Egyptian girl strips to protest; western media censors her photos

Heh. You did miss it. Tsk.

Offset by other accoutrements that proclaim his benign ethos.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I always knew Frodo Baggins was a real person.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

His penis is blurred too?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Looks like he has no penis.

Unlike The Woman Who Veiled, one presumes

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Amazing isn't it? If women veil, they scare the crap out of men [so much so that some men are forced to run them down]

if they strip, they scare the crap out of men

77-year-old woman strips to protest the demolition of her home

nothing is as scary as a woman making her own decisions, or so it seems

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not my point.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Maybe that makes him less threatening, but I was thinking about other stuff. Also, I can see his mouth, so I know he's smiling: probably just thinking about torturing people at Abu Ghraib.

Being only scarier to some men, of course, when they unveil [and need to be stabbed to death, apparently].

Correct. And so we should encourage political systems that encourage women's liberation; another reason the Spring didn't turn out sooo well for everyone concerned. Ah well.

One out of two isn't bad, right?

 

You know, that is true, they are a bit scary.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I just realized something, if Muslim women wished to protest not being able to cover themselves in public, they could just latch onto a new western niche gag gift, popularize it, and use that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Use western commercialism against them to achieve their own ends.

Beardo on Channel Ten Australia.mp4
The beard beanie on french tv!
The Original Beardo Beard Hat
LegendaryCrafts' Amazing Dwarf/Viking hat w/ beard!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

They don't scare me, I just feel sorry for them.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The ISHR seal says "stop the oppression of women in the Islamic world".

 

France's burqa ban: women are 'effectively under house arrest
That's an excellent point. Rather than liberating women from the veil, it has actually reduced their freedom since they cannot go outside.

 

A veiled dominatrix? There's something you don't see every day.

 

He probably is just full of hot air like the rest of us...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes...I always suspected hijab-wearers were secretly ninjas.

 

Good point.

There is actually a Palestinian-Israeli film which uses both the "westernised" Muslim woman and the burqa ninja tropes to make their point - its also the same woman

westernised

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iaHO1rj5MY

ninja

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=la3iR2Hkz2E&feature=related

I didn't make that connection until you showed me that beard beano, but there is a comic series where one of the woman is veiled and it has met with quite a bit of resistance from the western critics

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Muslim superhero comics meet resistance in U.S.

But I vaguely remember there was some sci-fi series with a veiled Muslim woman, didn't watch it, just heard about it, and I don't recall the name

 

Ninjas don't wear black. It's a misnomer from Japanese theatre where black represents something which cannot be seen.

 

If you like. And, again, we have among our union certain states where the latter chest can be publicly bared, exactly on the basis of equality.

But it's also possible for people - and even, cultures - to be essentially, substantially supportive of gender equality, without going whole hog and insisting that every quirk of social mores (e.g., female nipples = sexy, male nipples = not) must be steamrolled into oblivion. Given that there are real, salient biological differences driving the differentiated gender identities - i.e., that some such differences are going to persist no matter what - it seems to me that the radical program of perfect equality is a non-starter. And so that the goal must be to keep those differences at a minor level, where they don't interfere with big-picture aspects of people's lives (education, voting, freedom of movement, work, etc.).

So at bottom, it doesn't make one a hypocrit, in any useful sense, for them to abhor practices such as keeping women illiterate, home-bound, invisible and disenfranchised, while tolerating a ban on mainstream publication of female nipples. One could go so far as to argue that those radicals who are making the perfect the enemy of the good here are the bigger enemies of gender equality, and so the bigger hypocrits.

But that would be to read this as simply about gender equality in the abstract. It isn't, obviously. It's exactly about the politics of the war in Afghanistan (and larger War on Terror). And to that: it was recently pointed out to me that - unlike his predecessor - Obama makes a point of not mentioning the "save the Afghan girls" line. That's not to say that there aren't other people and factions who still trumpet such, and call for deepened involvement in Afghanistan or whatever on that basis. But such no longer figures into the political rationale of the Commander in Chief, and seems to have rather limited traction in the larger polity, at least as a rationale for any kind of concrete actions. So it seems to me that the battle being fought in this thread is fairly misplaced. This stuff just doesn't have the kinds of foreign policy implications that the criticism seems to be premised on (if, indeed, it ever really did, which I've already doubted in this thread).

I'm saying that complaints about certain (extreme) misogynistic aspects are not the same thing as a general stand against any and all instances of misogyny, to the point of implying a radical embrace of public nudity. Just as it was a Good Thing that many people opposed slavery and Jim Crow, despite not being perfectly post-/non-racist in every detail of their personal lives and views - Lincoln himself was openly racist, after all - it is likewise a Good Thing that many people oppose keeping women illiterate, disenfranchized and dependent, despite not being ready to accept the publication of images of female nipples. Again, the old saw about making the perfect the enemy of the good.

