<![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead - Jezebel Comments]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead - Jezebel Comments]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @jezehell: "992"? Thats not even in the Koran! Why don't you actually read the Koran!

timmyak

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Dogtanian: Hear hear.

GoodMorningAngels

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Sukie in the Graveyard: You are not alone. :)
Next Generation rocks my socks!

So Irish

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> I wish that people would stop reading a few stories in the NYT (which is far from unbiased) and think that they are now experts on another culture.

The problem here is the same as in other feminist (and elsewhere) circles, people think they already have the answers, so they don't listen to what is actually being said.

Why is it only white westerners who get to be complex?

The concept of honour within Arab culture is complex. If you can't read about it without going "Eeek they do honour killings", then you're a bigot who's not going to learn anything new.

Some people commenting here do not seem to be able to differentiate between Islam and culture. Bear in mind that the posts are usually about Saudi, which has less then 5%of the Muslim population.

There are actually a lot of Muslim women living in America, why do we so rarely hear about them here? Is it because they don't offer the same 'pity porn' value of those poor downtrodden Saudi women?

Dogtanian

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> Yes the lot of women under sharia law is shitty, yes a lot of these laws and policies are awefull and inhumane, however saying that men who have been brought up being told that this is the way things are evil for continuing to do the only thing they have ever known is not helping anything. nor is calling the women simply victims that we Americans need to go in and save helpful. It is that mentality of benevolence that causes wars. I see this article as showing Saudi young people as brave individuals, defying the government for love! I am in awe of these women for being alive, for not losing hope, I wish I had that kind of courage. Yes something needs to be done to change these circumstances, but our saying we are better than them only breeds ailienation and xenaphobia.

Florence

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @nellicat: I want to make clear that I am not and haven't been saying we shouldn't make value judgments. (You may recall I was very offended by the suggestion that I was amoral!) I think these are deeply ethical issues that require a serious engagement with values. And it's precisely for the sake of making that serious engagement that I think it's SO dangerous to treat these issues as if they're straightforward. Assuming our values are just God-given truth... welp, to me that some scary stuff.

GoodMorningAngels

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> I read both stories and what got to me the most was the general mystery surrounding the opposite sexes... And I think that is where the violence stems from. Obviously if women are mysterious beings, men will have no empathy for them and it allows them to treat women the way you see fit (being harassment, honor killings, beatings etc). If you took away the strict laws of Wahabism it would just be regular Islam and it is important to differentiate from that, just as it is to differentiate Christian cults from churches. So while I don't condemn the entire religion of Islam, I do condemn the actions of those who follow this form. I mean, all I have to do is read these two articles and think "Are these people as happy as they can be?" and I say no and that is the saddest part to me. Any religion/culture that restricts living life as fully and happily as possible is one that is in the wrong, regardless of gender.

Jen82

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @braak: Before saying it is or isn't immoral for a _state_ to impose either of those things (which obviously--though speaking only for myself--I personally wouldn't be a fan of either)...I'd first make two things:

1, I think it's a mistake to assume that having laws on the books is necessarily a harsher mode of enforcement than non-legal enforcement. Cf, the American KKK...not legal, but enforces racism much more harshly than the American laws have since the Civil War. Not being institutionalized does not necc = milder.

2, I think it's also a mistake to assume that the state-imposed modesty (or state-imposed anything) is ONLY repressive. I agree that such laws are repressive in some ways (ie, limiting the kinds of dress people might choose), but, they do also create the potential for specific ways of being in society that might feel empowering, and which can't exist without enforcement of that mode--eg, not having to put your body on display in order to get a partner.

And to me that really changes the calculation re: what is moral. If women feel empowered by that...am I allowed to say that because _I_ would feel oppressed, these women shouldn't live like that?

GoodMorningAngels

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @GoodMorningAngels:Well, you've lost me. There is no way on earth I could NOT think that FGM is abhorrent. Or foot-binding. Or whipping a woman for being raped. If you can, honestly, avoid making a value judgment on these things, we exist on separate planets.

nellicat

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @nellicat: I guess I'm saying, if you show up already having decided what you think of a situation, you're already half lost the battle toward finding "culturally sensitive" solutions.

GoodMorningAngels

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @GoodMorningAngels: I know that you're saying that one isn't better than the other; I'm just not convinced that it's true.

Let's put it this way: you've got two cultures. Both of them put women under social pressure to behave in a certain way, and eliminate certain of their choices. One of those cultures also reinforces that cultural pressure with a legal mandate.

It seems that one of these conditions is simply manifestly a better one, because the consequences of refusing the cultural pressure in one case is being a social pariah, and in another is legal punishment.

I'm not saying that women should be dressing immodestly, only that it is morally reprehensible to use the state as a tool to prevent them from dressing immodestly if they want to, the same way it would be reprehensible if we, in the US, used the state as a tool to force women, under threat of legal action, to dress immodestly regardless of what they want.

