BLOG VIEW | HEADLINE VIEW

ALL

GEEK

Hurts So Good

WEDNESDAY JANUARY 9 2008 4:00 PM

Submitted by TheFuckOffKid. Edited By Uncognitive.

TAGS: violence against women, human rights

In the spirit of starting with "I'm not racist, but...", please don't consider this post as being anti-religion, but sometimes you get the feeling that some religious types really resent, not so much being told what to do, but being told what they can and cannot impose upon others. Damn those human rights organizations! (Seriously, how dare they?)

In the West, it tends to be issues like gay marriage and abortion rights that are red flags to a certain kind of religious bull. In Yemen, apparently, it's about the right of men to beat up women.

Yes, indeed. In a ... what's the right word? ... provocatively titled article ("There Must be Violence Against Women"), published in the Yemen Times, Maged Thabet Al-Kholidy states firmly that in certain situations, "violence against women is a must."

Here are some things we learn from reading Al-Kholidy's thoughts.

First:

the term violence mustn�t be confused with other concepts and terms such as gender inequality or absence of women rights.

Got that? The existence of violence against women doesn't mean that we're witnessing anything involving gender inequality or absence of women's rights. Just so we're clear, 'K?

Next, if a man beats his wife following the stages of dispute resolution in the Qu'ran, then what we may be seeing is a failure to communicate:

If this also does not work, then the husband yields to beating the wife slightly. They do this because of a misunderstanding in the Quran, as the word says Darban, which is commonly understood today as beating. However, in Classic Arabic it means to set examples or to announce and proclaim. The more accurate meaning of this last one is that the husband finally has to set forth, to make a clear statement or proclamation, and if these measures fail, then divorce is preferable.

Whoa there. If he beats her, it's because he misunderstands a word? Might it be possible to, well, correct this misapprehension? Just a crazy idea.

Next, assuming we're going to allow a bit of terminological ambiguity to slip past us, we can at least be assured that those men administering the beatings have pure motives.

Personally, I don�t think fathers or brothers would undertake such behavior unless there was a reason for it.

Well, OK then! Consider me reassured!

Further reassurance is just around the corner:

In some cases, violence is necessary, but there must be limits.

Phew! I was a little concerned.

I mean:

Will it be a better society once we see wives, mothers, sisters and daughters going from one police station and one court to another, complaining against their husbands, fathers, brothers and even sons?

Exactly! If ever a Napoleon-Dynamite "Gosh!" was well-deserved, there's one right there! Where I live, you can't walk the streets without being bowled over by angry women marching from police station to police station, from courthouse to courthouse. It's a public menace.

So, lastly, let us:

avoid the misleading propaganda of such [human rights] organizations, whose surface aims hide other destructive ones to destroy society�s religious, social and moral norms.

Just remember, as long as there are limits, it's all good, OK?

[Hat Tip: Theocrazy, via Saraah.]

105 Comments

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

... 7

Zarth

Seattle, WA

December 2004

JAN 10, 2008 01:33 PM

Spike said:

TheFuckOffKid said:I didn't read anything in it about self-defence.
Indeed, self-defence was a possible reason I mentioned.

TheFuckOffKid said:
And, since the author's point is to make violence against women sound perfectly reasonable in a particular context, of course he's not exactly going to make it sound like he's promoting "sadistic/un-justifiable violence". That would defeat the purpose of his exercise.

By his cultural values and upbringing, it is perfectly reasonable for a man to physically chastise a woman. As I mentioned above, there are two very different sets of cultural values here, which are never going to be compatible. I'm not saying that those values are right or wrong, I am just pointing out that that is the cultural values of that region, and it is not for 'them' to change to 'our' values simply because 'we' disagree with their practices.

What about matters of right and wrong? You're supposed to believe in that kind of stuff, aren't you? Isn't it in your book?

Or does your book say it's okay abuse people so long as they're just women or children?

Spike said:

TheFuckOddKid said:

Real mature, Spike.

Spike said:
Well, Cunt . . .

But about what I've come to expect from a hyper-educated super-genius such as yourself.

You're a real class act.

Jackie_Treehorn

Seattle, WA

June 2004

JAN 10, 2008 01:40 PM

...[s]he only does it to annoy
because [s]he knows it teases...

inkonnu

United Kingdom

November 2007

JAN 10, 2008 01:40 PM

Colinism said:
Ok lets boil this all down to a more serious and simple discussion and go from there.

Sounds like a plan

Colinism said:
What good reason do you see for using violence against a woman at all?

As I said above, it depends by what set of moral values one is judging the situation. By western standards, as I said above, matters of self-defense.
By the values practiced in the Yemen, clearly things are very different to how they are in the west, and one cannot transpose 'western values' onto a society with its own set of values and laws.

Colinism said:
To be honest men are almost always bigger and stronger so unless your having to rush in to stop a woman from strangling or stabbing a child or old person to death a man is pretty much assured of the ability to simply walk away from the problem and or let things calm down.

So again why is violence necessary sometimes?

Well, let's see.

Personally, I do not think any kind of spousal abuse is acceptable, regardless of the sex of the aggressor. As for 'bigger and stronger', sorry, but this is the age of equality. Equal in one thing, equal in another.

inkonnu

United Kingdom

November 2007

JAN 10, 2008 01:41 PM

Shalome said:
Unless you believe in petty stuff like universal human rights...

Absolutely I do. As I said above though, my views on the issue are not the ones under discussion.

_Margot_

Santa Monica, CA

December 2007

JAN 10, 2008 01:42 PM

Spike said:
Personally, I do not think any kind of spousal abuse is acceptable, regardless of the sex of the aggressor. As for 'bigger and stronger', sorry, but this is the age of equality. Equal in one thing, equal in another

What exactly do you mean by this?