Aliaa Magda Elmahdy, a university student from Cairo, is either courageous or foolhardy but either way, I salute her. In order to make a political statement concerning freedom of expression in Egypt, she recently chose to post a full frontal nude picture of herself on her blog.
A woman activist who posted nude pictures of herself on her blog to protest limits on free expression has triggered an uproar in Egypt, drawing condemnations from conservatives and liberals alike.
Some liberals feared that the posting by 20-year-old university student Aliaa Magda Elmahdy would taint them in the eyes of deeply conservative Egyptians ahead of Nov. 28 parliamentary elections in which they are trying to compete with fundamentalist Islamic parties
Elmahdy wrote on her blog that the photographs, which show her standing wearing only stockings, are "screams against a society of violence, racism, sexism, sexual harassment and hypocrisy." The blog has received 1.5 million hits since she posted the photos earlier this week.
Elmahdy and her boyfriend Kareem Amer, also a controversial blogger, have challenged Egypt's social strictures before. Earlier this year, they posted mobile phone video footage of themselves debating with managers of a public park who threw them out for public displays of affection
Here are three different news articles covering the story...
Waldo_Jeffers said:
I find it interesting that Ms Elmahdy has been criticised by both conservatives and liberals!
Heh, yeah. The difference in their social/political spectrum from ours is pretty stark. Also a strong reminder of the difference between democracy and freedom.
Waldo_Jeffers said:
I find it interesting that Ms Elmahdy has been criticised by both conservatives and liberals!
Heh, yeah. The difference in their social/political spectrum from ours is pretty stark.
Is it really? SG's politics are liberal and feminist, but I'm sure we've all encountered liberal feminists who decry all porn, including this site, as being evilly exploitive. Is that so different?
Waldo_Jeffers said:
I find it interesting that Ms Elmahdy has been criticised by both conservatives and liberals!
Heh, yeah. The difference in their social/political spectrum from ours is pretty stark. Also a strong reminder of the difference between democracy and freedom.
I concur. I find her decision to share that photo on her blog brave.
Waldo_Jeffers said:
I find it interesting that Ms Elmahdy has been criticised by both conservatives and liberals!
Heh, yeah. The difference in their social/political spectrum from ours is pretty stark.
Is it really? SG's politics are liberal and feminist, but I'm sure we've all encountered liberal feminists who decry all porn, including this site, as being evilly exploitive. Is that so different?
Those are complete opposites, though. Liberal feminists who decry porn do it because they view it as an affront to women--something that men should not be allowed to ogle. Liberal Egyptians who decry the naked female form do so because they view it as an affront to men--something women should not be allowed to display.
Waldo_Jeffers said:
I find it interesting that Ms Elmahdy has been criticised by both conservatives and liberals!
Heh, yeah. The difference in their social/political spectrum from ours is pretty stark.
Is it really? SG's politics are liberal and feminist, but I'm sure we've all encountered liberal feminists who decry all porn, including this site, as being evilly exploitive. Is that so different?
Those are complete opposites, though. Liberal feminists who decry porn do it because they view it as an affront to women--something that men should not be allowed to ogle. Liberal Egyptians who decry the naked female form do so because they view it as an affront to men--something women should not be allowed to display.
I'm so glad that we have an expert like you on hand to explain the thought processes of Egyptian liberals to us.
Do you actually think that none of the liberals you speak of consider porn to be an affront to women?
This attitude of "oh, those funny third-world countries where even their liberals dislike porn ... that's so quaint!" is simply absurd. Virtually all of the SGs are from developed Western countries; ask them whether criticism of what they do comes solely from conservatives and see what they tell you.
mingol, I didn't claim to be an expert. Egypt isn't a third-world country, and I didn't imply it was. I didn't say it was quaint. I didn't, in point of fact, belittle anyone or anything. If I had the energy, I'd stop and attempt to explain what I did say in greater detail, so that we could come to a mutual understanding whether or not we ultimately agreed. As I don't have the energy: fuck off.
motorfirebox said: mingol, I didn't claim to be an expert. Egypt isn't a third-world country, and I didn't imply it was. I didn't say it was quaint. I didn't, in point of fact, belittle anyone or anything.
No, you just posted a sweeping generalization about What Egyptian Liberals Think, and then got butthurt when I disagreed with it.
If I had the energy, I'd stop and attempt to explain what I did say in greater detail, so that we could come to a mutual understanding whether or not we ultimately agreed. As I don't have the energy: fuck off.
Hey, it’s been nice talking to you too, sugar tits.
Yeah, I posted a generalization on Egyptian liberals. I also posted a generalization of US/western liberals. I recognize that those generalizations are subject to the same fallacies as any generalization, but I think that as generalizations they are fairly accurate. Feel free to provide evidence that those generalizations are, generally, false; I'm more than willing to admit I'm wrong if I am in fact wrong. But I didn't get "butthurt" because you disagreed with me. I got "butthurt" because you painted me as someone who was dismissive towards Egypt and Egyptian politics and ignorant of the country's financial situation. Where in the fuck did I cop an "attitude" towards Egypt? Be specific.
But, hey, since you can't be specific, since no attitude was copped until you all but spat on me for daring to point out that there are, in fact, pretty big differences between a nation where many liberals are aghast that a woman would display her naked body versus a nation where most liberals are not aghast at the many women who display their naked bodies: fuck off. I'm not the one starting shit, here, and I'm certainly not the one making unwarranted assumptions about how other people think.
motorfirebox said:
Those are complete opposites, though. Liberal feminists who decry porn do it because they view it as an affront to women--something that men should not be allowed to ogle. Liberal Egyptians who decry the naked female form do so because they view it as an affront to men--something women should not be allowed to display.
