Yourish.com

11/06/2009

Gaza ERA watch

Filed under: Feminism, Gaza, Religion — Meryl Yourish @ 7:00 am

Say, folks, it’s true: Islam is totally a feminist religion. Why, just look at what Hamas is going to do in Gaza!

Hamas authorities on Thursday asked several educational institutions in southern Gaza Strip to segregate males and females in compliance with Islamic norms.

The call appeared on a notification signed by Police General-Directorate in Rafah town, ordering private social and educational centers to sign a form demanding their commitment of Islamic and Palestinian traditions and preventing smoking.

The police threatened to impose about 1,300 U.S. dollars in fine to those who do not commit to “inform the police about suspected students or infracting decency.”

It’s okay, they’re only going to fine violaters. There won’t be any floggings.

Yet.

Previous decision included forcing lawyers and high school female students to wear long, loose uniforms with head covers and preventing women from riding behind men on motorcycles.

Gee, I really can’t argue with those Muslims who tell me how liberating Islam is for women.

09/17/2009

Muslim ERA Watch, Egypt version

Filed under: Feminism, Religion — Tags: , — Meryl Yourish @ 12:00 pm

Ladies of Egypt, rejoice! You can wear pants—BUT—they can’t be tight. Or see-through. Or stretch pants.

Egypt’s top Islamic authority defended women’s rights to wear trousers in public following a high profile court case in neighboring Sudan were women were flogged for dressing in pants, the local press reported Wednesday.

Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa said in response to a question during a public lecture that trousers covering women’s bodies are permitted, though they should be loose and not see through. He specified that “stretch” pants were in particular unacceptable.

Other than that, feel free to join in with the rest of the modern women and wear long, loose, shapeless, flowing pants.

Oh, wait. That’s only women in yoga classes.

Or wearing pajamas.

But hey, you go, girls! Wear that modern hijab and feel liberated!

09/07/2009

Monday SNB

Filed under: Feminism, Gaza, Hamas, Iran, Religion — Meryl Yourish @ 9:05 am

Yeah, sure. And you’ve perfected the flying carpet, too: Iran says it’s developed weapons systems that will intercept stealth missiles. I think I can still hear the peals of laughter from the Pentagon over this report.

Hamas backs off on the hijab for lawyers—for now: Apparently Hamas is not entirely ignorant of public relations. Their version of a supreme court said that female lawyers only have to “dress modestly,” not wear a headscarf when they appear in court. Give them time. They’ll come back with another try.

Muslim ERA watch: Sudan shows its modernity by fining a woman for wearing pants. This is actually good news. She was supposed to be whipped for her audacity. Just for comparison’s sake, women in Israel can wear pants freely and without punishment. But Israel is the country that women’s groups protest.

British Christians protest book slamming Jesus: Watch out, British Christians are about to erupt in fury over a book saying that Jesus isn’t the son of God. Expect riots, death, destruction—oh, no, wait. Expect sternly worded letters of protest. And people saying they won’t buy the book. (Judging by so many of the comments in British newspapers and blogs, there will also be a strong contingent of atheists cheering the author on.)

The Iranian revolution continues:
Whoa. Khatami and Moussavi are on the move again, and the news media have decided that Iran is news again. Wonder if they’ll run all those hagiographic news articles on Ahmadinejad when he hits New York for the UN session later this month? That should be a treat—Ghaddafy, Mad Mahmoud, and probably Chavez. It’s the Triple Crown of America-hating nutjobs!

06/24/2009

Saudi ERA Watch, AP whitewash edition

Filed under: AP Media Bias, Feminism, Religion, Saudi Arabia — Tags: , , — Meryl Yourish @ 12:00 pm

How cool is this? Wow, a member of the Saudi royal family says he sure does hope that someday, little girls in Saudi Arabia can grow up to play sports! (But not with men. Never with men.)

Appealing to a powerful Saudi prince, an 8-year-old girl asked why she was not allowed to play sports in school like boys. She got an unexpected response: The prince said he hoped government schools for girls would allow playing fields.

And how cool is this? The AP is taking this mealy-mouthed, patronizing anti-feminist pap and pushing it like it’s the equivalent of America’s Title IX.

The stand taken by Prince Khaled al-Faisal, governor of the holy city of Mecca and one of the most senior second-generation members of the royal family, on the controversial issue is the strongest official endorsement so far of women’s sports and a sign the government may be tilting toward opening up on that front.

And exactly why is it such obvious bullshit? Because in the next breath, the AP reports this:

Physical education classes are banned in state-run girls schools in conservative Saudi Arabia. Saudi female athletes are not allowed to participate in the Olympics. Women’s games and marathons have been canceled when the powerful clergy get wind of them. And some clerics even argue that running and jumping can damage a woman’s hymen and ruin her chances of getting married.

“Conservative”? Ronald Reagan was a conservative. A better description of Saudi Arabia would be “feudal.” Except I’m pretty sure that women had more rights in feudal Europe than they have in modern Saudi Arabia. And lest you think that the prince was suggesting any form of equality for women, think again:

According to local newspapers, the 8-year-old girl told Khaled: “I ask myself why is it that only boys can play sports and have courts while we girls don’t have anything?”

“I hope to see sports courts for girls inside girls’ schools,” the prince responded, according to Al-Hayat newspaper.

He said if this were to happen, it will be in coordination with the Education Ministry and “according to certain mechanisms that take into consideration women’s privacy in this country.”

Yes, the fabled privacy excuse. Because given half the chance, women in Muslim lands won’t throw off the shackles of repression and try to live normal lives. Oh, wait. Yes, they will (cf: Afghanistan, Iraq).

But when you live with medieval freaks like these, well, your choices are limited:

A statement issued by three senior clerics last month lashed out at Saudis who demand the opening of more gyms for women, saying such a move would “open the doors wide for spreading decadence.”

“It is well-known that only women with no shame will go to these clubs,” said the statement signed by clerics Abdul-Rahman al-Barrack, Abdul-Aziz al-Rajihi and Abdullah bin Jibrin.

In a recent column in Al-Watan newspaper, Sheik Abdullah al-Mani, an adviser at the royal court, said virgins should think twice before engaging in sports.

“Soccer or basketball require running and jumping and these could damage (a woman’s) the hymen,” he wrote. “If she marries, her husband will … think that her hymen was destroyed as a result of an (immoral) action.”

“He will either divorce her or lose confidence in her chastity,” he added.

But sure, let’s respect their culture and traditions. Because practices like these simply cry out for respect.

Shyeah.

05/12/2009

Saudi ERA Watch: Women should be slapped

Filed under: Feminism, Juvenile Scorn, Religion — Meryl Yourish @ 1:30 pm

Once again, the Saudis prove that they’re stuck square in the middle of the seventh century.

A Saudi judge told a conference on domestic violence that a man has the right to slap a wife who spends money wastefully and said women were as much to blame as men for increased spousal abuse, a Saudi newspaper reported.

The remarks do not carry the weight of law, as they were made out of court. But such public pronouncements by Saudi judges – who are also Islamic clerics – are often widely respected.