Hm. Would you agree that it'd be immoral for the state to do that?

braak

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @GoodMorningAngels:I never called for blasting gangbusters into another culture and telling them the way things out to be. For one thing, it will backfire and MORE girls and women will suffer, often for a longer period of time than perhaps would have happened if a more moderated approach had been tried. I get that. I do. But I CAN condemn the practice while at the same time seek out culturally sensitive ways to eradicate it.

nellicat

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @braak: I would say that at my school, modest dressing would make you a social pariah. It would severely undercut your ability to have men pursue you. I think there are plenty of women who live in cultures of modesty who are pretty happy not having to pimp their bodies to anyone who cares to look in order to get a partner...

I mean, look, I'm trying pretty explicitly not to say one is better than the other--all I'm saying is, while we might like what we have, not everyone would or does, and that should give us SERIOUS pause before we go indicting another culture for being "oppressive." Cf nellicat's excellent example: to me it's just so important to be willing to hear out the perspectives of people who might genuinely prefer something that isn't what my ideal

GoodMorningAngels

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Charlotte Corday: I just administered 100mg caffeine through using a Lipton iced tea mix. Doesn't taste as good as the caffeinated Crystal Light, but it works.

Brigit

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @nellicat: But does it really make poor brown women more free to have wealthy white women show up and tell them how their society should function? I think we need to think systemically--NOT to say that FGC isn't an important issue, but in fact that it's so important that we have to consider all the factors that are in play when we decide want to intervene. Precisely because we do see oppression and inequality at work here--I think it's a grave grave mistake if we said, "Well, in the case of feminism we think inequality is wrong--and to right that inequality, let's impose some white Western imperial power." I really think we can do better than that.

GoodMorningAngels

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @mbprice: I am not for a second disputing the fact that the Saudis (government) are animals and manipulate religion to justify their violence. I am not for a second reluctant to criticize this. I just cannot stomach when people fail to distinguish between governments and corrupt political agendas and common people. It is so easy to create an 'other' to dehumanize when in reality we are too afraid to recognize the people under the abayas and thawbs are not that different from us. These men who beat their daughters and abuse their wives are NOT the norm despite what the NYTimes likes to print. How often do we hear stories about normal, moderate everyday people told even here in the US? Other than Story Corps on NPR. Oh how I heart NPR.

This is not to say there are not very real social problems. Again, I am not diminishing the issues, or calling anyone an 'Islamophobe'. All I am asking for is an informed view, and an end to statements like "Islam forbids speaking to strangers".

bitterapple

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Brigit: hehehe, i feel you on the caffeine. giving up coffee gave me amazing headaches. now i just drink copious amounts of tea...

Charlotte Corday

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @GoodMorningAngels: PS, I'm an ass for assuming that "we" are not veiled women. Obvs a stupid assumption--Jezebel for all!

GoodMorningAngels

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Charlotte Corday: I certainly agree. I didn't express myself clearly, but what I meant is that as soon as some group within a person's religious group (FLDS for the Christians) commits some atrocity, that person usually would say that those people were not real members of their religious group. It's just hard to accept that some members of their group can make heinous acts.
Ugh, time for more caffeine.

Brigit

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @GoodMorningAngels: I have argued this point myself and I appreciate that veiled women can be very free, indeed. A very impressive woman once remarked that, in her full body/face cover, her colleagues are pretty much forced to listen to what she has to say and not be distracted/influenced by how she looks when she says it. There is freedom to be found in that, certainly.

nellicat

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @GoodMorningAngels: Hmmm. I'm not sure I buy this. I'll agree that there are cultural pressures on both sides--and that both sets of cultural pressures are deplorable.

So, saying that the women at your school don't have to do that if they don't want to isn't necessarily accurate--is it a choice, given the social pressures?

But, at the same time, it's not a law. While the condition that persists at your college is not completely free (i.e., women don't have to dress immodestly, but are still pressured into it), I'm still not sure that this isn't a superior condition to one in which hyper-modest dress is mandated by law.

I mean, aren't there still women in America who dress in the heavily veiled fashion that we think of as traditional garb for Islamic women?

braak

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @GoodMorningAngels: I have no idea if you are lazy or amoral - from what you write, I'd say you are neither of those things. However, I am comfortable saying that FGM is an evil thing. I am comfortable denouncing it immediately and I am comfortable in working toward its immediate eradication.

nellicat

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @braak: Hahah, glad I could be "sort of interesting" ;)

So on the whole individual/choice thing... I think it's never an obvious thing which is the "larger" amount of "choice." I think of it in terms of trade-offs. Take the whole veiling thing, or just modest dressing in a variety of forms. (Ie, which definitely exists in numerous American settings.) Western feminists tend to see this as a sign of oppression--veiled women are "less" free/have less choice than we do, because we can choose what to wear and they cannot.

But on the other hand, where I went to college, there are a bunch of male social clubs where women line up at the door trying to get into parties by wearing as little clothing as possible. They stand there even in the coldest winter in bare legs, plunging necklines, etc, while dudes stand at the door looking them up and down like a cattle (slave?) auction, deciding which ones to allow in.