I think mingol's point might be restated as: "Source, please?"
We can take as given your characterisation of Liberal (Western) feminists and just request some corroboration of your claims re liberal Egyptians.
A primary source would be the articles that have been linked so far, and the many other similar articles available. Two quotes that struck me:
"We are conservative youths, and we always encourage our members to be role models as far as ethics are concerned," even barring atheists, Mr. Kholi said. "How can we have accepted the membership of a girl who behaves like this?"
Women rights activist Nehad Abou el-Qomsan said conservatives "keep adding layers to cover up the women and deny their existence."
But, she said, what Elmahdy did "is also rejected because posing nude is a form of body abuse."
There are, of course, also quotes like the statement by Aliaa's boyfriend:
"Try nude models who worked in Fine Art Faculties in the early 1970s, hide all art books and smash naked archaeological statues," read the statement, alluding to some recent protests staged here by ultra-conservative Islamists known as Salafis. "Then take off your clothes and look at yourselves in the mirror, then burn your body that you so despise to get rid of your sexual complexes forever, before subjecting me to your bigoted insults or denying my freedom of expression."
And for the (relatively) centrist view:
"This hurts the entire secular current in front of those calling themselves the people of virtue [the Islamists].
"It’s is a double disaster. Because I am liberal and I believe in the right of personal freedom, I can’t interfere."
So it's clear that the range of positions doesn't only range from ultraconservative to merely very conservative, but it also seems pretty clear that that does describe a significant portion of the spectrum. And "merely very conservative" also seems to pretty accurately describe the portion of the political spectrum which describes itself as liberal while decrying female nudity.
It seems likely to me that much of that falls more in line with the last quote--that many Egyptian liberals who are decrying Aliaa's posts are doing so because they fear that her actions will push votes towards the more conservative candidates, rather than because they personally feel such displays should be censored. Political positioning rather than core belief, in other words. But even that, to me, leans a lot more conservative than the majority of western liberals. Though I've seen evidence recently that I might be wrong on that point.
I can imagine lots of blokes in Egypt checking out her nude pic, having a good old fap over it and then rushing to her blog to post abusive remarks about how she is immoral and a wh0re etc (small-minded people are hypocritical like that all over the world fom Egypt to the USA to the UK, heh heh).
.
One other point that occurs to me is that, although when something like this occurs people are quick to blame it on Islamic conservatism and to breathe a sigh of relief that we live in a much more liberal society, I sometimes think that there is a somewhat anti-liberal undercurrent even in the UK and USA and other 'Western' nations. I mean, many people think of pornography (even soft core stuff) as somehow shameful and I've come across a few stories (and some have been discussed here on the Current Events Board) where someone has lost a job as a school teacher because it emerged that they had a past as a porn model. Maybe in 'The West' we dont sentence people to be flogged but there are still people who have hang-ups and who think that those hang-ups should be reflected in the law. Here UK I remember how, the Labour MP Claire Short had a long-running campaign to try to get Page 3 banned (when she tried to debate it in parliament, the other MPs simply laughed at her).
Oh most definitely, at least in the US. Our country seems to have a puritanical streak still running strong through our collective subconscious. It extends well beyond sexuality, like how it's somehow less harmful to glorify killing where children might grow up watching it but boobs will obviously scar them for life. Or look at the long term trend of fad dieting, where people believe that depriving themselves of something naughty will pay off for them. It all goes back to the same core concept.
semiretiredpunk said:
Oh most definitely, at least in the US. Our country seems to have a puritanical streak still running strong through our collective subconscious. It extends well beyond sexuality, like how it's somehow less harmful to glorify killing where children might grow up watching it but boobs will obviously scar them for life. Or look at the long term trend of fad dieting, where people believe that depriving themselves of something naughty will pay off for them. It all goes back to the same core concept.
Although the English Civil War was partly motivated by the desire to limit the power of the King and force him to form a new social contract with parliament (for example, as regards the issue of taxation), religious Puritanism was a major element as well.
King Charles I was a Protestant but he upset the Puritans (and other extreme protestant sects) by marrying a Roman Catholic and by allowing an William Laud an anti-Puritan to become Archbishop of Canterbury. The King and the Archbishop particularly upset the Puritans by attempting to enforce religious conformity through such measures as introduction of the Book of Common Prayer.
When the Puritans fought on the Parliamentarian side they were fighting for 'religious freedom'. In practice this 'religious freedom' was to have two meanings, the freedom to be a Puritan and the freedom to oppress anyone who wasn't a Puritan, especially Roman Catholics. It is not surprising therefore to note that, although King Charles I was a Protestant, lots of Roman Catholics rallied to his cause during the Civil War. The Irish Catholics, in particular, fought on the side of the King.
When the Parliamentarian side won the Civil War, Oliver Cromwell and other people with Puritan tendencies set about persecuting the Roman Catholics and making everyone else's life miserable, so much so that after Cromwell's death, everyone decided that they would rather be ruled by a King than by a religious nutcase and the monarchy was restored under King Charles II.
Had it not been for the Puritans and other extreme protestant groups, the UK would likely have never restored the monarchy and the folks in Ireland might (I say 'might', not definitely) have been happy to stay in the UK. Obviously, Cromwell wasn't the only reason for Irish secession but when I think of the Catholic Irish fighting on the side of a Protestant English-Scottish King, I find myself wondering how things would have turned out if Cromwell had never lived and if the Puritans had not been around.
Waldo_Jeffers
United Kingdom
OLD SKOOL
NOV 18, 2011 12:49 PM