are so sure they're so much better off now 'especially the women'. Everything's fixed with this new friendly gov't. ....... over and done. The problem is, any progress they made has been knocked backed decades. I don't believe for a second things are 'great' for women in Tunisia. Thanks for the thread, cali.

Part of the drive for demystification of anatomy is declaring the human body is not another person's private property. To the extent societal mores regarding nudity are possessive and patriarchal, they need to be confronted, and that's pretty much everywhere.

From your link:
http://www.asafeworldforwomen.org/womens-rights/wr-africa/wr-tunisia.html

K & R

But now we're just being silly.

I couldn't help myself.

Even the seemingly good points made by some folks, I don't trust them anymore. New policy.

On one hand we have Amina Tyler in Tunisia who is threatened by an authority that has the actual power to carry out that threat in her region of the world. Look at what the pissed-off version of Islam did to the USA.

On the other we have Adria Richards in the USA, who was threatened by people whom the authorities will actually defend against. She has the power to entreat those authorities to her defense and to seek justice. Working in the tech world, I'd say she has the access to people and methods to track those people down.

Your argument has been to diminish Amina's cause and DUers who recognise the difference. I saw when you began marshalling your defense of said diminishing in a thread about "the First world ". Then you took those same posts and put them into a General Discussion thread. I'd say you were literally "called to arms" after an event where Adria Richards was first brought in as a diversion, and to extremely ill effect at that.

We can see you, you know. we can see when you and yours marshall to defend and deflect. The joint gets pretty "inky" with diversions.

According to the Tunisian website Kapitalis, Adel Almi, an Islamist preacher and head of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, even called for Tyler to be punished with 80 or 100 lashes and said she could be stoned to death.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/25/amina-tyler-femen_n_2949376.html

The disingenousness and bludgeoning manipulations from your subset is a wonder to behold. a dozen or so could make excellent right wing dough in a Pubbie think tank.

been stoned to death.

we have people like that guy here, look at fred phelps . fox news rush limbaugh , tea party.

"The head of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice in Tunisia (enforcers of Sharia Law), preacher Almi Adel"

But there is no sharia law in Tunisia, so he has no power to compel anyone 'in power' to enforce his opinion through the courts, the police, or the state. His little commission does not have the sanction of the state.

he is not 'in power'.

this committee (it's no accident that its title is the same as a state-sanctioned one in Saudi Arabia -- a US *ally*, btw) was formed after the 2011 'revolution,' by the salafist faction.

it may happen that at some point in the future these people could have state-sanctioned power, but they don't at present.

according to amina's (female) lawyer, the worst the state can do is jail her 6 months for public indecency. However, no charges have been filed *at all* thus far.

It's you who are disingenuous, by pretending that some officialdom is persecuting this woman. The actual situation is more analogous to someone like Fred Phelps or a right-wing militia group spouting off against someone.

Sorry to distract from certain parties' attempt to paint the entire middle east and all islam as a fundamentalist bloc.

it's not me who's being disingenous, and it's not me who's pushing a right-wing line.

“could bring about an epidemic ... It could be contagious and give ideas to other women.” Amina is a threat to the region. The United States was considered a threat to islam and we have no sharia law, but that didn't stop them from gaining retribution on sept. 11. And we're nowhere near the region.

--Phelps is in the united states, we do not have regions that stone women or gays by law. the middle east does.

(And further, phelps is indeed a stochastic terrorist who helps back up a persons righteousness in a gay slaying/attack. that's THE power. god is impossible to argue with and that's where the anti-gay anti-woman and other problems have anchor).

Almi Adel is an official who has no power--for now--in Tunisia, that is true, He has power for those in tunisia whom are part of the movement who want to bring sharia law in officially .

It's true that she's is at least mostly protected in her country, but she is far from safe.

Oh for gosh sake, You are not sorry, please stop saying you are.

world for women only to find out that tunisia legalized abortion before the USA did -- and *without* the husband's approval.

Vast stretches of Islam reside in a nightmare world, I'm glad there are people who protest it where they still can, and for those who are unable to, even with all the risks she faces from a religion that travels to do its "duty".