Yeah, this is the nation whose leaders Bush and Obama have both bowed to. This is the country that got Barbara Walters, Nancy Pelosi, and Laura Bush to wear headscarves. This is the nation that is supplying the funds to the Wahabbi mosques seeded throughout the nation. Boy, what a great bunch of guys!

“If a person gives 1,200 Saudi riyals ($320) to his wife and she spends 900 riyals ($240) to purchase an abaya (head-to-toe robe) from a brand shop and if her husband slaps her on the face as a reaction to her action, she deserves that punishment,” Judge Hamad Al-Razine was quoted as saying by the English-language Arab News newspaper on Sunday.

Let me translate that into Americanese: “Bitch! You spent too much money on your tent!”

Okay, maybe I elaborated a bit. Substitute “dress” for “tent.”

But gee, what a great country. Not.

03/09/2009

Saudi ERA Watch: 75-year-old widow to be whipped

Filed under: Feminism, Religion — Meryl Yourish @ 5:53 pm

The Saudis have sentenced a 75-year-old widow to jail and lashes for the crime of “mingling” with men who are not related. Except that one of them was. The men were sentenced and whipped.

A 75-year-old widow in Saudi Arabia has been sentenced to 40 lashes and four months in jail for mingling with two young men who are not close relatives, drawing new criticism for the kingdom’s ultraconservative religious police and judiciary.

The woman’s lawyer told The Associated Press on Monday that he would appeal the verdict against Khamisa Sawadi, who is Syrian but was married to a Saudi. The attorney, Abdel Rahman al-Lahem, said the verdict issued March 3 also demands that Sawadi be deported after serving her sentence.

[...] The newspaper Al-Watan said the woman met with the two 24-year-old men last April after she asked them to bring her five loaves of bread at her home in al-Chamil, a city north of the capital, Riyadh.

Al-Watan identified one man as Fahd al-Anzi, the nephew of Sawadi’s late husband, and the other as his friend and business partner Hadiyan bin Zein. It said they were arrested by the religious police after delivering the bread. The men also were convicted and sentenced to lashes and prison.

The court said it based its ruling on “citizen information” and testimony from al-Anzi’s father, who accused Sawadi of corruption.

“Because she said she doesn’t have a husband and because she is not a Saudi, conviction of the defendants of illegal mingling has been confirmed,” the court verdict read.

March 8 was International Women’s Day. Just a few days ago, the AP presented a whitewash piece on how the Saudis are allowing women to do more normal things. I guess asking your nephew to bring you food because you’re 75 years old and a widow isn’t one of the things that the Saudis will allow women to do.

International Women’s Day, Israel vs. the Muslim world

Filed under: Feminism, Israel, Religion — Meryl Yourish @ 7:00 am

In Israel on International Women’s Day, former president Moshe Katsav was indicted for rape.

In Saudi Arabia, the AP flacks for the kingdom point out that women can now attend the Riyadh International Book Fair for more than the two half-days they attended last year—but they can’t give autographed copies of their books to men.

In Pakistan’s Swat Valley, women stay home for fear of being killed by the Taliban.

In Jordan, men are still protected by law from harsh punishments for “honor” killings of their wives or female relatives.

In Iran, women can still be whipped and stoned for not covering up with a hijab. Or stoned to death for adultery.

In Malaysia, clerics issue fatwas banning yoga.

In Gaza, besides using women as human shields, Hamas has been recruiting them for suicide attacks on Israelis.

In LaLa Land, a few truckloads of female fools, including Code Pink’s Medea Benjamin, were finally let through the Gaza border by Egypt to support—of course—the Palestinians. There were no Code Pink marches in support of women in Islamic countries facing discrimination and death for being women.

03/04/2009

Arab men seeking Israeli women for LTR

Filed under: Feminism, Israel — Meryl Yourish @ 12:00 pm

Apparently, some Arabs only hate Israeli men.

“I’m asking for your help. I would like to meet an Israeli woman for marriage purposes,” Abdullah, a resident of Saudi Arabia, said in a recent letter to the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem.

“I have heard that the Israeli women are very smart and beautiful,” he added. “I’m ready to pay a dowry of camels, herds or even money. Please help me.”

Dozens of such appeals are received every year by the Foreign Ministry’s department for Arab media. Emails have been arriving from people in Iraq, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

Yeah, I’m not getting it, either.

“The Israeli woman must have a remarkable image in the Arab world,” says Hino. “The Arab men reiterate in their letters that the Israeli women are beautiful and smart, but we politely answer all of them that with all due respect, the Foreign Ministry is not a matchmaking agency.”

Perhaps if the women in Arab countries were allowed to fulfill their potential the way Israeli women are, Arab men wouldn’t have to look farther than their own backyard to find smart, beautiful women. You can’t find them when you force them to wear a burka and don’t allow them to drive, work, or go to school.

02/14/2009

The most awesomely awesome night of television

Filed under: Feminism, Television — Meryl Yourish @ 6:06 pm

Many years ago, Friday night TV was must-tape. At 8:00, you had Babylon 5. At nine, there was X-Files. At ten, time for Picket fences. Three different networks, three different kinds of shows, and all three excellent. It got to the point where I didn’t want to go anywhere on a Friday night anymore.

Now, for at least six weeks, we have a troika of excellent SF shows. At 8:00 on Fox, there’s Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, followed by the new Joss Whedon Dollhouse show, and then at ten, on SciFi, the last six (now five) weeks of Battlestar Galactica. Last night, all three shows were superb. Awesomely awesome, as the saying is.

If you didn’t watch Dollhouse, catch it online. You will not be sorry. And next week, you should watch it or DVR it or tape it, because Fox was smart enough to have Summer Glau and Eliza Dushku in several commercials together, talking to each other about how much fun it would be to be each other’s character. Brilliant PR, both for the glamour aspect and the hot-chick-attracking-scifi-geek aspect. Plus, well, I like both actresses a lot. You go, girls.

One other thing about Friday nights on Fox: The lineup is all action chick shows. Oh, sure, there are more than enough guys to go around on both shows, and they’re featured characters, not minor ones. But the women are kicking butt and taking prisoners.

Awesomely awesome, now featuring strong female leads. What’s not to love?

02/13/2009

Bill Zwecker: What did Rhianna do to get beaten up, anyway?

Filed under: Feminism — Meryl Yourish @ 9:00 am

You would think that these attitudes were dead and gone. You would be wrong. Because here you have a newspaper gossip columnist blaming the victim for bringing her beating on herself. In fact, he goes on and on trying to find a reason that Rihanna caused Chris Brown to beat her up. First, you have the stress excuse.

BROWN BITS: As rumors keep flying about what caused Chris Brown to allegedly beat girlfriend Rihanna, the R&B star’s management team is hunkered down and desperately trying to stem the tide of Brown’s commercial endorsements — flowing away from anything connected to the entertainer. … Career control issues also are plaguing Rihanna, herself in seclusion to both heal from her injuries and figure out her next move.

Right. It was money problems, stress, and gee, the bitch was having problems, too.

Next, we have the infidelity argument, but I’m not sure why Brown’s infidelity should be an excuse for beating up his girlfriend. Then again, I’m not trying to excuse a spouse-beater.