Again, saying which group is "more" free is very thorny...but, I think there are plenty of veiled women who don't really envy the position of my college friends. So I think before we get down to saying, "Oh it's obviously that X has more freedom than Y" I think we first need to remind ourselves that we're always making tradeoffs...

GoodMorningAngels

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Brigit: my only point was, the majority of people in america tend not to have the depth of knowledge to say "those krazy wahabbis" or whatever, they just tar every muslim with the same brush, which, while unhelpful, i can sorta understand; but when the head and deputy head of counter-terrorism at the FBI doesn't know the difference between, say, sunni and shi'a islam, i say, "eeeeeeep!".

Charlotte Corday

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Begorrah: Right; I don't think we're disagreeing, I just wasn't a hundred percent clear on the initial comment.

braak

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Brigit: Right. Womens be scary and people be assholes everywhere. Except in Scientology. Now where did I leave my Majic Funtime Cure-All Vitamins?

andBegorrah

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Charlotte Corday: I remember an FLDS post in which a consistent reaction was the usual "oh, but those people are not real Christians" no true Scotsman fallacy.

Brigit

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @braak: Oh dear me. What I think I meant was that we would see religion being fucked up and fucked with in a consistent way across countries and peoples, i.e. honor killings, FGM, suicide bombing, etc. (wow, that's the most tasteless "etc." I've ever written). But instead we see fucked up cultural practices transcending religious, ethnic, and national differences, as in those above examples. Again, agreed on the points you make.

andBegorrah

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @nellicat: So you bring up FGC. It happens to be an area of interest of mine. If I don't immediately denounce it, am I lazy and amoral? Because that's how I read the first post. (And now yours as well.) I really stand by the idea that the lazy thing to do is to claim everyone HAS to immediately jump onto the "FGC is straighforwardly bad" bandwagon or be dismissed as "amoral".

And as for "urging" people to re-read messages... you say, "it is NOT fair to label a person an "islamophobe" for denouncing these beliefs and practices." Has anyone been called an Islamophobe on this thread? Not at my last check. The only place that word even came up was when someone said we should *assume* all Jezebels weren't anti-Islam. And I said we couldn't count on that. No one has said anything specific that I or anyone else labelleed "Islamophobic." So I can't really respond to this "labeling" you're concerned about, because I haven't seen it happen.

GoodMorningAngels

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @nellicat: and yet, we're not hearing any anti-christian bluster re: the FLDS. perhaps that's because we live in a heavily christian country?

and depressingly enough, i've never found a religion that doesn't preach the "pay up, shut up, and keep your womenfolk in line" gospel.

Charlotte Corday

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @GoodMorningAngels: Ah, okay. Internet misunderstandings happen all the time. Sometimes I read stuff that's not there.
It's a wee bit too late to think about the tone of Jezebel international posts, but I'll definitely give it some thought when I'm not tired and not nervous about an exam.

haguenite

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @funnyface: No, I wasn't really missing the point, I was just trying to clarify: the comment, that "if religion were solely to blame for how people fuck it up in practice, we'd see it consistently across cultures and peoples," seems to suggest that because people don't consistently fuck up their religious beliefs, and behave violently when their leaders call for peace, that religion isn't part of the problem.

I was trying to say that we do see people consistently, regardless of religion or national boundaries, disregard their stated peaceful religious beliefs in order to pursue violent agendas.

Therefore, there is no inconsistency in violence, and no absolution for religion as a result of that.

What I was further trying to say was that it is precisely this consistency in violence that shows that religion is not solely to blame for the peoples' troubles: violence is consistent, religion is not, therefore there must be other elements at play.

braak

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Charlotte Corday: That's okay - you can jump on me. I know that the honor killings and the genital mutilation are not islam-wide practice.

I know, also, however, that their practitioners CREDIT islam for the practice. Just like the christian crazies CREDIT their religious beliefs for their fucked-up-itude.

That's why it bugs the crap out of me to hear someone saying "don't be an islamophobe" when I blast the practices that their very practitioners insist are required by islam.

I am blasting the mindset that believes their religious beliefs (whether animist, islam, christian, or whatever) require violence and hostility toward women and girls.

nellicat

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @haguenite: Sorry perhaps I wasn't clear: my gripe is with the WAY foreign cultures are portrayed, not the extent. Pantywaist & I agree on the outcome--that Islam has gotten subbed in as the "enemy" when in fact our IR problems come from the contempt W has shown the international community--but I suspect we disagree about the cause. I've actually been advocating that Jezebel really needs to deal MORE with international issues--but with SUBSTANTIAL revision in tone. I think the "us v. them" is really scary--when racism gets defended in the name of feminism, we're doing something wrong.

GoodMorningAngels

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @PantyWaist: i think your point re: the silence of the mainstream media over president bush's myriad high crimes, is more than valid. i hope you write to tell the editors of which ever newspapers you read that you feel this way. and don't forget to harass your representatives in the house and senate!

Charlotte Corday

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Begorrah: But that's the thing, right? Anyone can (mis)use almost every religion as an excuse legitimize their despicable behavior. And no religion has a monopoly on misogynistic assholes, those people are like weeds.