Again, you are not sorry. You are arguing for an "unrecc" this is why it's called "disingenuous".

Maybe we'll get some sockpuppets to recc threads like the pros do. Eh what?

'manipulative bullshit artist"?

Kurovski (33,189 posts)
18. That thread was created by a manipulative bullshit artist with personal agendas up the wazoo.

LOL.

I'm no 'pro,' just a prole from the rural west, far away from DC court politics, and I have no sockpuppets.

Unlike some folks here.

My agenda is a lingering fondness for truth, justice, and the american way v. machiavellian manipulative propaganda.

But it was just a call-out on the disengenous nature of your repeated comment. I really did chuckle. Good point.

That "sockpuppet" reference was for general consumption of your readers to whom it is applicable, and I should have made that clear.

Somethings lingering, I'll give you that.

(And, Adria Richards is still an asshole.)

and made for the reasons I have stated.

My comments have nothing to do with adria richards. I think she behaved like an asshole over a triviality. furthermore, i think that feminists who get upset over dick jokes (especially ones they overheard, which weren't intended to yank their chains) come off as fainting violets begging to have their tender sensibilities protected by the state. Not my idea of feminism.

I was irritated by the poster who painted tunisia as a nightmare place for women. It was simply false, and i can only speculate as to whether he was just ignorant or uninterested in the reality, or whether the falsehood was deliberate.

Clearly, I'm getting too old for this. I'm not sure but I saw a few phantasms cross the DU boards. I say I'm not sure.

I stand by my view that Amina is in more danger than you believe her to be. And I stated my reasons.

We just have ourselves a disagreement.

It looks like cali's OP of articles here hits it square center.

RE: Amina--it's true that "extremists" do not "run her entire fucking life" as the op you speak of states. and all the cut and paste posts you passed around were dismissing the entirety of the Op entitled "I find it very interesting that people with first world problems" .

there is still legitimacy in what was stated by the OP, even considering your contributions. It looked like a massive diversion from the topic raging at the time. (still does). I think the number of times and places you posted the info in threads-- as if it was some kind of end to the discussion, is diversionary, whether it was the intent or not, it had the resultant appearance thereof.

You'd have gotten a hearing with "it's not as bad as you state" Instead you offered the "It had legal abortion before us" style-defense as if that would address the actual climate in Tunisia today.

Again, cali points to the problems in Tunisia through articles. it's nice that they had legal abortions before our idiot country did, but it's not France or Florida or Alberta Canada. the context of Amina's protest is far different, IMO.

We disagree, maybe not as much as I originally thought, but we do disagree.

So you're saying all Islamic nations and cultures do? That there are no distinctions? That Tunisia is Saudi Arabia, that Turkey is Iran?

Uganda is a predominantly Christian nation. It has laws calling for the death penalty for gays. GLBT folks there are routinely persecuted, imprisoned, bashed and murdered. This is true in other "Christian" nations as well. Women accused of witchcraft in Uganda have been chased out of their homes (and the minister responsible welcomed and praised by no less a figure than a Republican candidate for the vice presidency of the United States). Anti-gay legislation in Africa was crafted with the aid of Christian ministers from the good ole USA.

North Dakota now has more repressive anti-choice laws than Tunisia, and women's health clinics in the US have been the target of bombings and other terrorist attacks for decades now, from a religion that "travels to do its duty" (Operation Rescue, and other "Christian groups&quot .

So, is it safe to assume then that you'd agree that "vast stretches of Christiandom reside in a nightmare world..."? And that you'd take death threats, threats of rape and disfigurement against American women who speak out against sexism as seriously as you do those in Tunisia?

Really, I do appreciate how so many people on DU are suddenly interested in the rights of women on the other side of the planet, especially young women with attractive breasts.

It would be nice if some of that concern, especially by American men perhaps in a position to actually do something, could be extended to women living here in the USA.

how a lot of people react when it comes to nudity.

I have a fist hand experience because I am a nudist and I lived and live now in First World Countries.