• As earlier reported here, questions of Brown’s infidelity — cropping up in text messages — may have been the initial spark to the Saturday argument between the couple that led to Brown’s alleged assault on Rihanna.

• The leaking of Brown’s private Facebook page — where he pledges to reveal Rihanna’s ”true colors,” is also seen as evidence he may fight back in a court of public opinion, especially if the rumors about a sexually transmitted disease being an issue prove true.

Way to go, jackass. Blame Rihanna for bringing the beat-down on herself. Because after all, why would you want to blame the scumbag that hit his girlfriend?

You’ve come a long way, baby.

Apparently, no, you haven’t.

11/12/2008

Iran ERA Watch

Filed under: Feminism, Iran, Religion — Tags: , — Meryl Yourish @ 3:00 pm

Iranian feminism, Islamic-style: Women can be as free as they want—as long as there are no men around.

A woman clad in a red T-shirt plays an Iranian drum in a Tehran park as her teenage daughter dances nearby, her hair flowing in the air.

Anywhere else in Iran they would risk being stopped by the police and possibly arrested. Here, in the first female-only park in the Islamic country’s capital, a dozen women in summer garb have gathered on the grass to watch and applaud.

“We’re having great fun without men,” Setareh Sabzevari, 40, said.

Mothers’ Heaven opened in May as a place where women can cast off their Islamic headscarves and dress to enjoy the sun, jog and play without offending anyone. Embraced by many visitors, the park has also sparked concern it may encourage segregation after a decade in which women gained more freedom to interact with men and participate in sports in public — albeit with their hair and bodies fully covered.

Such initiatives are “positive as long as women have the freedom to choose,” said Rosa Gharachorloo, assistant professor in human and women’s rights at Tehran’s Azad University. “I just would not want this to turn into a law or to become the norm. What if it extends to public libraries or cinemas?”

Yeah, what if? Why, the next thing you know, boys and girls will be dancing together, and after that, well, it’s–trouble! Right here in River City!

Tell me again how free women are under Islamic law. Because I’m still not getting it.

They are practical solutions that respect religious beliefs and are in line with the Islamic Republic’s laws, said Mahmood Maniei, a spokesman and adviser to the mayor’s office for Tehran’s third district, where the park is located.

“Would you prefer doing sports in an Islamic coat or without?” he said. “This is not about segregation. It’s giving women equal opportunities in the city.”

Sociologist Nayereh Tavakoli said she was concerned that some activities women had already gained acceptance for could “again be viewed as abnormal.”

“This is giving opportunities, but it’s not giving equal opportunities,” she said. “Equal would mean that they would have similar access to any park in the city.”

Yes, but that won’t fit into the Islamic laws of Iran. Or Saudi Arabia. Or Kuwait. Or Egypt. Or Pakistan. Or—well, you get the idea.

Exit quote:

“Every Iranian woman dreams of being able to walk under the sky like this,” said the 22-year-old design graduate in a pink tank top and a miniskirt, who came for a tanning session.

Really? Well, dreaming doesn’t do squat. Rights, once removed, are never again given freely. They must be taken, usually by force. Until the average Iranian is truly unhappy with his or her lot, nothing will change.

10/29/2008

Saudi ERA watch

Filed under: Feminism — Tags: — Meryl Yourish @ 4:00 pm

Saudi Arabia is breaking ground for the world’s largest women’s college.

Here’s the funniest part of the article:

The declared aim of the Women’s University is to promote women’s education in the kingdom, improve the situation of Saudi women and make them a more integral part of Saudi Arabia’s development.

The reason it’s so funny? Men can’t teach. And women can’t drive.

Saudi Arabia practices a strict form of Sunni Islam called Wahhabism, and men and women are for the most part segregated. In universities, male lecturers cannot stand in front of a classroom of women, so teaching is done through a screen or a phone line, which can pose technical problems.

But yes, people like Jimmy Carter should totally go after Israeli “apartheid,” and ignore utterly the sexism of much of the Muslim world.

10/08/2008

Agreeing with Paglia on Palin

Filed under: Feminism, Politics — Tags: , — Meryl Yourish @ 11:30 am

I found something that both Camille Paglia and I agree on: Sarah Palin, and the way she’s been wronged by the mainstream feminists (those would be the radfems). Via Hot Air.

The next phase of feminism must circle back and reappropriate the ancient persona of the mother — without losing career ambition or power of assertion. Betty Friedan, who had first attacked the cult of postwar domesticity, had long warned second-wave feminists such as Gloria Steinem about the damaging exclusion of homemakers from their value system. The animus of liberal feminists toward religion must also end (I am speaking as an atheist). Feminism must reexamine all of its assumptions, including its death grip on abortion, if it wishes to survive.

The hysterical emotionalism and eruptions of amoral malice at the arrival of Sarah Palin exposed the weaknesses and limitations of current feminism. But I am convinced that Palin’s bracing mix of male and female voices, as well as her grounding in frontier grit and audacity, will prove to be a galvanizing influence on aspiring Democratic women politicians too, from the municipal level on up. Palin has shown a brand-new way of defining female ambition — without losing femininity, spontaneity or humor. She’s no pre-programmed wonk of the backstage Hillary Clinton school; she’s pugnacious and self-created, the product of no educational or political elite — which is why her outsider style has been so hard for media lemmings to comprehend. And by the way, I think Tina Fey’s witty impersonations of Palin have been fabulous. But while Fey has nailed Palin’s cadences and charm, she can’t capture the energy, which is a force of nature.

As I keep ending my podcasts: Amen, Sister Suffragette. And that’s a Gilmore-ism, which was a show that featured not one, not two, not three, but four strong female major characters, and endless strong female minor characters, without emasculating the men on the show.

09/09/2008

A new campaign poster

Filed under: Feminism, Politics — Tags: — Meryl Yourish @ 10:41 pm

Click here.

Laugh.

Don’t be drinking or eating.

Jon, I want that on a t-shirt.

Women and the Sarah Palin vote

Filed under: Feminism, Politics — Tags: , — Meryl Yourish @ 8:00 am

Let me try once again to explain to the doubters out there why I don’t care that Palin’s views on abortion are different than mine. Or that she’s a “Christianist,” as Asshole Andrew Sullivan keeps calling her. Or that she and I may not see eye to eye on many issues. The fact is, it’s 2008, and it’s about damned time a woman was a member of at least one of the two national presidential tickets.

The pundits are telling us that angry would-be Hillary voters won’t vote for Palin. The pundits are wrong. They will vote for Palin, and they are moving to the right for this election—the polls keep coming up McCain, after having been Obama, Obama, Obama. It’s not just a post-convention bounce. It is the excitement that having a female candidate is engendering (pardon the pun).

Those of you who don’t get it simply aren’t going to get it. It’s the same reaction I get when I try to explain the difference between Judaism the religion, and Judaism the culture. If you don’t get it, I am wasting my time trying to explain the differences. But let me try once more.

