizations in Tunisia or elsewhere, as a former member of Brazilian FEMEN recently pointed out. https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=433401410030315&id=117869604995016 My view is they could do much more for Muslim or Brazilian women if they partnered with organizations in those countries. The same is true for any other activist group.

Lastly, I think such dismissive attitudes of foreign peoples, be they Muslim or not, is dangerous, particularly given the nature of our military involvement abroad. I see such views as resulting from propaganda spread to justify war, and I fear they might play a role in justifying such incursions in the future. I believe it impossible to do any good in the world if we lack respect for those we purport to help.

Perhaps there are other ways we can help that others might suggest.

[Zorra]

141. + 1,000,000. Spot on and stellar, RainDog.

And, honestly, you should stop trying to pretend people here are in line with neo-cons. You must not have been on DU when Bush was in office or you would be aware of just how off base your attempts to smear others here are. It's ludicrous, really, to make such a claim. Yet it's like a mantra for you.

Because you don't have a valid argument to make, I suppose.

[MADem]

196. Oddly enough, these "blankets over the head" and "beekeeper suits" are not prescribed in the Qu'ran.

This is a bit tangential to the general discussion, but it's salient.

There's some general guidance about modesty, not displaying the hair or the figure or dressing ostentatiously or provocatively, but there's nothing specific in there that says "Wear this sweaty hot outfit" or "Put on this stupid flowered Beekeeper get-up with the peek a boo lace for the eyes."

Further, in every religion, there's shit "in the book" that no one pays attention to, anymore.

No one is burning bulls on the altar as a sacrifice at Sunday services to make a pleasing odor to the Lord, anymore, either, unless the "altar" is your Coleman grill, and the Lord is the first person to sink his or her teeth into that nice rack-o-ribs.

The issue isn't really the silly guidance in the books, it's that some dumbasses are looking at that stuff, that kind of made sense a thousand years ago, and trying to suggest that it makes sense today, in our society, in This Modern World. And some of them insist that This Is The Way and any digressions need to be met with death. They're as stupid as the "strict constructionists" on the Supreme Court.

The Saudis are the worst, I'd say, but they're not alone.

And there are plenty of Muslims who don't live like that, and who think it's just stupid shit to demand that kind of nonsense as an indicator of faith--but, so long as there are nuts who issue fatwahs like they're handing out Lifesavers to the grandkids, they keep their heads down. Who wants to buy trouble?

Times change...tastes change...(to quote an old cigarette commercial on TV, years ago).

[KittyWampus]

72. they are both part of the same sick dynamic.

[jaded_old_cynic]

195. Nobody is saying that.

However, it most likely begins with the veil, because it helps to dehumanize the women wearing them.

[snooper2]

54. Oh you are supposed to be "respectful" of the culture and religious beliefs

I mean, who are we to judge men forcing religion on society? Those women want to walk around like looking like ninjas every day it's a 2000 year old fad.

We have no right to judge their society we live in nasty America with it's "rape culture" around every lampshade...

[BainsBane]

97. Well I know this is radical

Last edited Tue Apr 30, 2013, 11:48 PM - Edit history (1)

But you could start with reading what Muslim feminists care about. I cited a series of articles. Somehow, however, I don't think you're going to start caring about what Muslim feminists think when you've never cared what any other feminist thinks.

On the off chance: http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/04/29/3747543.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/05/15/3503569.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/05/10/3500125.htm

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/03/201332715585855781.html
http://www.npr.org/2010/04/27/126309699/islamic-feminists-transforming-middle-east
http://www.wisemuslimwomen.org/activism/


Yeah, I know it really pisses off some that a woman somewhere on the planet isn't wearing a bikini. I understand that is so much more consequential than domestic violence or her right to life. I mean, domestic violence or rape doesn't affect many here. But if women are covered, there aren't any good pics of them to post in the locker room. What could be more egregious than that?

[LadyHawkAZ]

124. Can't wear. Not "isn't". Can't.

As in "are not allowed to make that choice because they are women". Amazingly, there's a difference, and it's nothing to do with forcing them to wear bikinis.