Over the years several times I had to physically defend myself from the outraged individuals in places where I was LEGALLY ALLOWED to be naked. Those individuals were NOT religious fanatics, I don't even believe they were moderately religious. Just your normal, run of the mill, everyday people.
Look what happen right here in several threads. You might think it was just few feminists outraged because someone said "tits" and because FEMEN uses their naked bodies for protest, but it isn't so. This is "normal" reaction, from otherwise "normal" people who are totally progressive, liberal, etc, etc BUT when it comes to nudity they go batshit. Like it or not, deny it all you want but for majority of people human naked body in public place (and I am not talking restaurant on a Main Street or shopping Mall here) is something they do not want to see because it offends their "morals".

Now, think where Amina lives. Think of what she did. She didn't just go naked on the beach, she posted pictures of herself naked on Internet with messages challenging their religious and moral beliefs. There is no way to undo it, they can't force her pictures to cover up, cant remove those pictures ever.They lost control over her, totally. Even otherwise progressive people don't take that kind of challenge lightly.

It doesn't matter how secularly progressive her country is to compare to whatever other country elsewhere. It doesn't matter that they had abortions before US did. That one is still a religious country with Islam as main religion, and like it or not Islam is even more restrictive in turns of "modesty" then Christianity is.

Now, if I can be assaulted in a First Word country that has a law allowing women to bare their breasts in public places, do you really think Amina is safe in hers? If I was her, I would be damn careful where I walk for now on and who I walk with.


PS. This is a reason I had a fight with you. YMMV. And again, I speak for myself and myself only.
You are welcome to PM me because I would like to resolve this issue with you. Simply because we agree on a lot of everything else when it comes to global politics. All I say is your PMs will be kept strictly confidential or deleted if you ask me to do so. And I do think highly of what you are trying to do here on DU with the information you post.

I think it's because I analyze people's reactions to nudity from a different POV. Yours is more individualistic; the perspective is "I have a right to be nude". You see this woman as a "freedom fighter".

I have a different POV; it is less individualistic. And I don't know what this woman is. She could be many different things. There's not enough information to know. However, I'm basically skeptical when I see 'freedom fighters' touted in the US press because I know that only certain 'freedom fighters' are covered, while others aren't -- for example, labor and anti-corporate 'freedom fighters' are widely ignored. You would hardly know that neoliberal privatization was a *huge* factor in Tunisia's 2011 'revolution' by reading the US press, and that it continues to be a huge factor in the ongoing struggles.

But whatever this woman is, I can be fairly confident that she won't be stoned in Tunisia, because it's not a fundamentalist country. It was the misrepresentation of the situation in Tunisia I took issue with, and the misrepresentation was apparently intended to boost this woman's 'heroic' status.

There's no need to resolve our 'fight' privately. This is a discussion board, and we are discussing. We have different opinions, so what? I try to be civil to fellow discussants unless they're uncivil with me.

Last edited Mon Apr 1, 2013, 09:05 PM - Edit history (1)

I don't believe there was intentional desire from posters here to boost her status. IMO, lots of the responses were getting heated because some feminists on DU were outraged by her mode of protest and posted some seriously stupid remarks.

Of course some of the posters are not familiar with the actual situation in Tunisia, but I doubt very much any of the posts in Amina's support were motivated by racism or bigotry towards Islam. I can appreciate why majority were mistrustful towards reassurance that she would be just fine. Shit like "honour killings" don't just happens in SA, and majority of DUers are well aware of it.

As to the bigger picture RE: "freedom fighters" and presentation in mass media, I am very well aware of of propaganda BS that we are fed daily. Anyone who is opposed to regime we don't like are "freedom fighters", otherwise they are insurgents, terrorists, criminals, etc. Nor am I blind to the manipulation of facts to misrepresent what is actually going on. Venezuela comes to mind right away.

I still would like to know why did you think I was a part of whatever group you thought I was, that's why I offered to take it to PM.

has a travel warning for Tunisia. It is not a happy place.

Some people call places like Tunisia and Egypt "illiberal democracies," where the will of the majority, democratically expressed through the ballot box, is to damp down the rights of some sectors.

Another example of "illiberal democracy," I suppose, could be all those anti-gay marriage votes in the states.