Brigit

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @PantyWaist: Really, I'd agree more with you if the Times was the only paper that existed or was allowed in the States. Unless ALL the papers are looking the other way re: Bush, I think your argument is still shaky.

@PantyWaist: What I said. I didn't just get a star because I replied to you. It's been here since last week.

haguenite

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @BaconBandito:

The raping, cigarette-flicking, etc... is wrong, no question!!! But what it tells me (along with the cross-dressing and homosexual activity) is that bad things happen when young people are not given healthy, reasonable outlets for simple, natural desires (like, you know, hanging out with your cousins). I guess I'm playing "hate the sin not the sinner" in a sense. I don't want to believe that these men are inherently evil, but it seems so obvious to me that their minds have been warped from infancy...

loubatie

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @nellicat: not to jump on you at all, but the honour killings thing and the genital mutilation thing? not islam-wide. hundreds of millions of women within the muslim community/ummah aren't subject to those (frankly awful) area-specific cultural norms.

Charlotte Corday

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Begorrah: On the "religion is a product of a culture, as much as it is an influence" points, I mean. funnyface will be fielding all my comments from now on, as I have apparently been rendered incapable of thinking and then typing coherently.

andBegorrah

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @PantyWaist: How come the obsession with stars all of the sudden. You need 25 followers. And then you need someone to notice you have 25 followers. The end.

@GoodMorningAngels: When the day has come when pageant contestants no longer say "the Iraq" and end sentences with "such as", THEN I'll agree with you that newspapers could lessen their focus on other nations and cultures. Until that time...

haguenite

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @braak: Oh, I'm not absolving a thing, esp. not a religion. Also, yes, on all points.

andBegorrah

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @haguenite: What are you talking about? Since last week???? @GoodMorningAngels:
Thank you. Somebody gets it.

My problem with the Times is that their choices are bizarre. I think it's a distraction from what is terribly wrong with our government. I think they are bending over backwards to say look how fair and even-handed we are, appreciating foreign cultures. But they are ignoring all this CRAP going on under our very noses for 8 years. But you can't call them on it because then people snipe at you: what, you don't want to learn about foreign cultures? Tsk, tsk.

PantyWaist

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Snowbunny: having two brothers ruined it for me. i knew exactly how boys behaved with the farting and gross stuff...all the magic and prince charming and whatever was all a fantasy. still is. strangely enough, i never look back on the 'where is my knight in shining armor' days as fond or nostalgic.

rednrowdy

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @GoodMorningAngels: Sigh. The comment said, as I read it, that it is "lazy and amoral" to simply buy into the code of honor, to accept without question that killing your sister is an appropriate thing to do if she has been raped, and to mutilate your daughter's genitals so as to avoid shame in the family.

It is true that these things are rooted in deep cultural, religious, spiritual, economic, and other forces. The issues are difficult, I grant you that.

However, it is NOT fair to label a person an "islamophobe" for denouncing these beliefs and practices. The same beliefs and practices, if enforced by some christian cult, would be equally damnable.

I would urge you to read the message again - the "lazy and amoral" part that got you so riled up was not aimed at you or your work.

nellicat

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @braak: You're missing her point. Look up the verse she quoted from Luke and you'll quickly realize it's from "The Parable of the Talents" and is not even like, a commandment. The point being, context is everything, and someone just randomly posting sentences out of the Qu'ran is about as silly as someone randomly posting sentences out of the Bible. It takes a lot more study to even know what that sentence means.

funnyface

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> honestly, religion is the most over-used excuse on the planet to be fucking wanker.

Charlotte Corday

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @PantyWaist: Sorry habibti, but it's not what you asked, or if it was, it didn't make a lot of sense.

You might not want to learn about this stuff, but I think it's always kind of a good idea for say, a newspaper, to like, present articles about things most people don't know.

Like betchslap, I'm also an expat (although I couldn't drive off-compound, so I don't know if the rules have changed a lot, nor would I have ever worn a bikini, period, even on-compound, but who knows - I haven't been back in a decade, so things might be liberalling up over there), and I think it's all very complex, but I can't possibly see the side of the argument that the way women are treated in Saudi is anything but condemnable.

There's really no wiggle room in this. It's human rights, not cultural difference.

Smackdown

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @GoodMorningAngels: Okay, this is kind of interesting.

Is it your argument that providing more choices, at a social and cultural level, is not necessarily good? That a condition in which any individual has more options--whether or not they choose to exercise them--is not an essentially superior condition to one in which they have fewer?

braak

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Begorrah: Huh. Well, I don't think an inconsistency in violence is necessarily what absolves religion.

Still, it's important that religion is a product of a culture, as much as it is an influence.

braak

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @PantyWaist: I think you are totally right on. On the one hand I do think it's REALLY important for Americans to learn something about what the other 95% of the world's population is like... but the whole "scary, foreign Islam!" thing just distracts us from the real cause of American's current vulnerable position in world affairs--W's fraudulent war...