Can they wear a bikini in Riyadh? How about a tank top and shorts? Jeans and a Tshirt, with a ponytail? Let's go further. Can they get birth control pills? Have sex with their boyfriend after a date? Have an abortion? Drive, or otherwise travel, at will? Get a divorce? If they are beaten by a husband or father, will the police come and put him in jail? Can they work whenever they want in the industry they choose? Pick their own faith or go without one completely?

These are human rights that should be freely available to all without fear of punishment, and they are not subject to "cultural" waivers. Not even for such a "feminist" culture.

I'm curious- did women universally accept bloomers in this country when they were introduced? I seem to recall it met with some pretty heavy resistance, yet here we all are, 150 years down the line, mostly wearing pants now. It wasn't something all women considered a priority or even wanted in our culture in the beginning, was it? We can still choose skirts these days, of course; many women do. I'm sure we can find a parallel here if we look hard enough.

I sincerely hope I misunderstand the meaning of your last two sentences, and you're not really trying to say that burqas = less domestic violence and rape. That would be slipping into the realm of the totally ridiculous.

[BainsBane]

126. No, I wasn't saying that

You did misunderstand. My post was directed to a particular member whose idea of women's rights is unorthodox at best.

I agree completely that the rights you site should be universal. I have no disagreement with that.

My initial post in this thread was dismay that posters reacted to an image of a battered woman by talking about the oppression of her veil. In my opinion, having the crap beat out of me is worse, regardless of what I'm wearing. Though I certainly agree I would insist on the choice to wear what I want. For some Muslim women, they want to veil. Others do not. The problem is with regimes like Saudi Arabia that compel veiling. In France, women are not allowed to veil in certain public places, like schools. Both policies are wrong.

Saudi Arabia is among the most oppressive of Muslim regimes. As the article I cited points out, many men there argue that veiling protects women from assault, which is far from the case.

My point is really a simple one. If we truly care about women's rights in the Muslim world, we have an obligation to listen to what those women care about, to read their essays and listen to their concerns. Some reject veiling and even Islam entirely. Others see Islam as providing the potential for their liberation. There are hundreds of feminists groups already operating in the Muslim world. What is so objectionable about paying attention to their concerns?

[Warren DeMontague]

129. And again, here you are just making stuff up out of thin air about DU members.

Here is a direct quote from you of what is, apparently, the "unorthodox idea of women's rights" of a, quote, "particular member":

pisses off some that a woman somewhere on the planet isn't wearing a bikini. I understand that is so much more consequential than domestic violence or her right to life. I mean, domestic violence or rape doesn't affect many here. But if women are covered, there aren't any good pics of them to post in the locker room. What could be more egregious than that?

Okay, so who, specifically, has stated that they are "pissed off a woman somewhere isn't wearing a bikini"? (At any given moment, with 4 Billion women on the planet, probably the vast majority aren't wearing a bikini, so that "particular member" must be awfully "pissed&quot Who has said that the fact that "a woman somewhere on the planet isn't wearing a bikini" is "so much more consequential than domestic violence or her right to life."?

Who is this particular member who has said these things, who has espoused these views? Where? Do you have a link, perchance?

Because the fact is, this "particular member" who has stated these views, doesn't exist- anywhere except your own head.

If I'm wrong, prove it.

[BainsBane]

135. As fascinating as you may find conversations about other members

I am not going to indulge you. You can play that game by yourself. You determination to avoid discussing the substance of the issue truly is impressive.

[Warren DeMontague]

144. Is that supposed to be ironic? Post-modern?

A completely contentless, nonresponsive reply... alleging a lack of content and responsiveness?

A masterwork of Kettle-tudinous Pot-rilifferousness, maychance?

[BainsBane]

145. And yet you chose to respond to this rather than the response

To you that lays out my argument. Utterly predictable.

[Warren DeMontague]

150. Pickin' the low hanging fruit

isn't the same thing as dancing the dance of the seven evasions.

I'll get there, never you fear.

[LadyHawkAZ]

130. Pay attention to, sure.

Use them as an instrument to prevent change? No.

Use them to silence critics of abuses within the culture that they, from inside the culture, may not be willing or able to see? Definitely no.