Also known as the tyranny of the majority.

One answer would be to have a basic charter of rights, but you would have to fight the illiberals on that, too.

..and pretty much every secular constitutional republic since.. have recognized the need to balance the power of the people as well. hence a strong federal gov't beholden to abstract principles of liberty, justice, etc. rather than ideologies that profess to have a monopoly on those principles.

if we had been a true, pure democracy in the 19th century, there wouldn't have been a civil war and slavery would probably still be legal.

the will of the people is a capricious power.. our senate was invented to temper its excesses.

terms such as "first world problems" seem to have missed it.

but I have to say I remain troubled at ongoing efforts to imagine that sexism exists entirely outside the US and that Muslims are somehow inherently misogynistic. I've had several men on DU refer to incidents abroad and point to that as examples of "real" sexism, whereas they refuse to engage with the fact that 1 in 3 women in the US are abused or raped by a partner. One went so far as to tell me the death threats against Adria Richards weren't "real" because they weren't issued by a government. Never mind that the ones against the Tunisian activist weren't issued by a government either, but it worked into his narrative that he was exempt from sexism because of living in the US and women here whine about nothing. I pointed out that one is just as dead if killed by a Muslim or non-Muslim American, and rape is rape regardless of the perpetrator. Such comments also fit into the xenophobia and ignorance that typifies US attitudes toward Muslims---attitudes have been perpetuated in order to legitimate war.

As we can see in the article above, equality of women is written into the Tunisian constitution, while Americans refused to pass the ERA amendment. There have been women as heads of government in several Muslim countries, but never in the US. Women in the US aren't subject for death threats for bearing their breasts, but Adria Richards faced threats of death and rape for tweeted what she saw men in front of her saying. If anyone follows through on those threats, do you think it really matters if the woman is killed for bearing her breasts or exposing a man's sexist joke? Dead is dead.

But the problems of every country are specific. Sexism in the US is very different from sexism in South Africa, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia. Women in all countries are subject to rape and terror, but you aren't seriously going to suggest that the issues that women face in each of these countries are the same? Why is drawing attention to the fact that there are many differences so troubling for some women?

My understanding is that some of the threats against Amina are coming from Tunisian government officials. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2590897 But what exactly does that mean in reference to your post?

I don't believe that anyone is saying that American women don't have anything to be enraged/frustrated/disgusted over and to fight for. But the idea that asking American women -- some of the most privileged women in the entire planet -- to understand that many of our problems pale in comparison to what many other women all over the world face would somehow send people into fits of self-pitying is something I cannot understand and I think is unworthy of women everywhere. And I honestly believe that it is attitudes like that that keep many, many other women -- particularly women of color -- from wanting to align themselves with women who are unwilling or unable to fight for their rights while recognizing their own privilege.

so I wasn't sure what was involved in that discussion. My response was to what I think might have been talked about and a general tendency on the site.

I agree that particular problems vary enormously by cultural context, but I reject the notion that American women are more privileged than every other nation in terms of gender relations. We are privileged economically, but even then the majority of American women live at a lower standard of living than do Europeans. American laws in general do not provide the same guarantees for women's equality that EU countries do. We don't have paid maternity leave, and the absence of universal health care takes a particular toll on women because of child rearing.

On the other hand, there are poor countries where women are far less advantaged then in the US. And there are places like Pakistan where challenges women face to seek an education are overwhelming, as the plight of Malala Yousafzai shows. Yet on the other hand, Pakistan has had a woman as Prime Minister, while the US has had none. The example of Pakistant shows that the ways in which sexism manifests itself are complex and varied. Would I prefer to live in the US, absolutely. But I do not buy into the nationalist myth that America and Americans are superior to the rest of the world, when there is in fact little evidence to support it.

The poorer the country, the worse conditions are for women. There are also different forms that sexism and misogyny take, but some crimes like rape and murder are universal. I don't know of statistics that show American women are so much better off than everywhere else. In fact, I expect that isn't the case, since 1 in 3 women are abused by a partner in this country. We're certainly better off on a daily basis than, for example, women in the Congo, but less so than in many other nations, partly because homicide rates in this country are so high. As in every point of comparison, specific conditions for women vary. Women in the US, for example, have greater access to education than in the Global South, but we also face very high rates of murder and rape.