GoodMorningAngels

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @PantyWaist: Also, the star has been there since... Um... At least last week.

haguenite

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @jezehell: "They wish that you disbelieve as they have disbelieved, then you become equal. Do not consider them friends, unless they mobilize along with you in the cause of GOD. If they turn against you, you shall fight them, and you may kill them when you encounter them in war. You shall not accept them as friends, or allies."

Really? That's the best you can come up with? You can kill people in war?

@PantyWaist: Of course I read your whole comment. It's not like it was excruciatingly long. I don't know about The Times's reluctance to report on things you (and many others) find of interest, but why should they not be allowed to report on these matters?

haguenite

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @jezehell In case you missed it or chose to ignore it--"'But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them-bring them here and kill them in front of me.' (Luke 19:27). If religion were to solely to blame for how people fuck it up in practice, we would see it consistently across nations and peoples."

I need more coffee.

andBegorrah

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @tscheese: Let it percolate and you'll come up with somthing.

SheLaughs

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @PantyWaist: What happens if I respond to myself? Can I haz star?

Jus' keedding... Stars? I don't need no stinkin stars!

Why does a bit of yogurt pop out of the container and onto your blouse when you start to tear back the foil?

PantyWaist

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @stacyinbean: damn you imagey linky thingy! DAMN YOU!

stacyinbean is a proud East Coast Librul Elitist

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @SarahMC: "But treating women as second-class citizens IS wrong, no matter which people in which culture are doing it. All things are NOT equal. This type of thinking is not even cultural relativism, it's just lazy and amoral. "

But how do you decide what "second-class" counts as? Or "citizenship"? And who said you got to decide?

Frankly, I think the real laziness is refusing to engage the EXTENSIVE literature on human rights, Western liberalism, and imperialism--and dismissing as lazy all the people who've devoted their careers to resolving these deeply difficult issues.

....ermmmm not that this is personal for me. Let me put it this way: if I didn't care about women around the world, I'd be in a corporate job collecting a paycheck at least four times what I'm currently making. I'm making a MAJOR personal sacrifice to pursue these issues. If I were lazy and amoral, I'd just bag it altogether. I'm doing this because I deeply believe that questioning Western assumptions will ultimately help us do BETTER by the women who don't live in such societies.

GoodMorningAngels

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Begorrah: @mbprice: I kona even express(o) to you how much I feel (french)pressed to one-up you on the coffee puns, but I think you two have won the grande prize.

tscheese

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]>

I'll offer up some further reading:

Nine Parts of Desire, The Hidden World of Islamic Women - Geraldine Brooks - [www.amazon.com]

The Almond - Nedjma - [www.amazon.com]

Both are decent and incredibly interesting.

stacyinbean is a proud East Coast Librul Elitist

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @haguenite: Did you read my whole post? The NYTimes has been dispicable since Bush stole the presidency. That is my real complaint. They want to give you the lowdown on Islam but not on the true cost of Bush's war and all the insanity it engenders.

But very wise of you to respond to me--Instant Star for you! Works like a charm.

PantyWaist

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Charlotte Corday: Charlotte, Quran 4:89, now toss that shit around. I'm sorry, you should take back my failing grade.

I have to get back to work, instead arguing over this stupid shit.

jezehell

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Begorrah: This has bean an impassioned discussion.

mbprice

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @mbprice: Yeah, we don't need to filter our opinions. No one here is a drip.

andBegorrah

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @nellicat: @SarahMC: Yes, people here have insinuated that West Is Best.

My original response was about the NYT article/Jezebel description of it that went looking for a very Western-specific idea of "romance" and suggested that Muslim women are deprived because they have a hard time getting access to it. I wanted us to consider whether this was kind of a dumb thing to go looking for in the first place, because it presumes that our courtship model is something all people desire--when in fact, it's far from "natural" (very specific to the U.S. and our historical moment) and maybe not even that good for women (given that usually we're pretty critical of it--until it comes to comparing ourselves to Muslim societies).

GoodMorningAngels

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Begorrah: On that, we can find some common ground(s).

mbprice

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Begorrah: Oh I know. I picked this week to try and defeat or at least shrink my caffeine addiction. iz not going so well.

funnyface

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> Men are rational?

That's why they prostitute their daughters and don't understand the meaning of 'no', right?

N i s t h a

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @funnyface: I'm so fucking out of it right now and would kill for some good, strong Turkish coffee. Get it? Get it?!? "Kill"! "Turkish"! Ah hahahahahaha!!! Yeah, nap time.

andBegorrah

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @GoodMorningAngels: But who the fuck is claiming that America is the land of the equal and the home of the post-feminist? NOBODY. Condemning the shit in this story =/= an endorsement of American-style patriarchy.

SarahMC

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Begorrah: Hehe, Grazie. I was feeling a little short on Western romance this afternoon--cheesy pop should totes cover me ;)

GoodMorningAngels

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @RosyCheeks: I don't think anyone here has written anything even remotely suggesting that the Americans are superior in all things cultural. It is possible to denounce the violence and misogyny without asserting superiority in all things cultural and frankly, I think you are attacking a straw man.

nellicat

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @jezehell: and that is why you fail, b/c that's all you've got to debate with.