The women of the FLDS have had plenty to say in praise of their psychotic little culture too. Listen? Sure. Allow them to go on about their business as they think their God wants, as interpreted by their male leaders? Fuck no. Go on jailing their child-raping POS church leaders and removing their underage "wives" from the psychotic little cult? Absolutely. My attitude doesn't change based on how many people a particular church has managed to brainwash (or force or threaten) into their ranks. Religious misogyny is still misogyny, in fact it is our greatest source of misogyny, and needs to be pushed back against as much as possible until it is extinct.

France's law IIRC also bans headscarves, which is the part that bothers me. I don't have a problem with a law that says your facial features must be uncovered and identifiable in public areas. That's a safety issue, particularly in a Western country. I don't think that was the reasoning behind the law, but that is the way I see it. If you are going to do things like attend school and take tests, or shop with a credit card, or go to banks, drive etc, other people need to be able to easily see that you are really you. Hijab allows that and really should have been exempt.

[BainsBane]

134. I couldn't disagree more

Banning headscarves is every bit as oppressive as requiring them. The reason for the law is religious intolerance, the same reason France bans construction of new minarets.

If you had read the articles I cited, you would not characterize them as you did above. I'm not interested in silencing people. I would like to encourage them to interrogate ways in which First World privilege frames their views of the Global South and Muslims in particular. It appears to be a lost cause.

[LadyHawkAZ]

139. I know. Their motives were different than mine.

From my POV: if I'm a businessperson, and someone walks in with their face covered and wants to make a purchase with a credit card, or enters my bank with their features unidentifiable, or anything along those lines, I'm going to ask them to remove it or leave. If I cannot verify that you are the cardholder, I will refuse your card purchase. If your face cannot be seen and identified on a camera, I don't want you in my bank. I would do this with a ski mask or motorcycle helmet as well. That's a safety issue. This is only a problem with a burqa or niqab that covers the entire face, and not a problem with a hijab which leaves the face visible (I thought France had banned these too, but apparently I was wrong).

I'm in full sympathy with France's motives, but I don't think this is the best way to go about it. Time and education is the way to stamp out religion; it can't be done with a ban and it will never happen overnight.

[BainsBane]

142. Headscarves do not restrict identification

Few forms of veiling cover the face. Headscarves such as those worn by many North African immigrants in France cover only the hair.

This is banned:



This is not:




I would have no problem identifying either of those women. I would, however, know that one is Muslim, which is why her dress is forbidden in schools. Note that one is engaging in political activism, protesting the banning of her chosen form of dress. The other simply dresses as Western society expects.

[antigone382]

136. That stance assumes that all women in the Muslim world want the same thing.

There are a variety of women's rights groups in the Islamic world. Not all of them are Muslim. Some of them are probably on just the same page as you.

With regard to the FLDS, that analogy stands except for the reality that we haven't bombed the shit out of Salt Lake City, nor is there a legacy in largely Mormon areas of our installing and supporting oppressive puppets like the Shah of Iran to support our objectives. Imperialism has been justified for a very long time on the basis that the colonizing powers were "liberating women" from "backwards" cultures, when in reality we were quite deliberately eroding their economic systems and ecological bases in order to benefit our own economic development, so women in predominantly Muslim countries have good reason to be suspicious of Western interventions that are supposedly on their behalf.

The legacy of imperialism around the world has been every bit as oppressive and savage as anything that the Muslim fundamentalists could dish out (if you doubt that, check out the history of the Democratic Republic of the Congo for just one example of the absolutely horrific things done under the name of "uplifting" the backwards population). Just as women in many Muslim societies are treated as second class citizens because of their gender, indigenous people in the colonized world were treated as second-class citizens on the basis of ethnicity and culture; and these threads have hardly been excised. As a matter of fact there is evidence that fundamentalism around the world (including Muslim and Hindu fundamentalism) was actually a reactive response to Western ideologies of cultural superiority in the former colonies.

Nor can this be viewed as simple history--the relationships of domination and exploitation have not really changed, despite the former end of colonialism. As such, there is a LOT of historical baggage being ignored when Westerners assert that we just need to transform those other countries to be more like us.