There are indeed people saying American women don't have anything to complain about. They say it all the time. They insist our complaints aren't real. That was inherent in the whole attack against Adria Richards, who is, by the way, African American and a lesbian, working in a male dominated industry (and I'm guessing white dominated as well). She too was subject to death threats, while men here on DU insist those threats are inconsequential and look to contribute to the kickstarter account for the fired man.

Privilege works on all kinds of levels, and clearly race and nation have tremendous impacts on one's life. We as Americans, however, have virtually no ability to affect gender relations abroad. We can do something about them at home, however. If you want to decide that you don't care about feminists in the US because you think their concerns are trivial, that's your choice, but you only hurt yourself in the process. I submit there is nothing trivial about employment rights, rape, and murder. Those are problems that cut across class and race lines.

mainly because it had absolutely nothing to do with what I'd posted. But I went against my better judgement and responded. Then I get rewarded with this:

If you want to decide that you don't care about feminists in the US because you think their concerns are trivial, that's your choice, but you only hurt yourself in the process.

I'm sorry you took offense to that one phrase and ignored the rest. It was in your response to your comment about not wanting to find common cause with white American feminists. It also seems you didn't even read what I said and have instead created a straw man argument that ignores my post. I can't compel you to engage in a thoughtful discussion based on what I actually wrote.

and respond to me in an intelligent manner, then don't waste my time. Very simple, actually. You initiated this and it was obvious that you are "up in arms" and looking for a fight. You just need to pick better people to be "up in arms" with.

I get so frustrated with this stupid shit. This is so damn unnecessary. There is not one word in my post that says ANYTHING about "not wanting to find cause with white American feminists." You pulled that squarely out of your ass.

I am tired of white women on this site trying to lecture me about what the fuck I as a black woman should be upset about while astonishingly, running around DU tossing "nigger" around as if it's a new word you've just discovered; insulting famous black women with really bizarre language and making me have to defend these woman even though I TRULY couldn't care less about but I am so disgusted by the language used against them; trying to "shame" me for being upset about the racism in a racist Sports Illustrated ad and not focusing only on the sexism as they always seem to do; setting up this truly bizarre "contest" between yourselves and black people ie. "racism would NEVER be allowed here but sexism is" which is ever so much utter and complete bullshit; and now the complete minimizing of what this young woman of color has done because she pulled her breasts out, courage and convictions (and death threats) be damned. When any of you have seen and done half of the shit that I have, then I will be all too happy to have your lectures.

At this point, I am just going to ask that you guys leave me the hell alone. And what's really, really sad is that I agree with so many of you and a few of the people with the biggest targets on their backs are posters that I genuinely like, even if I don't agree with them all of the time. But until you guys get a fucking grip, then so be it.

was the point about not recognizing privilege in the US, which is not at all what I said.

I don't know why you're so angry, and I have not lectured you. In fact, I have found previous conversations with you informative. I did not tell you what to be concerned about. I told you what I am concerned about.

I do not use racist slurs, and I resent the implication I do. I am one person, not a collective of people. But as you request I will leave you alone. You prepare unwilling to read or engage in conversation anyway, so there is no point of trying.

but you have made it a point to not read. Absolutely no idea why you started this pointless bullshit in the first place. I've never said that you personally used racial slurs, but still glad to hear that you'll be leaving me alone.

Misrepresent, lie, obfuscate, ramble semi-coherently... Of course, any time a man such as myself engages with her like you have, she puts us on ignore and claims victory...

at things I did not say. You appear to be angry at what you thought I was implying, which from what you've written I can tell you is not at all what I intended.

FYI

Even though I truly do not appreciate your deliberate (and absolutely ridiculous) misinterpretation of what I'd said, your posts came on the tail end of a string of white feminist lecturing posts and I'd had all that I can take. Seriously. But that wasn't your fault and I should not have railed on you the way that I did. That was wrong.

