I once read some transcripts in Hansard of Englands Parliament in which slave owners were talking of "their rights" and compensation for giving up slavery.

The sad truth is that many people use the idea of fairness and human rights as a means of self gain. The queue for people to surrender their advantages is much shorter.

When Iranians do horrible shit, it's not horrible, they're just crying out.
Get with the program

In seriousness, it is really bizarre to me when people take a pro-Iran stance (because they're the "underdogs" or whatever) in the face of the seriously appalling lack of women's rights in that country.

You make a good point here, Bitch_PhD.

As the saying goes,
You can take a candle and light another, and you have two flames... but the original flame is just as bright. When you light yet a third, the first is still not diminished.

Oops, I thought the issue was people being stoned to death. Should have paid more attention to the title. But yeah, I'm all for women in power. Except Clinton.

Would signing that petition now not suggest to Iran's PTB that everyone's only getting in a twist about it because it was a man that got stoned for getting his rocks off? *goes to read the petition* Hm... sounds like it's not just a legal issue. Like saying people are free doesn't make them free, what really needs to be changed is the way people think. After all, you don't need a judge to tell you to start picking up rocks and throwing them at people, and it's so much easier when everyone else is doing it too.

Either that no-more-stoning directive wasn't issued very well, or few paid attention to it.

i find that ridiculous. stoning is a *humanitarian* issue and not a feminist one. be it though it's largely feminists that cry out about it, that doesn't somehow validate your (rhetorical) question. i in no way consider myself a supporter of feminisism because i don't believe that the movement should have to exist in the first place. i only believe in humanism.

Yeah, yeah. And women aren't people, so when we talk about "women's rights" we're being divisive.

you're right--it shouldn't have to exist, but it does.

Eh, it might, but the point is, it's an issue. And waiting for there to be a "good" time to address it is mealymouthed. It's not like the point is that caring about stoning means *ignoring* it when men get stoned.

Or, you know, there's the likely probability that passing directives is a form of public relations, and that passing laws and then failing to enforce them is a pretty clear wink and a nod to the status quo.

signed

You woefully misunderstand what feminism is.

Having spent a large chunk of my childhood growing up with 2 Muslim families and have been given a rudementary education on Islam by said families, I know the path to a more liberal and modern islamic nation such as Iran or Saudia Arabia is actually freeing Men or converting Men to sects of Islam that interpret Shia law and the Koran in a more liberal way. Sounds backwards I know but they get stood over by the clerics or Mufties, so therfore they then oppress their women and children, especially in the class room. Its usually all about power and control, oppresive societies are easier to control, free men the women will follow.

I wont go into the specifics of what I'm talking about as it would be a very long post and I'm feeling lazy today. I also think you'll find that this occured in a regional or backward country area of Iran. Country people are the same the world over to me, Alot of them are ignorant by choice also rough chest thumbing meatheads.

where's this assumption that i believe "women aren't people" coming from? i was raised by a single, hard working, tooth-and-nail fighting mother who's been the biggest influence in my life. i was taught that prejudice and any form of superiority is against humanity's interests. to say that i'm somehow against women is uncalled for.

i think your editorial more than proves my point that stoning is a humanitarian issue. *it can happen to both men and women.* -- and neither one is acceptable. PERIOD. there's no debate about it. absolutely none. so the feminists are not being divisive per se, but they certainly don't have a stranglehold on what's right and what's wrong.

go ahead and explain it to me then.

Who/what defines feminism then? If this anti-feminism referred to in the article affects men as well (as asserted by the author), does that not make it a humanitarian issue? Or is this a woman's rights issue? Or a human rights issue? I'm confused.

from martin luther king, jr.'s "i have a dream" speech:

"For many of our white brothers as evident by their presence here today have come to realize that their freedom is bound to our freedom."

i think the civil rights movement is analogous with the feminist one. the core of humanity is that we're all in this together. whether we acknowledge it or not.