April 03, 2006
Pat Santy
. . .
takes on the terror of female sexuality that pervades many strains of Islam:
So frequently do we joke about men's preoccupation with sex and female body parts in the West, that we have failed to notice that the Muslim world is literally consumed by female sexuality and with their fear of it. It is ironic that both Muslim men and women are under the mistaken impression that Western society is oversexualized compared to them, when in fact, it is practically impossible to be more obsessed with sexual matters than they are in Muslim communities.
Consider for a moment a culture that would prefer to let young girls die in a burning building than to risk having them run out of said building not clothed in properly modest dress; and tell me that such a society is less preoccupied with matters of sex than we are in the West.
Enormous effort goes into veiling women, dressing women modestly, silencing women, covering women's bodies, punishing women, controlling women, reviling women, humiliating women, beating women, subjugating women, avoiding the dishonor of women, keeping women uneducated, policing women, infantilizing women--in short, dehumanizing women -- all under the guise of "protecting" and "honoring" them as they relegate them to animal-like status.
The women in this misogynistic Islam are brainwashed from birth into thinking that this cultural preoccupation somehow is necessary and that it "liberates" them in some bizarre manner.
Amazingly, this medieval culture has grasped the fundamentals of both Orwellian and postmodern rhetorical rationalizations, that are so prominent in certain intellectual quarters within our own culture! I have heard the canned rationalizations coming from their lips of muslim women myself; and they all claim that it frees them from having to be "sexual objects."
On the contrary, in Islamic society that is apparently the only role open to women. That, and breeders for the jihad.
Please read the whole thing; it's an amazing post.
Hat tip: Glenn.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
05:25 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 329 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Being, i admit, a mostly heterosexual male, I can tell you that if your society bans the viewing of female wrists, female wrists will become an erotic attractant, and the object of male fanasy and speculation.
Now, ewomen know this, and STILL expose more and more!
To me, the attitude of men in at least Arab islam goes aqlong with their view pof themselves as extraordinally potent. Jokes in Arab countries sometimes have men Arab men impregnating things in impossible situations. (An Arab, A Swede, and an American were in a bottomless canyon with only camels.....)
Thus, they fear that men cannot resist a woman's sexuality, and that it will cause them to lose control of themselves, poissibly losing paradise in the process. They have such an extreme viewof their weakness that although they DO urge men to control themselves, they see this as inadequate, and practice extreme stimulus control.
POf course, american women know that properly tam4ed and trained men can be counted on to watch a woman dance in the nde on a dark street without even the thought of sex.
Posted by: Averroes at April 05, 2006 02:10 PM (jlOCy)
2
History teaches us this much: pictures of women in the 20s, 30s and 40s can be just as erotic of women in the 70s, 80s or 90s--notwithstanding the changing hemlines. It's not about the degree of skin: it's about attitude, and whether the woman is the man's "type," etc.
I do believe you're spot-on: the male fear of losing control leads to more and more restrictions on female attire. None of which solves the problem of human desire. Because, let's face it: every woman is naked under her clothing, and every heterosexual man knows this.
But don't you feel a bit sorry for men who come from a culture wherein women's genitals are mutilated, so they merely tolerate sex, rather than enjoying it? And where the sexual ideal is a virgin, rather than someone who knows what she's doing?
It sounds like a world that's almost as hellish for men as it is for women.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 05, 2006 04:09 PM (s96U4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 01, 2006
On the Borders
Let's not give these people our business. What they are doing sets a dangerous precedent.
Hackbarth warns us not to take our frustration out on Borders employees; Samizdata explains that Borders is
already in dire financial straits and can't afford to flip intellectuals the bird.
I wonder if Borders carries Mein Kampf. It's also offensive, right? Ah—but Jews don't behead people who disagree with them. We must defer to those who engage in that type of behavior.
Insty suggests we "throw down the gauntlet," and links Bidinotto's approach. I definitely think writing letters is good, but mostly I'll be voting with my checkbook.
From now on I'll be shopping at Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and the independents, like these guys. Actually, since I live near Pasadena, I'll be buying at Vroman's for the most part—but not everyone is that lucky.
UPDATE: How pathetic is this? I guess one doesn't need steak when there's sizzle. Via Insty.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
12:08 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 162 words, total size 2 kb.
1
I agree that is a very bad thing. (I'm a Borders shareholder, and will be sharing my views with BGP Investor Relations.) About the only slightly-redeeming factor I can see is that they openly admitted it was about fear, rather than blathering about sensitivity or some such.
There seem to be a lot of cases of institutions deciding to cave in to political extortion. One of the scariest examples is the campaign that has been waged against biotech companies by certain "animal rights" activists--especially in Britain but also in this country. It appears that the decision of the New York Stock Exchange to deny a listing to Life Sciences Research (previously Huntington Life Sciences) was due to fear of violence.
Posted by: David Foster at April 01, 2006 03:16 PM (/Z304)
2
15-20 years ago the same thing happened with rushdie and "satanic verses". i found an independent that carried it. but it seems that the chains all think that freedom of the press is free.
Posted by: jw at April 02, 2006 09:33 AM (tUwzR)
3
I've heard rumors that Barnes and Ignoble is touch and go.
Posted by: Sissy Willis at April 02, 2006 02:25 PM (FU1id)
4
I buy mostly computer books and Borders has the best local selection. I browse through their selection, find something I like, copy the ISDN and buy the book from Amazon; usually at 30% off the cover price. I hate to see the "bricks and sticks" bookstores fall to Amazon because I like to flip through a book before I buy it but I don't see how Borders or B&N or Books a Million can compete with Amazon's almost limitless selection and lower prices. I guess they will use a more internet centered business model and pluck off the dead weight stores.
While I'm at it, same with Blockbuster. I've given with them because they never have what I want.
Posted by: al at April 02, 2006 03:26 PM (pe3qi)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
29kb generated in CPU 0.0193, elapsed 0.1181 seconds.
208 queries taking 0.1098 seconds, 434 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.