Two things: One, I believe that your sensitivity towards the phrase "first world problems" is blinding you. For instance, you mention that American women don't have paid maternity leave. Which is a very important issue -- it is hard for women to re-enter the work force without access to maternity leave as well as quality child care. Take a second and read this article about the first female fighter pilot in Afghanistan that has to take her daughter with her on missions because there is no child care in Afghanistan. Not good or bad child care, NONE. And there are women in the world that are not even able to learn to read. So yes, the issue of paid maternity leave is a bit of a first world problem. Does that mean it's not important? No and I don't think that anyone has said that, or at least not anyone that wants to be taken seriously. The fact that you got so agitated when I said something that was true -- which is that American women are some of the most privileged women in the world -- is something I cannot fathom and I think keeps you from being taken as seriously as you could be.

I do alot of work with indigenous Australians. And the issues they go through reminds me all too much of the issues that my mother and grandparents faced in the USA. Racism is rampant, in every aspect of their lives. Women in some indigenous communities here are fighting for the right to walk down the street without being raped and attacked. Their children are either uneducated or are in schools that are literally falling to the ground. Alcoholism, sexual abuse are a part of every day life. And what are the mostly white feminist groups here working on? Reducing rape in rugby circles and increasing maternity leave. Important issues - for first world Australians. And they wonder why so few Aboriginal women find their groups useful. But this is what happens when diverse viewpoints and perspectives are brushed aside or never sought in the first place. I see alot of this tone deafness in your posts lately and that's one of the reasons it set me off. Echo chambers are often the last place one finds information that is truly useful and allows them to grow as individuals.

Two: The backlash from some here re: Amina has really confused and repulsed me. The fact that there are a loud few that are determined to render what that woman did to "baring her breasts" while screaming their feminist "cred" to everyone at the same time is the EPITOME of the first world mindset. Where history and culture are ignored, and the most privileged amongst us try to solve everything through narrow and skewed perspectives that reek of elitism. How anyone could see what she did as anything but brave is simply beyond me. But then to run back to your corners and claim that everyone who disagrees with you in a "misogynist" just makes me even more disgusted. From what I've seen, the vast majority of the people who have taken the most umbrage at the dismissal of Amina have been women.

Your tendency towards really overheated and bizarre hyperbole, including the "no one cares if American women are raped and murdered" foolishness in another thread, is just unhelpful. The fact that a few here just seem to get sooo flustered and upset at the term "first world problems" seems to me that there is an unintended acknowledgement that they are not as concerned and inclusive of women's issues -- ALL women -- as they could be.

as the red sarcasm tag made clear.

My point was not that American women aren't privileged, but that we aren't better off than EVERYWHERE else and that the type of privilege varies. Clearly we have economic privilege compared to the Global South that means a great deal in our daily lives. But poverty statistics for the US show that women and children are far more likely to be poor than men, and women of color especially so. When I say American women I don't mean white women; I mean American women, and that includes women of color. We also face higher homicide rate than in many countries across the globe, and the rate is more than four times higher in the US than in Algeria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Whereas roughly the same percentage of women to men are killed in Algeria as the US. http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html
Yet we have better access to education than many in the Global South (but not Europe), voting rights, and a host of other privileges, but particular circumstances vary according to country and region.

I lived in one of the poorest cities in Brazil, Salvador da Bahia, for a year and a half. There I noticed a variety of differences in gender relations. Obviously American women are more prosperous overall, while Brazilian women have greater presence in some professions like law and policing, where Brazil has a designated system of women's police stations staffed by women to deal with crimes of rape and battery.
I learned that while gender relations tend to be somewhat more traditional (less so in urban than rural areas), men seem to appreciate women much more than they do here. I had a particularly interesting conversation where a Brazilian man pulled me aside to talk about a sexual harassment situation he was concerned with, where a woman had been threatened by an American with repercussions of her career if she didn't have sex with him. Midway through the conversation I realized he woman in question was not Brazilian but English. He told me that if she'd been Brazilian, there wouldn't have been a concern since the woman wouldn't be subject to that sort of power dynamic. She would have either told him to fuck off or have sex with him, if she had wanted. Now, I don't know if all Brazilian women feel that way, but that conversation left an impression on me. That difference is perhaps as much due to how women see themselves in relation to sex as any power structure, but it highlights a cultural difference that gives Brazilian women greater freedom in those situations.