Year after year after year, women watch as the leaders of this nation, the leaders of corporations, and the leaders of the world all look pretty much the same: They’re men. There are precious few women in world leadership positions. And it’s not because we haven’t been out there for the past forty years. The feminist revolution has been around for long enough for women to be in leadership positions. And yet—we are not. And part of that reason is that the old boys’ network does exist. Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House. Name the last powerful woman in the Senate or House of Representatives whose name isn’t Clinton. Tell me what happened to Geraldine Ferraro after her run for VP. Tell me how many women are serving in the Senate now.

Sixteen.

How many women Senators have there been?

Thirty-five.

How many women Presidential candidates? Vice-Presidential candidates?

Governors?

Twenty-nine.

How many women have been the heads of the DNC or RNC? Secretaries of State? Ambassadors to important countries? Chiefs of Staff?

There has been a dearth of female leadership in this nation, but there has not been a dearth of women on leadership tracks to choose from—in spite of the constant refrain that is so. It’s almost like the same old stupid “Gee, where are all the women political bloggers?” discussion that gets rolled out every time some idiot wants to troll for links. We’re here. But that glass ceiling exists. It’s not our imagination. I work for a company that only has a female executive because they bought a company with a woman president. In 2008, I work for a company that had no women executives at all. Not. One. So do not tell me that women are simply imagining the barriers that still exist for women in the corporate and government structures. It’s pretty easily proven by the numbers.

Sixteen women senators. Women make up half the population of the United States, but only sixteen percent of the Senate. Granted, representation isn’t a one-for-one deal, but it’s effing 2008, not 1978. We’ve been in politics for long enough to have better representation than that.

So now perhaps you begin to see why Sarah Palin is so exciting to ALL women, not just women whose politics already agree with her. Even the women who hate her are secretly glad to see a woman on the ticket for the highest office in the land.

Women are going to vote for McCain for various reasons. But a fair amount of women are going to vote for him because he put a woman on the ticket. If you think that’s tokenism, if you think that’s patronizing, if you think it’s hollow symbolism, you haven’t been paying much attention to what most women feel.

We want to see Sarah Palin succeed, because it will move us forward in ways equally as important as Barck Obama’s candidacy has moved African Americans forward.

It ain’t tokenism. It’s about effing time.

09/07/2008

EU to ban sex in advertising?

Filed under: Feminism — Tags: , , — Meryl Yourish @ 11:00 am

Oh, this is rich. The nations that don’t blink an eye at sex and nudity in films are thinking about banning “sexist” commercials.

MEPs want TV regulators in the EU to set guidelines which would see the end of anything deemed to portray women as sex objects or reinforce gender stereotypes.

[...] The new rules come in a report by the EU’s women’s rights committee.

Swedish MEP Eva-Britt Svensson urged Britain and other members to use existing equality, sexism and discrimination laws to control advertising.

She wants regulatory bodies set up to monitor ads and introduce a “zero-tolerance” policy against “sexist insults or degrading images”.

[...] Swedish MEP Eva-Britt Svensson urged Britain and other members to use existing equality, sexism and discrimination laws to control advertising.

She wants regulatory bodies set up to monitor ads and introduce a “zero-tolerance” policy against “sexist insults or degrading images”.

Ms Svensson said: “Gender stereotyping in advertising straitjackets women, men, girls and boys by restricting individuals to predetermined and artificial roles that are often degrading, humiliating and dumbed down for both sexes.”

To be fair, it’s probably just the yapping of an annoying woman bureaucrat in the world’s most annoying bureaucracy. The European Union is a frightening thing to behold, George Orwell’s 1984 practically come to life, and a sample of the nanny state that America must never allow (yes, I’m looking at you, Obama and Democrats).

I’ll have to do a little research, but I’m dying to know what the EU’s women’s rights committee has to say about the Islamic misogynists in Europe’s midst, and the practices of forced marriages and the like.

This is pure Rush Limbaugh material. My gut tells me that this suggestion will go nowhere. Unless the EU determines that Israeli companies are behind the sexist advertising. Then, look out. It’ll be adopted in a heartbeat.

Note to Jeffrey Bell: Premarital sex predates the 1960s

Filed under: Feminism, Juvenile Scorn — Tags: , — Meryl Yourish @ 8:38 am

Spare me from conservative analysis of feminism. Because when you let most conservatives yammer away on the topic, you get a great, heaping, stupid load of sexist bullshit purporting to be an analysis of feminism. Note to Weekly Standard: You’re embarrassing yourselves.

For the post-1960s, post-socialist left, the single most important breakthrough has been the alliance between modern feminism and the sexual revolution. This was far from inevitable. Up until around 1960, attempts at sexual liberation were resisted by most educated women. In the wake of the success of Playboy and other mass-circulation pornographic magazines in the 1950s, men were depicted as the initiators and main beneficiaries of sexual liberation, women as intolerant of promiscuity as well as potential victims of predatory “liberated” men.

With the introduction of the Pill around 1960, things abruptly began to change. Fears of overpopulation legitimated a contraceptive ethic throughout middle-class society in North America, Europe, Japan, and the Soviet bloc.

[...] The fact that the Pill was taken only by women gave them a greater feeling of control over their sexual activity and eroded their social and psychological resistance to premarital sex. “No fault” divorce, a term borrowed from the field of auto insurance, in reality amounted to unilateral divorce and began to undermine the idea of marriage as a binding mutual contract oriented toward the procreation and nurturing of children. Contrary to nearly every prediction, the ubiquity of far more reliable methods of contraception and the growing ideological separation of sex from reproduction, coincided with a huge increase in unwed pregnancies.

So let’s see. Jeffrey Bell says that prior to the 1960s, women were prim, proper, and properly in fear of repercussions of sex outside “proper” channels, a.k.a., the marriage bed. Prior to the 1960s, the fear of overpopulation stopped educated women (note the elitism of the thought that uneducated women are too stupid to care about the earth having too many people on it) from having premarital sex. Prior to the 1960s, women didn’t do things like, say, have affairs with married men, have sex with their fiancé before marriage (or six-month-after-the-honeymoon babies, no, that never occurred before the 1960s), sex in high school (shyeah, right), sex with unmarried men, or, well, I guess “educated” women simply didn’t have sex until the clock struck twelve on the wedding night. At least, in Jeffrey Bell’s world, that’s what happened.

Then along came The Pill, that awful, awful object that suddenly turned educated women from virtuous, moral, guardians of chastity (or frigid bitches, depending on the point of view of the disappointed suitor) into wanton whores, just like those uneducated masses who never gave a thought to the consequences of having sex. It destroyed the idea of marriage, because let’s face it, prior to 1960, no one ever had sex outside of marriage. And it gave people an excuse to have children out of wedlock. It’s almost as if the devil himself took hold of those virtuous, educated women, forced The Pill down their throats, and then waited for the aphrodisiac effect of being to have sex without pregnancy.

The fact that the Pill was taken only by women gave them a greater feeling of control over their sexual activity and eroded their social and psychological resistance to premarital sex.