[LadyHawkAZ]

140. They didn't have to bomb Salt Lake

They threatened to seize the church assets and the church caved in. It's amazing what an opportunist Heavenly Father is; his revelation on polygamy came just in the nick of time to keep the church assets safe...

[Occulus]

60. Um, I really hate to point this out, but

women here in the US do not have to submit to such requirements in our society, and they still get black eyes from men.

[grilled onions]

2. Direct and Honest

This is a good approach. Here we have so many having the "door knob" excuse every time they sport a black eye or every time they are bruised all over it's always "falling down the stairs" . It's a wonder we don't consider them a major hazard in the home. With the height of the average doorknob I wonder just what position you would have to be in to smack your eye?
Seriously this abuse is a major problem and far too often behind closed doors where there are few witnesses and even fewer options for help. Fear, poverty,lack of education, culture all play a part.

[stevenleser]

3. According to some on DU, any comment we make on this is Imperialist and NeoColonialst.

We should butt out of the treatment of women in Asia Minor.

I disagree with that but there it is.

[Lizzie Poppet]

5. I like to refer to those people as "misogynists."

Among other less-polite terms...

[stevenleser]

7. They would insist that they are the only true feminists here.

I have lots of angry comments directed at me for supportiing Femen's efforts against misogyny in Asia minor.

[Lizzie Poppet]

12. I suspect so.

They would be wrong, of course...but I (sort of) understand their point. For those women in these societies who would freely choose some of the things that their culture tends to impose upon them, were that imposition not in place, then their freedom of choice certainly trumps the preferences of others. But it doesn't really work that way in many, many Islamic cultures, does it?

[stevenleser]

17. Nope, it doesn't, and you are right, that is exactly the point

Would we have believed any Blacks in apartheid South Africa if they told us they really wanted to live under apartheid?

Actually "believed" is the wrong word, right? Would we have thought that what they were telling us is a fair representation of what they would have wanted if they were truly free and equal and had access to the best information about to what a truly free person should be entitled?

Of course not. And this situation is similar. Give these women complete freedom and equality, and then, after a few years, lets see how many are wearing hijab and wanting to live under Sharia.

[Turborama]

48. How would you give them this "freedom" and how would you know that you've given it to them? n/t

[stevenleser]

52. How would YOU do it? nt

[Turborama]

57. It's YOUR proposal, not mine. n/t

[stevenleser]

75. I'm not proposing anything. Its an example. nt

[Turborama]

80. Well, technically it's a hypothesis

And to understand it properly it's important to know what the "freedom" you mention is.

[BainsBane]

143. It appears to mean

becoming like us.

[backscatter712]

28. I'm not on speaking terms with one of these characters... n/t

[get the red out]

68. I consider myself a feminist

Apologists for the misogyny of Muslim nations are fooling themselves and trying to fool the rest of us.

[kysrsoze]

8. LOL. Yeah, perfectly fitting description there.

[closeupready]

10. Correct. Years ago here, I recall making a remark

about my sexual orientation, that I found white people sexually undesirable, and brown skinned people to be very sexy. As you suggest, I was criticized for that admission, very strongly.

So rather than lie, I decided to stay out of such threads, since too many fellow Americans want to 'own' issues, and dictate without challenge from other Americans.

[Matariki]

11. Yeah, "Cultural Relativism" always seems to apply to woman's rights

If the same treatment were applied to a different class of people, folks would be screaming bloody murder and demanding boycotts and blockades.

[get the red out]

69. Absolutely

Best comment in this thread IMO.

[riderinthestorm]

74. You "cultural imperialist" you! Believing that western values about equality and women

and their rights in a society may be preferable to second class status and even subjugation means you haven't yet been educated ENOUGH about the issue in order to have a valid critique!!11!!!

BIGOT!!111!!

PREJUDICED!!11!!!




FWIW, I agree with you but lately there's been this very vocal group who become very strident in accusing any DUer who even dares to question ANYTHING about Islam as prejudiced and bigoted etc - even if its included as part of a broader discussion about patriarchy and religion.