Part of what I'm critiquing is the nationalist myth of American superiority and cultural stereotypes of Muslims, as though Algeria and Afghanistan were the same. All of us as Americans have certain advantages related to the spoils of Empire, but women are disproportionately poor, and race obviously is a huge factor. Infant mortality rates in cities in the US are higher than in many countries in the world. Groups like Doctors without Borders visit the US because some here have no better access to medical care than many in the Global South while we have worse access than women in many countries, including, I believe, Australia. Since I live in the inner city and have for most of my life, that's the America I know, even though I'm now fortunate to have good medical care myself because of my job. I did not, however, grow up with those advantages.

I do see Amina's actions as brave and I haven't called people who disagree with me misogynists. But I will say the whole Adria Richards issue shocked me. Many expressed a deep-seeded resentment toward Richards that I found startling. I don't know if her race and sexual orientation has much to do with the reaction to her, but the onslaught of rape and death threats and continual efforts to portray her as evil, knowing full well her life has been threatened, disturb me. How anyone can look at that situation and focus on her Tweet as the most egregious action astounds me.

The fact is we can't do anything about gender relations in Algeria but we can do something in the US, but people have to decide it matters. I consider the right to life and public safety a central goal, which is why gun control is my key priority. I grow concerned when some insist women's rights are only a concern abroad, when clearly American women face greater homicide rates than most countries in the world. So do American men, of course. Their homicide rates are even higher, though they are less likely to be killed by a partner.

Especially "We as Americans...have virtually no ability to affect gender relations abroad. We can do something about them at home, however."

Do something here though would mean, well, actually doing something. It would mean confronting home-grown sexixm, including, perhaps, one's own, which is a much more difficult thing to do.

As always, BB, your posts are cogent and insightful.

Thanks again.

(And I do not mean the OP, who clearly does) is that Tunisian women had enjoyed an unusually large set of rights, especially considering that it is an Islamic country. They are now being threatened with losing rights they have been promised as their birthright, and are angry (and probably frightened) by this prospect. To me, it wasn't so much Amina's bare breasts that made her message, but that what she was doing with her female self was reading. Her body is hers, and she's feeding it a book. The nerd in me confesses to loving that

This is happening in Turkey as well, another country where the rights of women have been taken seriously (in fact, Turkish women had the right to vote before American women did). The current regime is using strict Islamic readings to curry favor with other nations, and as is usually the case when any religious teachings are given the strict reading, it's the women who need to be reigned in first. So far, it's only been baby steps, and I hope those loyal to the Constitution keep it from going further for the sake of Turkey's women and Turkey.

To make progress and see it rolled back. I recall that time in Pakistan where they literally sent the women doctors home and they had to stop practicing. That would be terrible - not to fulfill your potential.

we can't possibly post anything on this story without using the word "tits." It gets our attention, don't 'cha know. I didn't read the other one because the headline turned me off with sexist terminology. This one I read because it treats me like I'm an adult. Which I am.

Thanks for posting.

poster was saying:

That Tunisian women had no rights, that they were ruled by religious authorities, that they were liable to be stoned, that they were not educated, etc.

From one of your links:

Other women tell me that while Tunisia has always been an advanced country in terms of women’s rights, they fear these rights will be threatened.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/30/can-bare-breasts-save-tunisia.html


Funny you gave big recs to the first post portraying Tunisia as a fundamentalist nightmare for women, but feel a need to issue this 'corrective' to my post, which said that in fact, Tunisia was not a fundamentalist country & was quite advanced in terms of women's rights, to wit:

1. No mandated female dress code
2. Rights of divorce, abortion, etc.
3. 23% of Congress = women
4. No sharia courts or sharia law (since the 50s)
5. 60% of higher ed students = women
6. Women got the vote in the 50s
6. Amina's lawyer = a woman, & rather famous
7. Amina herself has been on TV at least once, on a talk show, wearing jeans and a t-shirt with no bra...