Spare me from the sexist, condescending ignorance of men like Bell. It isn’t the fact that the Pill is taken only by women that gives women a “feeling” of control over their sexual activity. Taking the Pill does give women control—over their reproductive ability. It does give women control over their sexual activity. It allows women to decide how many children they want, and when they’d like to have them. It eroded our “social and psychological resistance to premarital sex”? Really? It didn’t become popular because men and women are at the height of their sexual activity in their teens and twenties, and women didn’t necessarily wanted to start families that young anymore if they didn’t have to? Are you sure about that?

The thing that bothers me the most about conservative analysis of feminism is how they put all the blame for sexuality on the women’s shoulders, and utterly ignore that part of the formula which requires a male partner in order to achieve potential childbirth. If society’s mores are so important, why aren’t men refusing to have sex with the wicked women who ingest the Pill and want to go for it?

Funny how that never seems to come up in these discussions. Men refusing to have premarital sex because they don’t want to have children, or because it’s socially unacceptable. But it’s not socially unacceptable for men, really. Only for women. Is anyone blaming the boy that got Bristol Palin pregnant, or are they all, as always, thinking it was her fault for having unprotected sex with him?

Put the blame for the changing of social mores square on the shoulders where it belongs: On both genders, right and left. The right is no more moral than the left. How many times have you heard conservative men utter a variant of this: “I loved going to protests in the sixties/seventies/eighties. You could always get laid if you told chicks you were against the war/Reagan/nukes.”

These same men are now blaming the “moral breakdown of society” on the women they had sex with, while not taking any responsibility for their part in that partnership. The hypocrisy factor is so high here, I can’t even quantify it. This is why I will always be a feminist. And I will never consider that word an insult.

Sarah Palin is a feminist, too, and a conservative. How much you want to bet that she and Todd didn’t wait until the wedding night? But let’s blame that on Sarah’s eroded social and psychological resistance to premarital sex due to women taking the Pill starting in the 1960s. Because Jeffrey Bell says so, that’s why.

09/01/2008

The Sarah Palin baby rumor

Filed under: Feminism, Politics — Tags: , , — Meryl Yourish @ 11:52 am

Oh, please.

Any idiot can get a blog on DKos. And this ridiculous accusation is proof that many idiots do.

Oh, wait. That was Andrew Sullivan’s link.

Here’s the Daily Kos moron’s blog.

These unerring detectives have Photographic! Evidence! that will shock you!!

And they’ve been slammed to the mat by—facts.

Unless Bristol was pregnant for fourteen months, the baby is Sarah Palin’s. And it’s been confirmed by Kos Kiddie “Red Pen”:

Unless someone has counter evidence, we can drop this crap now. Yes, there are still some interesting questions, such as why she flew to Dallas and back when she was this pregnant, and why the Alaska Airlines crewmembers insisted that she was not visibly pregnant on the flight. Nevertheless, until this photo is debunked, we look stupid pushing this rumor.

That is all.

Morons. Sexist, misogynist sons of bitches. STUPID sexist, misogynist sons of bitches.

Way to prove how progessive you are, lefties. Way to keep women wanting to vote for your candidate. Just keep on slamming Sarah at every opportunity, sinking lower and lower as you go, and you will drive me firmly into the arms of the right. You’ve already lost me for two Presidential elections. That’s right, you lost a feminist who was a lifelong Democratic voter. At this rate, you will never get me back.

Update: Sarah Palin’s daughter is pregnant. Doesn’t change a word I wrote in this post.

08/31/2008

What women think: Sexism is sexism

Filed under: Feminism, Israel, Politics — Tags: , , — Meryl Yourish @ 7:00 am

This is the sentiment, exactly, on what many women feel about Obama not choosing Hillary for VP:

“If 18 million votes is not enough, what does it take in the Democratic Party to get a woman on the ticket?”

Time was, when the two top candidates were in a statistical tie, no one was “anointed.” They fought it out on the floor of the convention, and then the loser became the VP candidate.

Then again, this is also the fault of the arcane rules the Dems chose so that they could take the choice away from the voters and put it back into career politicians’ hands (read: Superdelegates). One person, one vote? Not for them.

What people don’t understand when they fling around the easy label of “identity politics” is that like it or not, identity politics exist. When we see the sexist and misogynist comments on blogs and online news sites, we tend to get angry. It’s something that comes up every single time. I have never seen a discussion on any kind of women’s issue that doesn’t devolve into sexism and/or misogyny. Or, worst of all, the pretense that white males are being discriminated against as much as, if not more than, women and minorities. Shyeah. How many white male Senators are there again? How many female and minority candidates for VP and president have there been again?

But I’m getting off the point. The point is, the choice of Sarah Palin as McCain’s VP underlines the perception that women were slighted, yet again, by the Democrats. And that isn’t really what the Democrats want.

As I said, I was going to vote for McCain anyway. The addition of Palin has made me want to pay attention for the rest of the campaign. And the reaction from the Democrats and progressives?

Despicable.

08/30/2008

Why women Dems will vote for Palin

Filed under: Feminism, Politics — Tags: , — Meryl Yourish @ 11:45 am

I received an email today from a disaffected Hillary fan who plans to vote for McCain come November.

I am a died-in-the-wool Democrat, but when Obama turned his ass to Hillary and called her “sweetie,” I didn’t know what to do. I thought that I would write Hillary’s name in.

But McCain has given me a choice. While I disagree with most all of their policies (except for the honesty and integrity part), I’m voting for Sarah.

Can you start a women for Sarah group? That I’d like to join and work for!

Really. You cannot overestimate the negative effect that the naked sexism and disrespect shown towards Hillary during this campaign has had on women. I expect to be getting more emails like this as the sexism lands on Sarah Palin as well (and of course, it already has). Witness the comments over at John Cole’s Balloon Juice, a site where the reading comprehension is so great that the commenter who linked me there called me a Hillary voter. (Shyeah.)

Ninerdave Says:

She looks like a stripper in teachers garb. I keep expecting her to rip off her glasses and grab a pole.

And then there’s this charmer:

r€nato Says:

this pick just REEKS of desperation. I can’t wait to see Biden wipe the floor with her in the Veep debates.

And yes it is creepy to see old man McCain standing next to a cute chick 30 years his junior.

Even creepier when you remember that McCain’s second wife, Cindy Hensley McCain, is 18 years his junior.

I think the Obama campaign should definitely consider pushing an undercover ‘McCain digs chicks young enough to be his daughter’ meme.

I mean, great for the old guy that he can get young chicks… everyone else pretty much thinks it’s creepy.

Or this.

AkaDad Says:

When I think of Palin, I’m thinking “Drill Here Drill Now.”

You stay classy, progressive Democrats. And try to wonder why women are unhappy with your party these days.

You know, I always hated Cole’s site. This garbage reminds me why.

08/29/2008

Women and Sarah Palin

Filed under: Feminism, Politics — Tags: , — Meryl Yourish @ 1:30 pm

A word to the men who read this blog: While I don’t claim to speak for all women, I can claim to give you a woman’s point of view on what John McCain choosing Sarah Palin for his vice presidential candidate means to me. And remember that I voted for Al Gore in 2000. (W. in 2004.)

It tells me that the Republicans believe that a woman can do the job equally as well as a man.

It tells me that John McCain isn’t going to demean the women reporters around him by calling them “Sweetie” and brushing them off.