[LadyHawkAZ]

22. Apparently burqas really do keep women safe

by covering teh boobz and not tempting men with all that sexyness. Look how low the reported rapes are in Saudi Arabia compared to the degenerate Westerners! Breasts are oppression! Burqas are freedom!



And then we wonder why the youngsters don't want to identify as feminists.

[backscatter712]

26. Welcome to the secret meeting of the Legion of Imperial Atheists!

Today, we're going to discuss our EEEEEEVIL agenda of liberating women from the hijab, so as to undermine the heroic authoritarian control of Islam and bring it under the control of Western Imperial Liberty! Under our EEEEEEEEEEEEVIL Imperial Rule, we shall impose values like equality, liberty, and respect for women! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

First! In my evil diabolical plot, we take their own holy book, the Quran, and show their prejudice against women USING IT'S OWN WORDS!

Our fellow evil comrades in arms have already done extensive work in this area on this bigoted hate site of atheism! http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/

Look at the quotes they've already found!

2:223 Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will, and send (good deeds) before you for your souls, and fear Allah, and know that ye will (one day) meet Him. Give glad tidings to believers, (O Muhammad).

2:282 O ye who believe! When ye contract a debt for a fixed term, record it in writing. Let a scribe record it in writing between you (in terms of) equity. No scribe should refuse to write as Allah hath taught him, so let him write, and let him who incurreth the debt dictate, and let him observe his duty to Allah his Lord, and diminish naught thereof. But if he who oweth the debt is of low understanding, or weak, or unable himself to dictate, then let the guardian of his interests dictate in (terms of) equity. And call two witness from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not at hand, then a man and two women, of such as ye approve as witnesses, so that if one erreth (though forgetfulness) the other will remember. And the witnesses must not refuse when they are summoned. Be no averse to writing down (the contract) whether it be small or great, with (record of) the term thereof. That is more equitable in the sight of Allah and more sure for testimony, and the best way of avoiding doubt between you; save only in the case when it is actual merchandise which ye transfer among yourselves from hand to hand. In that case it is no sin for you if ye write it not. And have witnesses when ye sell to one another, and let no harm be done to scribe or witness. If ye do (harm to them) lo! it is a sin in you. Observe your duty to Allah. Allah is teaching you. And Allah is knower of all things.

4:11 Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females, and if there be women more than two, then theirs is two-thirds of the inheritance, and if there be one (only) then the half. And to each of his parents a sixth of the inheritance, if he have a son; and if he have no son and his parents are his heirs, then to his mother appertaineth the third; and if he have brethren, then to his mother appertaineth the sixth, after any legacy he may have bequeathed, or debt (hath been paid). Your parents and your children: Ye know not which of them is nearer unto you in usefulness. It is an injunction from Allah. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise.

But wait! Next in our EEEEEEEEVIL plot, we will encourage and help this group of women called FEMEN, who protest mistreatment of women in Islamic countries by taking off their tops! Why the sight of mammary glands will drive our enemies to madness!

TODAY, BOOBIES!!! TOMORROW, THE WORLD!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Oh, and do try the baby-back ribs! They're very succulent!

[Turborama]

49. Asia Minor?

Why are you singling out Turkey?

[backscatter712]

51. Why is it we call it the "Middle East", when it's actually Southwest Asia? n/t

[Turborama]

56. What is "it"? n/t

[backscatter712]

58. It is a region of land on the southwest of Asia.

Maybe you're seeing something in what I wrote that I did not intend?

[Turborama]

59. Well, I thought when Steven said "Minor Asia" he was trying to describe where Muslims live.

That's why I was wondering why that small part of the world was chosen.

In answer to your question, though, I have always thought Middle East seems like a vestige of the colonial era meaning halfway to the "East" (India/China/Burma/Malaya etc) from Britain.

[HappyMe]

6. I think it's a good ad.

It's a start and a step in the right direction.

[eissa]

14. Actually, yes, they can be covered

Until women are treated as equals, and their choice of clothes, travel, marriage, education and lifestyle is not regulated by every male member of her family AND the state, the abuse will continue. This ad is completely meaningless.

