Egyptian women’s rights protest marred by hecklers

Right. “Heckled” is the headline, though the body of the story contains the facts.

Also in Egypt, Muslims torched a Coptic Christian church. Why? Because a Muslim and a Christian were dating, and the father of the Muslim refused to murder his child for dating a Christian. The Muslims murdered the father, and then attacked the Christians. Christians fought back. There are now pitched battles in Egypt between Christians and Muslims.

In Libya, Madman Gaddaffy is flattening towns where the people are rebelling against him, and also bombing oil production terminals.

In Israel, the government has postponed by several months the decision to deport children of foreign workers who are not legal citizens of Israel.

In Ramallah, the PA censored a TV show making fun of Madman Gaddaffy.

Israel is ranged number 2 globally for having women in upper management positions in corporations.

Oh, and Israeli Jews don’t murder their women for intermarrying.

But by all means, let’s vilify Israel during the annual Israeli Apartheid festivals at universities worldwide. Because that’s where the problems are in the Middle East.

There’s a really cute story in the Washington Post: Egypt women stand for equality in the square

Though the reporter was reporting from the demonstration on Friday, there was no mention of Sheikh Qaradawi’s views on gender equality. There was some really good stuff in this article, but towards the end it was priceless.

Abdel Ibrahim Hassan, a man who came to Tahrir Square on Friday to celebrate the revolution with untold thousands of his fellow citizens, argued that women have an enviable standing already and that Western prejudices should not assume they need change.

“Islam respected the role of women before any other culture,” said Hassan, a math teacher. “Before Islam women were bought and sold. But men and women are not equal, a woman is a weak creature. She cannot bear arms.”

His wife, Samah, bearing an Egyptian flag and wearing a black niqab covering her face with only small slits for her eyes, spoke up – strongly. “I’m hoping our young people will be able to develop a democracy,” she said, as she photographed the square with a sleek cellphone. “Men and women will play an important part in the elections.”

Their 15-year-old daughter, Sarah, her face and hands the only parts of her body visible from her enveloping black garments, interrupted.

“We demand seats in parliament for young people,” she said, “men and women. Women will play an important role in society after participating in the revolution of January 25th.”

Does the reporter, Kathy Lally, realize how absurd this sounds? First to have a husband claim women are respected then to describe how completely his wife and daughter are covered?

Though Qaradawi’s views on gender equality are not discussed there, I did find a fatwa that is very revealing. (No pun intended.)

Concerning the point on hijab, a woman can put on a hat or anything else to cover her hair. Even when necessary, she may take off her hijab in order to carry out the operation, for she is going to die in the cause of Allah and not to show off her beauty or uncover her hair. I don’t see any problem in her taking off hijab in this case.

Women are allowed to reveal their hair when they are about to murder infidels. How enlightened!

No doubt Sarah will be able to serve in Parliament, as long as she remembers her place.

Fatah to Israel: How’d you like a new version of the Three No’s? No negotiation (without a building freeze), no land swaps, and no recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Yep, that’s the Three No’s of Fatah, signed on by Mahmoud Abbas, Israel’s “partner in peace.” Barack Obama is not just dreaming if he thinks he can get a peace deal during his term—he’s on drugs. By the way, is there a sign of this conference in the mainstream media? Can you find an AP version of this report? I can’t. Found a UPI report that carried the refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, but that conveniently leaves out the “no land swaps” part regarding settlements. But outside the Jewish press? Nada. Report the truth? Shyeah.

Muslim ERA Watch: The Saudis, who are now on the UN’s Women’s Rights Council, are currently undergoing an interesting set of lawsuits. Women are suing their guardians for refusing to allow them to marry. The joke that is the UN is letting this medieval society sit in judgment on adherence to women’s rights by other nations. You can’t make this up. Money quote from the article?

“A Saudi woman can’t even buy a phone without the guardian’s permission,” said al-Hawaidar, who has been banned from writing or appearing on Saudi television networks because of her vocal support of women’s rights.

Hey, Israeli women: How many phones have you each bought in the last ten years? (I’ve bought new landline phones, extra handsets, and four cell phones in the past ten years.) The UN is an utter joke.

Sirin Middya, who described herself as a devout Muslim, said she was appointed in March but has not been allowed to teach her classes since she refused to wear the garment, which covers the entire body and face. A mesh net covers the eyes.

“The students have threatened us and have put up banners saying those who oppose the burqa rule can go back home,” Middya said.

But here’s the scary part of the situation:

“I don’t have a problem wearing the burqa, but when I wear it, it will be of my own free will,” Middya said.

She should have a problem with wearing a sack, even of her own free will. Because there is no free will to be had in “choosing” to wear a garment that turns a woman into an anonymous bundle of clothing.

“Palestinians want, on their terms, the same thing Western societies want: self-determination, modernity, access to markets and their own economic power, and freedom for civil society to evolve.”

[...] Our stated aim when we won the election was to effect reform, end corruption and bring economic prosperity to our people. Our sole focus is Palestinian rights and good governance. We now hope to create a climate of peace and tranquillity within our community

This was a blatant lie, but that didn’t stop the Times from continuing to publish Hamas’ lying op-eds. As for the freedom Hamas talk about? Well, if my hairdresser worked in Gaza, he’d be out of a job today.

Gaza’s Islamic Hamas government on Thursday banned men from working in women’s hair salons, the latest step in its campaign to impose strict Islamic customs on Gaza’s 1.5 million people.

And here is the AP twisting itself into knots trying to whitewash the constant stream of Hamas trying to force Islamic law on Gaza:

Since seizing Gaza in 2007, Hamas has taken steps in that direction while avoiding a frontal assault on secularism. The majority of Gaza residents are conservative Muslims, but Hamas is under growing pressure from more radical groups to prove its fundamentalist credentials by imposing ever harsher edicts.

You have to head down nine paragraphs before the AP writes:

Fares said Hamas’s new ruling takes away one of the last remnants of a more liberal lifestyle in Gaza that flourished decades ago, when the territory had cinemas and bars. All cinemas and bars were closed years ago.

Let me just repeat the Hamas spokesliar’s words from 2007:

“Palestinians want, on their terms, the same thing Western societies want: self-determination, modernity, access to markets and their own economic power, and freedom for civil society to evolve.”

Many probably do want that. But Hamas does not.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.