The only thing I don't like about his zot is that I had to click on four pages worth of [IGNORED COMMENT (Click to view)] to work out what happened. Good riddance.

I have a modest proposal: Easy US Citizenship/Immigration for women immigrating from countries where spousal abuse is considered acceptable. You can't really go in and change the culture (not practically, anyways), so why not help victimized women leave the culture instead? As a side bonus, these countries typically are were suicide bombers and terrorists are born and raised, so less women means less babies means less suicide bombers!

So you are acknowledging that we should do something to help abused women in other societies, but that we don't have a right to criticize them ?

He didn't say anything about criticism. He said that you can't go in and change the culture, by which I assume he means we can't enforce our views on them, as a practical matter - military invasion not working so well for winning hearts and minds and all that. And I would tend to agree.

It's a good idea. But we'll never make immigration laws easier.

Which is silly, really, but that's a completely off topic musing.

Yeah, sorry.
I think I was confusing sdhubbard with someone else from another thread.

That's asbsolutely correct!

I'm not sure it's impossible to fix our current immigration system, but it's going to take a lot of work. And you're right, we are going off topic.

He reminded me quite a bit of my communications professor of last year.

As a scholar of the Middle East, and in particular Yemen, I thought I should add a few things. I understand where Inkonnu was coming from in his original posts. The citations in the original article did not allow for the whole context of the article to be appreciated. Certainly, I do not condone abuse of any kind. Unfortunately, there are far more countries where violence against women is at an extreme compared to Yemen, including it's neighbor Saudi Arabia. To let you know a little bit about Yemen, it is one of the poorest countries in the world according to the World Bank. Currently, most are not literate, in particular women. Those who are educated leave the country to find work. The last time computers were given to local schools by outside groups to improve education, the government seized them for their own use. Only about sixty percent of the population have access to potable drinking water and much of that population has to travel more than two hours to access it. Yemen receives 80 percent of its income from a single oil reserve that is reported by the Carnegie Foundation to dry up within the next few years. Most of the remaining income is provided by world grants which have been threatened to be withdrawn due to human rights issues and its lack of cooperation with the US in locating Al Qaeda operatives. Its current leader, President Saleh, has been in power over 28 years. Yemen's constition has a two term limit of five years each meaning Saleh is in power illegally. Bush backed Saleh's recent fixed re-election in return for his support in reporting Al Qaeda activity. This is the least of Saleh's problems. The majority of the population feels betrayed by the government and turn to tribal leaders for support and assistance. Therefore, nationalism is negligent leaving the country divided. Saleh spends most of his time fighting with rebelling tribes, in particular the Zaidi sect of Shiites tied to Iran and Hezbollah. Most newspapers have been closed down over the last couple of years due to government criticism. Poverty and disease are rampant. My point is that until conditions in the country begin to improve as a whole, there will be no improvements for anyone, including the treatment of women.

We can only judge the article by our own standards and decide whehter or not we agree. If we judge everything ONLY within its own context there really is no point in discussing anything at all. Just say, "Enh. Yemen. Enh," and be done with it.

I mean, fundamentally, you are saying, "Dude..they are different from us and they want to slap their women-folk around. It's none of your business."

I'm not seeing that Inkonnu is saying violence against women is okay, or even that it's none of our business because their different. I think that's what stands out in the thread because everyone jumped on that bandwagon. I think ultimately what he is trying to point out is that Yemeni society sees this type of domestic violence differently. I don't think he was condoning it. What concerns me are the posts that insinuate he would be violent or say violence against women is okay because he is a Muslim. Neither of these are condoned in Islam. It's also a very petty attack. There is a misconception that Islam promotes this because some Middle Eastern countries that are Islamic have poor views towards women. This arises from that country's culture not Islam. Veiling occured in that region in Babylonian times, well before the birth of Islam. Most Muslims are not Middle Eastern, Islam is not the only religion in the Middle East, and most Middle Eastern countries do NOT have strict veiling laws. Many women in this region are educated, can work and have independence. However, this doesn't make good television. Go to Turkey, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan and you'll see something different. My next comment is regarding the posts about immigration to our free country. Why don't we spend some time tackling domestic violence seriously in our own country? We have plenty of women, children, elders and even men who are victims of abuse here. They would love your support as well.

I don't see how it's relevant that they see it differently unless one is suggesting that it is, in fact, none of our business.

No, he pretty much was saying that. Spike was an abusive contrarian who was happy to take that position simply because it was the most offensive..

Who did that?

Spike was arguing in favor of cultural - indeed moral - relativism. He was doing so imperfectly (if nevertheless articulately), so I can understand how it might be hard to follow a common thread in his posts.

Obviously Yemeni society sees domestic violence differently. That was never in question. What was in question was whether or not it's fair for anyone to stand up and say that that's wrong.

Now, there is an intelligent discussion that can be had about this. Whether or not cultural or moral relativism is a better approximation of truth than the universalist claims of human rights is a serious question. But it's not a question that's going to be resoled by calling people "cuntrags" and "self-righteous bitches."

Well, I don't thinks this has been presented so far, but understanding--or trying to understand--where someone else is coming from can be a very useful tool to use in communicating with them, whether you want to change them or not. For instance, I found it was much easier to counsel troubled kids if I tried to grasp a bit about their background and where they might be 'coming from.' Approaching them with at least a little understanding allowed them to see that I respected them as individuals, which made it more likely that they would return that respect and at least listen to and think about what I had to say.

Sure. But inkonnu wasn't discussing communication. He was reacting to our outrage. In that context, "they have a different mindset there" is essentially "and you should abide by it and not get upset". Bullshit.