It tells me that the Republicans think that now is the time for women to step up to the podium they’ve been aiming for for decades.

It tells me that 18 million voters, who were essentially ignored by the Democratic party, are not being ignored by the Republicans.

It tells me that politics are forever changed in America, and love her or hate her, you have Hillary Clinton to thank for the choice of Sarah Palin.

I simply cannot describe to you what a difference the choice of Palin makes for us. I watched the McCain news conference, and as he walked onto the stage, I found myself thinking that this boring old man had managed to make me feel excited about his campaign. And I am someone who intended to vote for him since he was assured the nomination. Two of my closest female friends feel the same way. There is a groundswell of excitement for McCain now, and next week’s convention suddenly got a lot more watchable.

Sarah Palin has made me excited about politics again, so much so that I’m contributing to the McCain campaign. So much so that I’m going to try to get to any and all of her appearances in Virginia. So much so that I can ignore the issues that she and I disagree on—and there are many—because it’s about damned time that women had a shot at the Executive Suite to top all Executive Suites.

American history changed today every bit as much as it changed with Obama’s nomination—but this one means more to me, for obvious reasons.

Obama can go home and grow a little in November. He’s not ready to be president. But Sarah Palin is more than ready to be VP.

And if she and McCain win, four or eight years from now, there could be an all-female presidential race. Now how cool would that be?

Susie B. is smiling.

IT’S PALIN!!!

Filed under: Feminism, Politics — Meryl Yourish @ 10:39 am

Fox News confirms that John McCain has chosen Alaska Governon Sarah Palin for his vice presidential pick.

This is the BEST pick possible. It shows that the Republicans are just as progressive as the Dems this time around, and I’m betting that a lot of angry Hillary voters will now give a lot more thought to voting for McCain.

I’ve been hoping for this for a while. I don’t care that she’s more conservative than I’d like. What I like is that women have not been shut out yet again. I loathe Hillary, but I do agree with those who resent the rise of Obama, the far less qualified [male] candidate, over the woman who’s been around a lot longer, and working a lot harder.

I was already going to vote for McCain, but this would have locked it up for me.

Sarah Palin may become the nation’s first female vice president. Awesome.

08/21/2008

Shilling for the Saudis

Filed under: Feminism, Israel, Media Bias, World — Tags: , , — Meryl Yourish @ 11:30 am

Reuters has a puff piece that pretends to be reporting about the “liberalization” of Saudi Arabian cities. Let’s take a look.

The Saudi government has a project to develop at least four “economic cities” where many expect the religious establishment will be kept at a distance from social life, the workplace and education.

Women will be able to drive in them and there may even be cinema houses.

There are already some spaces in the country of 25 million people where the religious police — charged with maintaining “public morals” — are nowhere to be seen.

Premise one: Saudis (and by extension, foreign nationals) will be able to live normal, mostly-Sharia-free lives in at least four places.
Premise two: Women will be able to drive.
Premise three: There may be movie theaters. (Hoo-boy, the Saudis are going to join the twentieth century!)
Premise four: Areas already exist where the religious police “are nowhere to be seen”.

Now let’s take apart these premises, using the rest of the Reuters piece.

Jeddah carries the slogan “Jeddah is different” and Riyadh residents spend summer holidays in the Red Sea city, where local women with uncovered faces swan through shopping malls or sit in late-night shisha-pipe dens.

“Uncovered faces” is not exactly able to drive, work, and relax in public without fear of the religious police beating them and hauling them off to jail. And we discover that the zealots are chomping at the bit to take down these dens of iniquity.

Islamists constantly fulminate against the situation in Jeddah as if it was Sodom and Gomorrah.

The religious police generally also avoid the diplomatic district in Riyadh and Dhahran in the Eastern Province that houses Aramco.

Residents of the Eastern Province say the vice squad generally also leaves the city of Khobar alone, but has a strong presence in the neighbouring city of Dammam.

Please note the words in bold. If the religious police “generally” avoid areas, that means that there is a presence, and that they are not “nowhere to be seen.” So these women are at risk of being arrested pretty much at any time.

Premises one, two, and four have all been disproven by the very words in the rest of the Reuters article. As for premise three, again, well, gee, movie theaters. That’s so 1900.

Way to shill for the Saudis, though. Yes, that liberalization of Saudi Arabia continues apace. How long before the new, and highly touted coed university is attacked by either terrorists or the religious police?

08/13/2008

Sexist story of the day

Filed under: Feminism, Juvenile Scorn — Tags: — Meryl Yourish @ 11:00 am

From the headline until nearly the last paragraph, this condescending, sexist piece of drek willl go down in my Feminist Hall of Shame. And it’s from AP. It figures.

What a ride: Woman, 82, inducted into Hall of Fame

Wow. A woman was inducted into the Hall of Fame. What, the first one ever? Is that why you don’t identify her in the headline, like you would any other inductee into the Hall of Fame? Does she not have a name? Well, let’s look at the lead.

Betty Skelton Erde is 82 and lives in a retirement community where many are content to putter about in golf carts. Not Erde: She drives a blazing red Corvette to match her red hair and really means it when she says, “I like fast cars.”

An auto racing pioneer, Erde (Uhr-Dee) once was the fastest woman on Earth, setting female speed records at Daytona Beach and Utah’s Bonneville salt flats half a century ago. On Wednesday, she reaches a new milestone as only the fifth woman inducted into the Motorsports Hall of Fame of America in suburban Detroit.

Oh, she has a name. You even tell us how to pronounce it. And she’s not the first. She’s the fifth woman inducted. So the headline is just, gee, sexist. And those “female” speed records? Aren’t they supposed to be either “speed records” or “women’s speed records”?

Dozens of firsts are attached to her name: the auto industry’s first female test driver, in 1954; the first woman to set a world land speed record in 1956 (145 mph at Daytona Beach); and then the world land speed record for women in 1965, hitting 315.72 mph at Bonneville.

Funny, those aren’t all “female” speed records. I do believe the word “world” was in front of some of them. And here’s what the writer describes as Erde’s first drive in a fast car:

In February 1954, at France’s invitation, Erde went to Daytona. She climbed into a Dodge sedan, went 105.88 mph on the beach – that’s when folks still raced on sand – and set a stock car record.

That’s a record. Not a “female” record. What a bunch of condescending, sexist crap.

The AP also manages to quote one of the more sexist remarks from the time period when sexist remarks were, well, unremarkable. So when you read this, you nod your head and say, “How quaint. So glad men have learned not to be such morons today.”

“I would venture to say there is no other woman in the world with all the attributes of this woman,” France once remarked. “The most impressive of them all is her surprising and outstanding ever-present femininity, even when tackling a man’s job.”

But when you read the AP article, which includes this:

But if Erde was aware of how different she was for a woman at the time – unmarried, without children – she didn’t show it.

“I had to do what I wanted,” she said.

You have to wonder what century the writer is living in. And what is wrong with her. Because this drek was written by a woman. Perhaps she’s aiming for one of those “female” writing prizes.

We have reached the height of irony. Who needs sexist male writers when a woman will do the job for him?