But, again: you're presuming that "offense" and "obscenity" are the only categories that figure into the calculus. It seems pretty obvious to me that there is another major consideration: value as political speech. It may well be that the mangled corpses are considered to be as obscene, if not more so, than a topless woman, but that the former has value as political speech that the latter does not. Indeed, you've already noted, repeatedly, the (craven) manner in which political impact figures directly into such considerations when it comes to violence. And while the topical nude protest obviously tests that distinction, I'd point out that said protest, not being aimed at Western mores regarding publication of nudity, presented little clear reason why the uncensored photos would hold more value than the blurred ones, to the particular audiences in question.

Again, I don't deny that there's an imbalance there, generally. But I think you've ignored some major aspects of it in an effort to attribute the difference in treatment of, say, certain war photos and this nude protest photo, entirely to a national neurosis. Reads like you've started with a pet criticism, glimpsed an opening to take it on the road, and then run roughshod over the topical issue. This being a somewhat common problem around here.

Ah. I think I see the root of our disagreement: you are thinking in terms of psychoanalysis. And since psychoanalysis is a psuedoscience that starts from the premise that all human behavior is driven by irrational, innate, subsonscious desires, you necessarily reach these kinds of conclusions. But this actually tells us very little: the psychoanalysis of any person, or society, would necessarily give the same results. The only differences would be in the particulars.

Personally, I just don't buy into that school of thought at all.

Come on dude, you've already made your point. Shoehorning in this kind of patronizing masturbatory exercise serves no good purpose.

In my book, asserting that a polity "lacks any moral fiber" is a straightforward, textbook instance of dehumanization. Such entities likewise lack moral standing, by implication - they're problems to be dealt with, not fellow people to be cooperated with in attaining larger, shared goals.

And the usual means through which the types of "circumstances" you mention get "changed," is through violence against the a-/im-moral group. The way to get people to engage in productive self-reflection and inclusive moral improvement, is not to Other them. That's for groups you want to destroy, not ones you want to redeem.

Right, standard psychoanalytic premises. Except what's the point? They are, in that frame, universal and immutable. It's not even clear that we'd want to change them - what is the basis for the implication that a more balanced acceptance of sexual content vs. violent content is a (morally?) desirable thing?

There is, again, nothing "our" (or even, "Western") about the psychoanalytic outlook. This is fringe stuff that you're on, which is openly rejected as quackery by the mainstream Western outlook. At any rate, please do not use the first-person-plural when addressing such statements to myself.

That's circular - said resentment could as well stem from the inapplicability of the theory (along with its employment to erect a moral, judgemental perch for yourself), as from cognitive dissonance driven by poking the theorized neuroses.

The only people I see getting angry about this difference here, are exactly that minority who pointedly refuse to comprehend the explanations on offer in the first place. It would be a different story if I'd seen such explanations actually considered seriously and refuted, but I haven't.

 

If you actually read the article you linked, you'd note that the "resistance" cited was exclusively from far-right political bloggers, not "western critics."

Better yet, go ahead and watch the Independent Lens documentary, since by now millions and millions of Americans have already learned about this comic book, and the people behind it, through that source.

 

Good on them. They could have learned about the same comics the various times it has been spoken of in sciforums as well considering the internet is as accessible as PBS.

According to the article I linked:

which seems to indicate that its a little more complicated than the views of a few right wing bloggers

 

Yeah, there was push back because the guy behind these comic books is clueless:

 

It seems pretty obvious to me that SciForums is drastically less accessible than PBS when it comes to people who don't already know about some topic, nor the existence of SciForums. You really expect that the masses of Americans are going to keep up with such developments by following mentions of such here? If so, you drastically overestimate the visibility of this forum.

There's also the putative deferrence of TV programming execs towards said bloggers, sure - although no argument is presented that the lack of a time slot is driven by such, rather than simple calculations of profitability. We should note that, as described in the Independent Lens documentary, The 99, whatever its merits, has exhibited some serious problems in terms of profitability, even in politically receptive and nurturant markets. Time will tell, but there's a possibility that it is entirely the product of the largesse of ideologically-motivated donors, and will disappear in short order if left to the question of profitability on the free market.

I'll also note that the quote in your excerpt there makes it very clear that the actual criticism/resistance in the US came exactly from a small, unrepresentative, radical segment of the population, at least in the views of its producers.

 

Right - because the fact that he has been unable to air his TV series in the US after trying for one year is proof that HE is the clueless one and not the people who refer to veiled women as bagheads.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

He's not clueless.

But he may well be much better at things like political positioning, PR, navigating deals with Arab shieks, raising venture capital, etc., than at producing comic books/animation/theme parks that will sell well.

 

The fact that somebody with a TV series can't get it on the air doesn't prove much of anything about anyone, except that the relevant TV execs didn't think they'd make money on it. Absent further data, the reasoning for that is fairly inscrutible.