[Skittles]

27. I agree

I have to say, it sickens me to see a gal covered from head to foot in 100+ degree weather with a guy wearing shorts and a t-shirt - don't EVEN tell me there is no pressure on a gal to do that

[Yo_Mama]

15. Message abusers get "beat her body where bruises can't be seen"

They're going to have to do a little better than that!!!

I swear to G_d, I really think a lot of the men in Saudi will think this is a message not to hit your wife in the face. After all, Shariah permits beating your wife.

[Mister Ed]

18. I wonder if it might be a message to the abused, and not the abusers

I wonder if it might whisper to them, "You're not alone. You're not alone...."

If it does - if it can lessen their feeling of isolation and despair - then it might be a very valuable start.

[JI7]

47. it is, the campaign is meant to try to get them to report abuse

there was some other article saying younger women were more likely to report it. there are centers in various cities for them to go to. and phone numbers for them to call.

i think it's children also.

[Yo_Mama]

61. The problem in Saudi is that

when the abused women attempt to even get a divorce, the courts commonly are reluctant to provide it.

Victims are reluctant to report abuse because the system does not support their rights.

The full story of this case, for example, cannot be believed. I'm afraid to even post it here for fear of being tombstoned.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/04/world/meast/saudi-arabia-girl-death

But here's the dire punishment this man suffered:
http://www.examiner.com/article/saudi-arabia-islamic-cleric-rapes-tortures-kills-daughter-pays-fine

It's been reported that the king intervened to prevent the man's release:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-royal-family-intervenes-over-preacher-released-despite-raping-and-killing-daughter-8491812.html

As soon as the publicity dies down he'll be out. Note that the judge ruled that the prosecution could not even seek anything other than a fine as judicial punishment.

There was a well-publicized case in which a TV announcer (female) was bludgeoned nearly to death by her husband. He threw her out at the hospital. Rania al Baz
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3667349.stm

She decided to divorce him, which is very difficult in Saudi:
http://www.arabnews.com/node/257160

For quite a while they didn't even arrest him, and only major agitation and publicity got him any sentence at all. And the woman needed a sentence to use as bargaining power on the divorce and custody of her children. Well, ever since this problem was forced upon the government's attention, she has had a hard time of it. She is now out of the country:
http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=1459

http://saudiwoman.me/2008/12/05/prominent-saudis-rania-al-baz/
Note that there was a lot of support for the husband, and it wasn't clear that the court would grant Rania a divorce unless she bribed him to do it. Fortunately, he was arrested for other crimes.

In Saudi Arabia, the problem is not even Islam. It's a system in which the word of a woman is not acceptable in court. If a woman reports abuse by her husband, she will probably lose her children and have to pay him for a divorce. If the man is abusive to her children, she will have to leave them to their fate, which is what happened to Lama Al-Ghamdi. The courts of Saudi Arabia routinely do not enforce the rights of women under Islam.

So I regard the OP as rather offensive in its implications. The problem is not that women are unwilling to report abuse of themselves or their children. It is that they have no rights. If abusive fathers could lose custody of their children, women would be reporting these crimes.

[backscatter712]

63. But that's their ancient and beautiful culture!

We must respect their culture when we see them beating the shit out of women!

[get the red out]

70. We must say instead

At least he was civilized and only justly beat her instead of throwing acid in her face or honor killing her. A wife beater is PROGRESSIVE!

[Yo_Mama]

71. And of course

concerns that your five year-old daughter may not be a virgin justify beating and raping her, and then attempting to remove the evidence by burning her crotch area before taking her to the hospital. For which the penalty is a fine under 50K, because hey, the girl was a slut anyway, and what's a concerned father to do? That literally was the determination of the court.

Sarcasm does not relieve the need to vomit.

[get the red out]

77. Ugh, EVIL

No other words for a religion/culture that would train parents to do that to their own child. EVIL! I hadn't even heard that atrocity in the name of their "beautiful, ancient, culture".

Why do so many liberals try to gloss stuff like this over? If a person dares criticize then they claim you want to bomb them or some idiocy! How does anyone not despise a culture that permits this??????? Or try to say sexism in this country (which is still a problem) somehow equates to this??????