Charlotte Corday

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @PantyWaist: Because the world doesn't end at the borders of the US of A?

haguenite

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @GoodMorningAngels: right on. and i get that the issue is complex, but what about the old adage: "knowledge is power"?

the fact that the head and deputy of the counter-terror unit at the FBI did not know the difference between sunni and shi'a islam is staggering to me.

[www.whistleblowers.org]

Charlotte Corday

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @RosyCheeks: @GoodMorningAngels: I am all about nuance. Nobody has said or insinuated that The West Is Best or anything like that!
Nobody is saying that our social structure is the ultimate and only way. But treating women as second-class citizens IS wrong, no matter which people in which culture are doing it. All things are NOT equal. This type of thinking is not even cultural relativism, it's just lazy and amoral. Accepting that parents allow their children sips of wine in other countries is cultural relativism. Accepting that parents KILL THE DAUGHTERS WHO "DISHONOR" THEM is idiotic, blind, and WRONG.

SarahMC

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @RosyCheeks: Whoa there. Condemning something like honor crimes is not the same as saying American habits are the model. I have yet to see anyone point to American values as the "right" way to reduce gender-related crimes. People are saying the gender-related crimes need to stop -- period. However they want to go about doing that is fine by me.

mbprice

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @RosyCheeks: I wish our gender crimes were less severe or extensive--but I'm not even sure that's necessarily the case. I wonder how the rape stats stack up, for example. I mean, the fact that the leading cause of death for pregnant women in the U.S. is murder... well, not exactly a ringing endorsement for our system, eh?

GoodMorningAngels

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @ilikenoise: Oh, you can have Bingley, no contest. I like my men with a bit more backbone.

haguenite

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Begorrah: Ah, OK. I thought you were like "Oh, Christians believe in killing nonbelievers too" and found a verse to prove it. NOW I get that you found a verse that sounded offensive to make a point that without the background, yeah, of course it's offensive. Maybe I'm just slow today.

funnyface

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> Could someone please explain to me why the NYTimes runs all these articles on Islam culture? I don't care! There was a time when I did not know all the ins and outs of Muslim dating rituals and I was perfectly happy! Why is it that the Times has taken upon itself the role of teacher/demystifyer/apologist for the Arab world, but they STILL cannot speak the truth about this CRIMINAL BUSH ADMINISTRATION!!!!!!!

PantyWaist

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @RosyCheeks: I notice that other cultures have a problem with our materialism. I don't think they are wrong. So we've all got stuff to work on.

arodriguez.romero speaks java

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> Habibi means my love.

And MAH B'HIMNI to you Charlotte and Sophie. Why don't you put that in a test tube and do your lab analysis on that.

jezehell

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @arodriguez.romero: Typically used as 'friend' or 'lover'.

stacyinbean is a proud East Coast Librul Elitist

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @GoodMorningAngels: I am so with you on this one. The honor crimes are despicable, but I get highly frustrated with the American habit of asserting superiority in all things cultural. Perhaps the severity of our gender related crimes tend to be less, but who is to say that our social structure is the ultimate and only right way?

RosyCheeks

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @tscheese: That's not to say that Christianity isn't totally scary and oppressive sometimes, but for the most part - at least in the USA - I think folks who describe themselves as "Christian" probably have more lifestyle choices available to them than the most hyperconservative Muslims. Just to clarify.

Christianity can still be a bunch of jerks. And I say this as someone who attended 13 years of private Christian school.

tscheese

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @tscheese: yep. One Reformation for Islam, please.

arodriguez.romero speaks java

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @funnyface: My point exactly. Gah--so. not. clear. this morning. But thank you for making the point I had in mind.

andBegorrah

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> I've read the Bible cover-to-cover numerous times and I can't say that it doesn't have some really f'd up stuff in it. Begorrah gave one good example. Also, according to Leviticus, if a lady gets raped within the city walls but doesn't holler loud enough for help, we're supposed to stone both her AND the rapist. There is some MEAN shit going on between the covers of the Good Book.

And Christianity hasn't been without its abuses either. It still isn't. But for the most part (with a few visible exceptions) a lot of practitioners of Christianity aren't into stonings or Inquisitions or witch burnings. So even a religion with some really ugly tenets can turn into something less scary and oppressive over time, right?

tscheese

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> I'm really glad the NYTimes wrote these articles. It's been interesting to read how this does happen when both genders are so removed from each other. It's fascinating.

dummyfakeroller

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Begorrah: great idea-- cheezy love songs and lebanese food. mmm...

Charlotte Corday

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @SarahMC:

Two things:

1. I think it's WAY problematic to conflate nuance with "sheepish apologies." I can't speak for everyone here, but at least from my perspective, I have no problem with strongly worded opinions (obviously!) I do, however, have a problem with oversimplification of complex topics. These two are NOT the same; thus asking someone to be a bit more nuance/careful in their assumptions is NOT the same as asking people to apologize for their point of view.

