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

Colinism

Atlanta, GA

July 2005

JAN 10, 2008 02:19 PM

inkonnu said:

Self_Righteous_Bitch said:What exactly do you mean by this?

What exactly do I mean by what?
If you mean my comment on equality, I mean just that. Men and women are equal in all things. One cannot expect to be treated equally in one issue, but then expect preferencial treatment in another. Example:

Is it right for a wife to batter her husband?

Is it right for a husbant to batter his wife?

Trick questions, neither situation is acceptable. In either cases, in the eyes of the law, either victim, regardless of their sex, is entitled to use reasonable force to defend themself.

Oh, if you don't want me to change your username again, don't change mine.

Except women are far less capable of doing so on average.

Colinism

Atlanta, GA

July 2005

JAN 10, 2008 02:24 PM

inkonnu said:

Colinism said:That would be a valid argument point were it not for the fact that in islamic societies women are more often than not relegated to the status of lesser or second class citizens who do not have the ability to shape the way they are treated or seen in those societies.

Are those social issues because of Islam, or the cultural values of the country/society itself? (Please note, that, as mentioned, many so-called 'Islamic' countries are not following the true spirit of the religion)

Colinism said: Women do not choose to be born as women so in effect you are trying to argue that it's ok to discriminate on people for arbitrary reasons that in fact have no bearing on who they are, what they are capable of, or even how they should be treated.

I am not trying to argue anything, other than the difference in values between the two cultures, and that the standards of one, cannot be used to judge another. With regard your comment on how women should be treated, I would simply point out, as did the author of the article, that Al Qur'an gives guidance on this (and other) matter(s).

Ok let me ask you another question then, why should Moslems who move to western nations expect different treatment from the western cultures societal norms? Freedom of expression is a common western cultural norm that when it pertains to islam tends to cause death threats. So if you believe so strongly that we should not put our western values on islamic societies why should we be expected to honor theirs when it come sto behavior we find unacceptable?

Chainlink

Christmas Island

August 2005

JAN 10, 2008 02:27 PM

inkonnu said:
Self_Righteous_Bitch said:
Oh, if you don't want me to change your username again, don't change mine.

I love how you change everyone elses names to derogatory misogynist expletives when they refer to who you really are.

No I don't really.

inkonnu

United Kingdom

November 2007

JAN 10, 2008 02:28 PM

Colinism said:
Ok I never claimed that women can't kill someone or do harm, I in fact said that those are probably the few times when violence is ok against women so to use those examples is a rather dishonest attempt to try and backup violence against women as being necessary.[/quote.

You asked, what good reason did I see for using violence against a women at all I gave you examples which I would consider reasonable instances.

Colinism said:
Secondly equal in one thing equal in another makes no sense unless somehow women are now physically as big and strong as men are and are capable of holding their own at all times and giving back as well as they get. I highly doubt this is the case as I am 170 lbs 6'2" tall and basically a walking stick figure. However I am still far stronger and more capable of beating the ever loving crap out of almost all of my female friends at any time I should so choose too. My shortest female friend is 4'11" tall and maby 80 lbs and I know for a fact that I am more than capable of holding her wrists together with one hand and that she is incapable of getting away or even properly defending herself.

really? You'd better not tell that to anyone attending a female self-defence class, it's certainly not going to put them in the right mind-frame for fending off an attacker...

Colinism said:
inkonnu said:
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:
In the "age of equality" we need to be mindful to treat people in the way in which we expect to be treated ourselves, we do not all suddenly become equal.

You are assuming that people were not equal to begin with?

Colinism said:
inkonnu said:
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?

Colinism said:
And you still have not given an actual good reason for why casual beating of women or any beating at all are necessary.

Again, there is a distinction between beating through sheer sadism, and beating as a means of chastisement. Again, this in itself is a false argument, as the author of the article pointed out that when Al Qur'an was written, the word currently taken to mean 'beat/physically strike', did not have that meaning. As above, please see my previous examples of the words 'jihad' and 'gay'.

Colinism said:
Unless of course you are claiming that men in Islamic societies are emotionally incapable of handling tense situations at home with logic and reason and that they simply need to be able to lash out against someone who is smaller and weaker than themselves to feel as if they are in control of the situation.

I would once more, respectfully point out, that in those societies, although they claim to be Islamic, they are removed from the true principles of Islam by 1400 years of organization and doctrine, and in recent years, tin-pot dictators using a perversion of Islam to 'keep the peasants' in line, as was the case in Europe, when Catholic services were carried out solely in Latin, which the uneducated people, simply did not understand.

inkonnu

United Kingdom

November 2007

JAN 10, 2008 02:29 PM

DhD_No_Pants said:

I can't find the original post from Spike. Where is it?

The original post by ME, is at the top of the page. Zarth, aka Cunt, thinks he is being witty by refering to me by an old screenname, which I have requested people do not use to address me.

inkonnu

United Kingdom

November 2007

JAN 10, 2008 02:31 PM

Cunt said:
Spike was a troll from long ago, who let his account here lapse, converted to Islam, and came back as inkonnu pretending to have changed into a "new man" who just happened to also be a troll.