Well done, Sister Suffragette.

07/29/2008

I miss Ilyka

Filed under: Bloggers, Feminism — Meryl Yourish @ 11:03 pm

Come back, Ilyka. Come back.

I have no one else to hang with while tweaking the boys on feminist issues.

01/11/2008

Ms. Magazine refuses to publish ad about Israel’s most powerful women

Filed under: Feminism, Israeli Double Standard Time — Meryl Yourish @ 9:30 am

The magazine co-founded by Gloria Steinem doesn’t seem to like Jews when they’re Israeli Jews. Or at least, that’s the impression they’re giving after rejecting an ad for Israel that the AJC wanted to place.

The magazine has turned down an AJCongress advertisement that did nothing more controversial than call attention to the fact that women currently occupy three of the most significant positions of power in Israeli public life. The proposed ad (The Ad Ms. Didn’t Want You To See) included a text that merely said, “This is Israel,” under photographs of President of the Supreme Court Dorit Beinish, Vice Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs Tzipi Livni and Knesset Speaker Dalia Itzik.

“What other conclusion can we reach,” asked Richard Gordon, President of AJCongress, “except that the publishers − and if the publishers are right, a significant number of Ms. Magazine readers − are so hostile to Israel that they do not even want to see an ad that says something positive about Israel?”

When Director of AJCongress’ Commission for Women’s Empowerment Harriet Kurlander tried to place the ad, she was told that publishing the ad “will set off a firestorm” and that “there are very strong opinions” on the subject − the subject presumably being whether or not one can say anything positive about Israel. Ms. Magazine publisher Eleanor Smeal failed to respond to a signed-for certified letter with a copy of the ad as well as numerous calls by Mr. Gordon over a period of weeks.

A Ms. Magazine representative, Susie Gilligan, whom the Ms. Magazine masthead lists under the publisher’s office, told Ms. Kurlander that the magazine “would love to have an ad from you on women’s empowerment, or reproductive freedom, but not on this.” Ms. Gilligan failed to elaborate what “this” is.

I’d be very interested in getting an answer to what “this” is. Because running an ad about three powerful Israeli women saying, “This is Israel,” is an example of women’s empowerment. The magazine ran a cover story on Nancy Pelosi in the winter 2007 magazine, with a headline that seems, well, familiar.

An excerpt:

This Is What a Speaker Looks Like
Nancy Pelosi has finally cracked the marble ceiling of the Capitol. Now what will she do with the unprecedented power she has earned?

Ms. is proud to be the first magazine to feature on its cover Nancy Pelosi, the first woman and first self-identified feminist Speaker of the House. This 2002 Ms. Woman of the Year gives Ms. an exclusive interview in our cover story, “This Is What A Speaker Looks Like,” by Marie Cocco, in which we focus on her substance, rather than her clothes and jewelry.

The headline is parallel to the title of the ad that the AJC wanted to place: “This is Israel.” Click on the link. Look at the ad.

Of course, Ms. Magazine has published many articles about Arab and Islamic women in power.

Mr. Gordon noted that while Israel was apparently too hot to handle, Ms. Magazine did not extend that taboo to Arab and Moslem women. “What is even more amazing is that, while refusing to publish a simple ad praising three very notable women, women who embody the ideal that Ms. Magazine seemingly espouses, Ms. has run a cover article in the Fall 2003 issue on Queen Noor of Jordan, has featured a number of articles on Muslim women, and even ran an article in the Winter 2004 issue entitled, ‘Images of Palestine,’ which discussed the Ramallah Film Festival and gave sympathetic reviews to films concerning ‘the liberation of South Lebanon’ from Israel as well as numerous films which portrayed terrorism as legitimate ‘revolutionary’ activity against Israel and miscast Israel’s activities to counter terrorism as ‘oppressive.’”

And anti-Israel screeds, even at the height of the wave of suicide bombings during the bloody spring of 2002.

Jerusalem Spring 2002–Sharon seems to be our worst nightmare. Since this Intifada erupted, over 1,700 Palestinians and over 400 Israelis have been killed, with some 35,000 Palestinians and 4,000 Israelis wounded.* The terrorist attacks in Israel are horrible, but they have been used by Sharon to carry out deeds far in excess of “destroying the terrorist infrastructure.” The Israeli army deliberately trashed the inside of every Palestinian institution that it did not entirely destroy-schools, charities, health organizations, banks, radio and TV stations, even a puppet theater, [and] all the records of every government ministry. In a few locations, Israeli tanks even rolled over mosques and cemeteries….

(Note that the author glosses over the terrorist attacks, which were sometimes coming at the rate of two and three suicide bombings per day, and immediately attacks Ariel Sharon for sending in the IDF to stop the suicide bombings, shootings, and other attacks on Israelis. The rest of the article is devoted to the plight of the Palestinians.)

The pro-Palestinian side of the conflict is well-represented. Ms. Magazine covers women’s international political empowerment. There’s an article about the first women in the U.K. high court, one about Israeli mothers marching for peace, international legal discrimination of women, women who changed the face of politics in Northern Ireland, a Saudi feminist princess, a boatload of stories on peace activists, a female Israeli conscientious objector, and a ton of stories on Iraq.

But Ms. magazine refused to run an ad with three pictures of Israeli women in high positions: A Supreme Court judge, the vice president of the country, and the speaker of the Knesset, Israeli’s parliament. The American Jewish Congress was told this was going to “set off a firestorm.” Really? Portraying powerful women in a Mideast nation is a bad thing?

Apparently, when that nation is Israel, and the magazine is Ms., the answer is: Yes.

Phyllis Chesler has written and spoken about anti-Semitism in the world of feminists.

Like men, women are not necessarily compassionate or even fair towards other women — especially if those other women are identified as “evil racist settlers” and the enemies of a beloved revolution. Feminists are no better but perhaps no worse than other women in this regard.

[...] Many feminists who are quite principled on certain issues (equal pay for equal work, reproductive freedom, gay rights, sexual and domestic violence, childcare, etc.) unthinkingly believe that their critiques of patriarchy and of specific American policies can and must be transformed into a generalized hatred of America — the very country in which they practice their dissent — and transferred to the Middle East. Many feminists are totally blind to their own Jew hatred and are now more obsessed with the occupation of disputed lands in the Middle East than they are with the occupation of women’s bodies worldwide.

It appears she was not wrong.

When I tell people that I am a feminist, I usually have to make the distinction that I am not one of those feminists. Because I am a feminist. I believe in equal rights and equal opportunities for women. I believe that we have not yet achieved equality in the U.S., although we have come farther than ever before. I believe that most women are feminists like me. But the ones who run the organizations and the magazines—those women are not my friends. And yes, there are a significant number of anti-Israel Jewish women in those organizations. Shame on them.

As always, when it comes to Israel, there is a double standard. If those women were from any other nation in the world, Ms. Magazine would have been happy to run an ad featuring the three most powerful women in that country. But not if the women are from Israel.

What time is it, folks? That’s right. It’s Israeli Double Standard Time. It occurs every day of the week that ends with a y.