2. Railing on white dudes in the U.S. and railing on Islam are not even remotely equivalent. One attacks a hegemonic group...and the other further alienates an already minoritized group (more simply put: promotes racism). I am not at all saying I think every aspect of Islam is super super--but I think we need to take into account the VERY real differences in the stakes of each of these games, so to speak.

GoodMorningAngels

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Begorrah: That would be completely out of context, as it is a line spoken by a king in a parable.

funnyface

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> Wait, Jezehell is a Nazi? WE HAVE A NAZI ON THE BOARDS?

meaghan2k

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @cate3710: And the arched eyebrows of smug judgment! Oh no!

andBegorrah

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Charlotte Corday: great tnx. Carry on. :)

arodriguez.romero speaks java

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @nellicat: oh right, b/c the middle east is well known for the rational behavior of the men-folk. are they fucking serious? really?

whyknot

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @roodles: aaah, the wandering uterus.

Polka.Your.Eyes.Out

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @haguenite: Well you have delighted us with your wit long enough, as Jane herself would say. What's that? Country fair? Well- I never liked him anyway! Damn, what to do now, I have already let another Jezebelle take Brandon. Mr Bingley? You'll do, you're rich.

ilikenoise

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @nellicat: And Thank You. Everyone has a right to an opinion, even if you agree with it.

jezehell

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @jezehell: Your tone is unnecessary. People are questioning your statements because you are making broad, sweeping generalizations with what appears to be a very limited understanding of the religion to back said statements up. If you are presenting an argument, please do so calmly and with details to back up your statements. Otherwise, don't be surprised when people call you out on the things you say.

And NOBODY called you a Nazi. You are reading into people's comments and applying those terms to yourself.

hortense

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Titania: Nah, let them be exposed to the Dan Humphreys. It teaches you that no matter how hard you try, you will always disappoint the people who put you on a pedestal.

cate3710

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> Love won't save the day. Women's rights will save the day.

kami2000

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @arodriguez.romero: it means love or loved one.

Charlotte Corday

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @jezehell: while i have no scientific basis for not believing that you're "read the koran", your not knowing the difference between the koran and the hadith is pretty telling. as is the cherry-picking verses to suit your agenda.

but hey, i've been labeled an anti semite on here, so you're in good company.

Charlotte Corday

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Begorrah: I think habibi means "dance". Anybody know?

arodriguez.romero speaks java

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Charlotte Corday, GoodMorningAngels: Ima sing a cheesy pop song for both of you.

andBegorrah

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Charlotte Corday: I have and thanks for the call out, but hey, now I'm a Nazi so you have discredited me. YOU GOT ME THERE.

jezehell

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @stacyinbean: Habibiiiiiiiiiiiii! My friend's husband sings that to her when he's cooking and it's so fucking adorable I could cry. Or piss myself laughing.

andBegorrah

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Charlotte Corday: I wasn't referring to that; I think that's just fine.

SarahMC

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @biscuitdoughjones:Sista, you are the fucking haiku QUEEN! Nice!

ItchykooParker

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Charlotte Corday: Well said.

GoodMorningAngels

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @girlreporter: You need words?

L-dizzle

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @SarahMC: I decided a few weeks ago to not write any type of actual disclaimer anymore. If that lands me a "worst comment award" at one point, because my sarcasm wasn't clear enough of because I wasn't culturally sensitive enough, that's fine.

haguenite

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @nellicat: Could not agree more. Watching "Jesus Camp" freaked me out as much as this NY Times article did. I am not Islamophobic, nor Christianphobic. But I think there are beliefs and practices in both religions that are flat out WRONG, and I would love to see them gone. Everything on Earth doesn't have innate cultural value.

But it is pointless trying to have an actual discussion with a moral relativist, because it invariably devolves into name-calling and accusations of racism or colonialism.

Banana Grabber

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @SarahMC: i'm not saying a person can't call people out-- however, if some of their assumptions are wrong, they should be prepared to be called out in return.

Charlotte Corday

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @bitterapple: @jezehell: Jezehell, you're cherry-picking the literature to find passages that suit your argument, even though they aren't representative of the literature in toto.

Bitterapple, that's beside the point, because they are using an interpretation of religion to justify their actions. I seriously doubt religious obedience is the actual motivating factor, but it's the one they cite.

And I think both of you are missing the larger picture, which is that a slew of factors have combined and fermented over history that have produced several distinct societies that share a number of values, and among those values there is a preponderance of "justified" misogyny and violence. Religion is part of it, but it's certainly not everything. And invoking this religious passage or another is ultimately a moot point, because it's not like any religious tome is internally consistent. That's why the interpretation is the bigger issue.

mbprice

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @ilikenoise: So we're not going to settle this with a witty banter battle? Good, since I'm not that witty anyway and Mr Knightley doesn't like it when I use wit indiscriminately.
I did, however, win a stuffed animal shooting a gun at a country fair once.

haguenite

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Begorrah: Oh man, it is deliciously cheesy! The funniest part is you can be pretty certain they really have no clue what they are talking about. It is beautiful music though, too!

stacyinbean is a proud East Coast Librul Elitist

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> The comments are lagged
So when I give compliments
On haikus, I'm late.

tscheese

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @nellicat: AMEN. I am sick of being told I have to write a long, apologetic, sheepish disclaimer after comments.
We can't talk about the EVIL, MISOGYNIST society that breeds this sort of SHIT without being labeled Islamophobes - just like we can't talk about rape cases or woman-beating cases right here in the US without being accused of man-hating.