Oh fuck off, you pathetic cuntrag. I am not 'pretending' anything. You never knew me when I used to be a member, you don't know me now, so don't dare to assume that you have the right to accuse me of being a troll.

inkonnu

United Kingdom

November 2007

JAN 10, 2008 02:31 PM

Uncognitive said:
How many human rights violations can be excused under the banner of cultural relativism?

I don't know, you tell me...

Uncognitive

Brooklyn, NY

May 2003

JAN 10, 2008 02:32 PM

inkonnu said:
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.

I would once more, respectfully point out, that in those societies, although they claim to be Islamic, they are removed from the true principles of Islam by 1400 years of organization and doctrine, and in recent years, tin-pot dictators using a perversion of Islam to 'keep the peasants' in line, as was the case in Europe, when Catholic services were carried out solely in Latin, which the uneducated people, simply did not understand.

So we can't impose our "western values" onto Islamic cultures, but you can?

inkonnu said:

Uncognitive said:
How many human rights violations can be excused under the banner of cultural relativism?

I don't know, you tell me...

None. Thoughts?

Colinism

Atlanta, GA

July 2005

JAN 10, 2008 02:34 PM

inkonnu said:

really? You'd better not tell that to anyone attending a female self-defence class, it's certainly not going to put them in the right mind-frame for fending off an attacker...

Colinism said:
inkonnu said:
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?

Colinism said:
In the "age of equality" we need to be mindful to treat people in the way in which we expect to be treated ourselves, we do not all suddenly become equal.

You are assuming that people were not equal to begin with?

Colinism said:
inkonnu said:
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?

Colinism said:
And you still have not given an actual good reason for why casual beating of women or any beating at all are necessary.

Your still avoiding the question. Ok so let me get this straight simply because of some hand to hand defense classes women suddenly become equal or superior to men in a fight?

Secondly so the societal norms of another culture should prevent us from thinking in terms of whats right and wrong in those cultures? Would you be ok with rape and slavery if they were simply societal norms? Or how about is it ok to assrape little boys would you be cool with that too?

inkonnu

United Kingdom

November 2007

JAN 10, 2008 02:40 PM

Cunt said:
Human rights are either universal or they are invalid. One thing they are not is "Western." Nice try, though.

Sorry, where did I say 'western Human rights'? Did I say 'western Human rights', or did I say, 'western values of right and wrong'?

Scroll up.... You can do it....

Zarth said:You can say that human rights are invalid. That's what you're arguing, after all. But it's a sickening, amoral position to take, and one which can be fitted to the service of any manner of atrocity.

No, that's not what I'm arguing at all. I simply pointed out, that one cannot judge one society by the moral standards of another, and expect to be able to transpose said moral standards from one to the other. Again, the author of the thread is the one who (apparently) thinks it's okay to physically chastise women. As I said before, why not send them an email and discuss the issue and ethics with them? Their email is at the top of the article.

Cunt said:
If you're happy with that, fine.

I'm 'happy' to view things with a 'when in Rome' attitude. Or, to put a more modern spin on it, the Prime Directive.

Zarth said:
But at least be a man and admit you think it's okay to abuse women and children because they have no rights.

I don't, and never said that I did.

Cunt said:
They're the same thing, genius. That's the whole point.

So in your mind, chastisement = abuse?

Cunt said:
Would you rather I called you "Cunt"? You think that's classier?

No, I'd prefer, that if you absolutely must include my username in address, that you use the one I am using. I am not calling you Cunt because that is your name, I am calling you a cunt because that is how you are acting.

sillyokio

Egypt

January 2005

JAN 10, 2008 02:43 PM

Chainlink said:

inkonnu said:
Self_Righteous_Bitch said:
Oh, if you don't want me to change your username again, don't change mine.

I love how you change everyone elses names to derogatory misogynist expletives when they refer to who you really are.

No I don't really.

I personally think it's quite amusing. Middle school all over again.

PRockGirlScout

Hawaii National Park, HI

October 2005

JAN 10, 2008 02:45 PM

inkonnu said:

DhD_No_Pants said:

I can't find the original post from Spike. Where is it?

The original post by ME, is at the top of the page. Zarth, aka Cunt, thinks he is being witty by refering to me by an old screenname, which I have requested people do not use to address me.

Can we call you Muhammed Ali?

jtemperance

Chicago, IL

January 2004

JAN 10, 2008 02:47 PM

And, he's gone.

wildswan

I'm lost

June 2006

JAN 10, 2008 02:51 PM

jtemperance said:
And, he's gone.

I hope my flagging helped in some way.

Zarth

Seattle, WA

December 2004

JAN 10, 2008 02:57 PM

wildswan said:

jtemperance said:
And, he's gone.

I hope my flagging helped in some way.

I think there was a lot of that going on. Obviously, the fact that I kept calling him "Spike" enraged him, but, as hypocritical of me as it may have been, I flagged every single "Cunt" and "Self_Righteous_Bitch" he dropped.

Of course, I'm not sure how much moral high ground I really possess. And I suppose that's really the difference between him and me. He was pretty damn sure, after all.

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

... 7