01/08/2008

Muslim ERA watch: Female terrorist version

Filed under: Feminism, Gaza — Meryl Yourish @ 8:00 am

Looks like Hamas is all about equality for women, so long as they’re carrying out terrorist attacks.

Two armed Palestinians were shot and killed by IDF soldiers Monday after they approached an army post near the Erez crossing in the northern Gaza Strip and opened fire at the force.

The IDF is still looking into the gunmen’s identity, but Palestinian sources confirmed to Ynet that one of them was a woman, Asma Abu Fanuna, a resident of the Nuseirat refugee camp in central Gaza.

According to the IDF, the two were spotted moving towards the post holding hands, in an apparent attempt to look like an innocent civilian couple. When they got to a distance of about 50 meters from the soldiers, they began shooting at them.

The soldiers responded with fire, hitting the two terrorists. Searches conducted in the area after the incident revealed that the two were carrying weapons and an explosive device.

Just when you think they can’t get much more depraved, you find out how very wrong you are. Although I have to admit, holding hands and strolling near the border fence is not the brightest idea.

10/01/2007

Muslim ERA Watch: Afghan gals won’t you come out tonight?

Filed under: Feminism, Religion — Meryl Yourish @ 8:00 am

Oh those Afghan girls, the way they wear their clothes, they keep the mullahs warm at night…

Nearly six years after the overthrow of the strict Islamist Taliban government, almost all women in deeply conservative Afghanistan still only appear in public wafting past in the burqa’s pale blue, their dark eyes only occasionally visible behind the bars of its grille.

But in the relatively liberal northern Afghan city of Mazar-i-Sharif, a local television station has started to show a different image of Afghan women with an extremely low-budget take on the hit “America’s Next Top Model,” a reality TV show in which judges choose prospective models from a group of contestants over several weeks.

Be still my heart! An Afghan “Top Model” show? Wearing skimply clothes? Like what?

Four girls in brightly colored traditional costumes with baggy pants and long loose-fitting shawls and headscarves strode down the impromptu catwalk decked out in traditional Afghan rugs. Seemingly less confident than their Western counterparts, they avoided the gaze of the all-male film crew and press.

Hold your camels, Omar! They’re not wearing the head-to-toe burqas?

A quick change later, the same four appeared in camouflage combat trousers, sneakers and embroidered smocks. Then came denim jeans, open-toed sandals and colorful lightweight jackets.

Holy crap! Toes! They exposed their toes! Ahmed, call out the morality police! Get the whips and canes! Beat them! Hurt them!

“According to Sharia law, Islam is absolutely against this,” said Afghan Muslim cleric Abdul Raouf. “Not only is it banned by Islamic Sharia law, but if we apply Sharia law and to take this issue to justice, these girls should be punished.”

Not to worry. The religious police will hunt them down and punish them.

Model Timour said she wanted the outside world to see a different image of Afghan women.

“I have seen outside Afghanistan they have a different kind of idea about women in Afghanistan — they think they are always wearing the burqa and sitting at home but it is not like that,” she said. “Girls in Afghanistan are beautiful.”

Yeah. Tell us about it when you get out of prison, honey. Gee. Why do we think you’re all sitting around in burqas? Could it be because, well, you’re all sitting around in burqas?

Who? Me? Skeptical? Well, yeah.

09/25/2007

Saudi ERA Watch: Women must stand to eat

Filed under: Feminism, Religion — Meryl Yourish @ 12:00 pm

Ah, those wacky Wahabbis! You just can’t beat the misogynistic regime of Saudi Arabia. Every time someone tries to tell me how free and liberated Muslim women are, compared to Western women, I have to laugh. Because Iranian women aren’t allowed to go to soccer games. And here’s what happens in Wahabbi World:

Two Saudi women called members of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice “terrorists” and one sprayed the men with pepper spray after the men stopped them for not conforming to the Kingdom’s public dress code, the commission said yesterday in a statement.

One of the women filmed the incident, which took place in Alkhobar on Thursday, said Muhammad ibn Marshoud Al-Marshoud, head of the Eastern Province branch of the commission.

The commission’s teams patrol public places to ensure women are not harassed, sexes don’t mingle and shops close for prayers. “Two members of the commission were attacked, cursed and sworn at by two women, who were blatantly dolled up,” Al-Marshoud said, meaning the women were wearing makeup.

What? Women actually fought back against the repressive Vice Squads? What happened to them?

He said the commission’s officials stopped the women to give them advice and guidance after they noticed they were wearing makeup. “One of the women took out a black container and sprayed a substance at them while the other filmed what happened with her phone camera while making improper comments,” Al-Marshoud said.

He said commission members took control of the situation with help from security patrols.

“During questioning, the women apologized for attacking the two commission members, signed a statement and were released,” he added.

I wonder how many bruises it took to get those apologies.

And if that isn’t sickening enough, there’s this:

In a related development, commission members banned female shoppers from sitting in a makeshift outdoor restaurant to have their iftar meals in a low-income neighborhood in Jeddah because men were already seated at special tables set up for the fasting month, according to the daily Al-Watan. The paper quoted Muhammed Mehdawi as saying commission members forced his wife and children to eat their food while standing next to him. Other women stood by the stands that run the modest eatery.

Ali Al-Hayyan, head of the commission’s Jeddah branch, said the agents’ actions were meant as a deterrent, “especially since some of the women were dolled up, and also to prevent the mixing of the sexes that could happen at such events and which our religion rejects,” the paper said.

Siddeequa, a 52-year-old woman, said she had to eat her food standing after the commission’s members asked her to leave her seat at the restaurant. Owners of makeshift restaurants in downtown Jeddah feared the action of commission members would affect their businesses, as families would hesitate to visit them.

These are the same Saudis who blew a gasket during the first Gulf War when they saw American women soldiers driving Humvees. You’ve come a long way, baby.

09/14/2007

Saudi ERA Watch

Filed under: Feminism, Religion — Meryl Yourish @ 9:00 am

Try not to laugh. Saudi women are fighting for the right to drive. It’s really not funny. It’s pathetic.

Women in the only country in the world which still bans women from driving want to put their best foot forward – on the accelerator.

Saudi Arabia’s newly established League of Demanders of Women’s Right to Drive Cars plans to deliver a petition to King Abdallah Bin Abd Al-Aziz Al Saud, calling for their “stolen” entitlement of free movement to be restored.

Love the scare quotes by the Indy. It is a stolen entitlement. In Saudi Arabia, men can drive; women cannot. In Saudi Arabia, women cannot travel without a male family escort, nor can they leave the country without their husband or father’s permission. There is no freedom of movement for Saudi women, and they are entitled to that freedom by sheer virtue of being born. There are such things as natural rights that are beyond the laws of any nation, and freedom of movement is one of them.

Mind you, I think nothing will come of this. The Wahhabi creeps that run the kingdom won’t allow women to be free. Which is why Saudi Arabia will never be anything but a third-world backwater with delusions of grandeur, funded by oil profits. At least when the alternative energies are developed, the Saudi’s ruling clan will end its death grip on the nation. Without the petrodollars keeping the poor happy and fed, revolution is certain.

Here’s hoping it’s soon.

Powered by WordPress