Cultural sensitivity is all well and good - like respecting the fact that some cultures wear what we'd consider odd styles of clothing or have different concepts of "leisure."

We do not have to "RESPECT" human rights abuses, people. That's not a cultural relativity issue, for Christ's sake.

SarahMC

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @haguenite: Oh, right! What was I thinking. I mean, I'm not even sure why it occurred to me to use the word "straight"....cuz there isn't anything else, is there? ;)

GoodMorningAngels

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Begorrah: I know what you mean though. Esp. about Tuesdays. Time for a nap methinks.

@haguenite: I am getting my pink dueling pistols out.

Anyone interested in reading more about the Qur'an, apparently this is a good blog: [blogs.guardian.co.uk]

ilikenoise

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Charlotte Corday: Or perhaps it came from Fitna?
[nl]

+ Watch video

Really, this is something you should only watch if you like racism, islamophobia and decapitations.

haguenite

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Sev:
me neither.

I'm a total slutbag and have no place in a "dignified" society such as this.

I don't want to knock another culture, but I really appreciate my freedom to fuck and be fucked...

amie sinn

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @nellicat: Well, such is your prerogative. But if you refuse to take other dimensions of oppression--chauvinism based on race, nationalism, imperial power, etc.--into account, then it's equally my prerogative to say your perspective is so facile and reductive as to be ultimately damaging to 3rd world women.

In other words... if you don't attend to complexity, you may actually end up hurting the cause you care about. And in the meantime, the people you supposedly care about likely won't take you seriously.

GoodMorningAngels

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @jezehell: well, you claim you've "read the koran". i'm calling you out on it.

Charlotte Corday

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Charlotte Corday: I know, I just realized that! I've been scrolling through going, "What the--?"

Sophie is addicted to Now 'n Laters

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Charlotte Corday: Please, one dissent on a belief and now I'm a Nazi. Nice try

jezehell

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @fauxpas: The same could be said of Italy.

andBegorrah

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @mbprice: I'm at the lab and Mr. Brigit took a whole week off from his lab! So he's rolling blunts and cooking and I'm stuck here... I can haz mai kitchen?

Brigit

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @nellicat: sing it!

BaconBandito

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @jezehell: it's not in the koran, it's from the hadith, as my learned friend, sophie, has pointed out. thre's a BIG difference.

do you get all your anti-islam tripe from david duke? or just this example?

Charlotte Corday

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @jezehell: What about the verses on protecting all of the people of the Book? Or was it too cumbersome to assess it as a whole and just easier to choose certain verses to fit an agenda? Kind of like what the Saudis are doing!

bitterapple

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Charlotte Corday: I really don't care to argue about the existence of God, but it is written in the Koran, but hey, I didn't say it, Allah said it :)

jezehell

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Begorrah: Agreed. It's not all religion. It's culture. It's tradition. It's oppression. It's history. It's population and supply and demand and economic hardship and geographic location.

mbprice

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @Sophie: and it's neatly quoted on a white power website, i see.

Charlotte Corday

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @ilikenoise: Fuck no! Mr Knightley is MINE!

@GoodMorningAngels: The only romance that *exists* is straight romance. Duh.

haguenite

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @GoodMorningAngels: Oh fuck that. I am fucking sick of every time a Muslim practice/societal norm/whatever gets rightfully attacked people start to scream "Islamophobe!"

The fact is that just about every religion has its screwball elements and whenever a screwball element goes over the fucking line we call it.

Whether it's the FDLS freaks impregnating young girls and keeping women subservient or female genital mutilation or honor killings.

The Jezzies can be relied upon to call out this violent misogynistic crap for what it is. When the perpetrators of said violent misogynistic crap place the CREDIT on their religious beliefs for their actions, then fuck yes we will place the BLAME there.

nellicat

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @ilikenoise: True, and I know I'm getting pedantic, but in terms of "most Jez commenters [not] coming from a Islamophobic POV"--I get nervous. And itchy. And a little sleepy, but that's more of a general Tuesday thing.

andBegorrah

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]> @jezehell:

Ibn Ishaq: 992 - "Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah." Muhammad's instructions to his men prior to a military raid.

Note: This isn't the Qu'ran but the hadith or sayings attributed to Prophet Muhammad and in reference to a battle.

Nice try, though.

Sophie is addicted to Now 'n Laters

]]> <![CDATA[Strict Rules In Saudi Arabia Render Romance Elusive, But Not Dead]]>