I did know about the young girls forced to burn up in their school some years ago when a fire broke out in the middle of the night and the Saudi religious police barred the doors to keep them from getting out and being seen in their night gowns.

[Marrah_G]

50. That was my thought too

[stevenleser]

16. Kick nt

[jazzimov]

19. Isn't stoning considered physical violence?

[riderinthestorm]

20. 1. That's a niqab, not a burqa. 2. The hideous IRONY of this ad! Women are FORCED to "cover up"

They MUST wear shrouds at all times out in public in Saudi Arabia (and Iran etc). You don't think men realize this? Its DISGUSTING to play this as a semantic game.

3. The Quran gives men explicit permission to beat their wives. If Muhammed says its okay then its okay for many Muslims. All this ad does is ensure the abuse stays on those parts of the body that aren't exposed.

4. The Saudis have been waging a decades long campaign to institute their version of Salafi/Wahhabi Islam across the planet which strongly advocates for women to be shrouded, for women to be second class citizens to men, for women to be forced into obedience to Sharia law etc etc. In short, the Saudis have been PRIME movers and shakers in the global Islamist movement. And yet this one ad (rife with terrible connotations) is the one they put out to try to right the numerous wrongs they've inflicted on women around the globe??



Ugh. Just awful

[get the red out]

78. THANK YOU

I was afraid for so long that no liberal would allow themselves to see this, or were afraid to talk about it if they did. The Saudis are not the friends of women, they aren't the friends of anything progressive anywhere.

[backscatter712]

82. Exactly. Dominionist Christianity. Wahhabi Islam. SAME VILE SHIT!

Last edited Tue Apr 30, 2013, 03:51 PM - Edit history (1)

They just use different books of Bronze Age fairy tales.

But they give us the same authoritarianism.

The same homophobia.

The same vicious misogyny.

The only difference is in degree.

[Comrade Grumpy]

197. Okay, scratch the ad campaign because you don't approve. What's the next step?

[LadyHawkAZ]

23. I'll reserve judgement until we see if it has an effect

I hope it works and they can keep it up, but the cynic in me has doubts.

[Jamastiene]

24. So, they are saying beat women where it cannot be seen through the one small slot

that shows any skin on a woman? Can you tell I don't like the Saudis' laws against women very much?

[Bonobo]

25. Oh shit, the irony!

In point of fact, you could cover ALL abuse except for a black eye!

Is the answer then that you can be safe as long as you leave their eyes alone?

I just hope no one shows their boobs or the whole issue of misogyny in Saudi Arabia can be buried over outrage that menz got tah see teh boobz.

[backscatter712]

30. At that point, she'll be made to switch from the niqab to the burqa.

The burqa has that mesh thingie that covers the eyes too. We wouldn't want any of that sexy epidermis showing...

[JI7]

33. the person who made the ad has criticized the veil as hiding abuse

[davidn3600]

35. Saudi Arabia has a ways to go in this area...

[Gravitycollapse]

41. Man...this ad is fucked in so many different ways.

[Rex]

91. Oppression.

Crushing an entire gender into subservient cohorts.

[Apophis]

131. Stupid PSA.

The only way domestic abuse can be alleviated in Saudi Arabia is to quit treating women like property.

[gateley]

151. This is for the Saudis -- not for us. Why we're repelled by their treatment of women,

if they would have shown an UNcovered woman that would have been the focus of the discussion.

They did it right for their society.

I just happen to think their society is wrong, but am happy they're addressing this.

[Warren DeMontague]

156. It is better than not addressing it at all.

It's hard to look at and not see the issues it raises, though.

[tralala]

165. If this is for Saudis, why is it in English? Why are we talking about it?

No, this is for us. Either they're really bad at PR or our revulsion is the desired outcome.

[BainsBane]

169. that's an interesting point

I know that English is the language of instructions in institutions of higher education in Saudi Arabia, but I doubt ads are in English.

[Cali_Democrat]

173. Ya, but there's no denying...

their society is extremely oppressive of women.

It's disgusting.

[gateley]

174. Couldn't agree with you more. I feel suffocated when I think of it.