She is in some danger. There are men who live in Tunisia who are happy to be backed and blessed by their religion to get her. She deserves 50-100 lashes according to one asshole who is in power. they say she deserves stoning. They want to put her on trial. They spell out the threat to Islam she represents.

What's your point by now? We all get it. we've all taken our corners of the wrestling ring here. Anyone can revisit the tapes of the exciting matches! Threads abound in GD!

I'm exhausted. I'm going to go look at some puppies and naked cock online and catch a fuckin' break. Sheesh.

she needs to be lashed is:

"The head of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice in Tunisia (enforcers of Sharia Law), preacher Almi Adel"

But there is no sharia law in Tunisia, and he has no power to compel anyone 'in power' to enforce his opinion through the courts, the police, or the state. His little commission does not have the sanction of the state.

he is not 'in power'.

this committee (it's no accident that its title is the same as a state-sanctioned one in Saudi Arabia -- a US *ally*, btw) was formed after the 2011 'revolution,' by the salafist faction.

it may happen that at some point in the future these people could have state-sanctioned power, but they don't at present.

according to amina's (female) lawyer, the worst the state can do is jail her 6 months for public indecency. However, no charges have been filed *at all* thus far.

My point is that you are distorting the actual situation. I'm not tired of pointing that out, & I will keep pointing it out.

Sorry to distract from certain parties' attempt to paint the entire middle east and all islam as a fundamentalist bloc.

this isn't a person in public office.

comparison could also be made to hitler's brownshirts:

Storm Detachment or Assault Division, or Brownshirts) functioned as the original paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party. It played a key role in Adolf Hitler's rise to power in the 1920s and 1930s. Their main assignments were providing protection for Nazi rallies and assemblies; the disruption of opposing political parties and the fight against their paramilitary units (esp. the Rotfrontkämpferbund); and the intimidation of Jewish citizens (e.g. the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung


These kind of tactics are always *organized* from above.

Luckily, it sounds like Tunisians are fighting back.

The Tunisian community was enraged after a video posted online made the rounds on social networking sites Thursday showing two men – one of whom was wearing a police uniform – dragging a woman by her arms and shirt on the floor. The incident reportedly took place after the woman refused to cooperate with the men and go to the police station. However, it was not clear why the men wanted to take her into custody. “The woman tried to escape, so the [policemen] assaulted and hit her. They dragged her by her clothes on the street, so her body was exposed. Despite that, the policemen did not stop dragging her,” a security source told Tunisian daily Al-Shourouk.

Meanwhile, Dozens of angry Tunisians brandishing shoes protested Friday demanding the resignation of the minister of women’s affairs, Sihem Badi, accusing her of failing to stand up to the ruling Islamists. Badi has for months been strongly criticized by civil society activists over her ties with Ennahda, the Islamist party that heads the coalition government which secular opposition groups accuse of seeking to curtail women’s rights. Fifty MPs on Thursday signed a no-confidence motion against the minister, according to the official TAP news agency, after similar protests earlier in the week. On Friday protesters chanted: “Badi get out!” and “Government of terrorism, minister of rape.”

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/africa/2013/03/29/Tunisia-to-investigate-video-of-police-dragging-and-assaulting-a-woman.html

Or apparently that's what some would have us believe.

Myself, I will stick with reality.

I never saw a post that said that. Of course I don't see everything. Do you have a link?

Okay, I suspect that is your twisted interpretation of what someone said. Perhaps the person pointed out that the same people who continually argue against feminist causes were suddenly fawning all over themselves to applaud a woman who exposed her breasts. Or perhaps someone pointed out that women in this country are raped and murdered at alarming rates too, but you deciding to warp it in the way that suits your notion that American feminists are all evil and sexism only should be challenged in places where it has absolutely no impact on your own life. Of course I'm just speculating because I don't know what you're thinking of. But it seems to be far too difficult for you to dig up a reference from two days ago, particularly, I suspect, because it doesn't say quite what you represent.

I consider woman's liberation and empowerment to be arguably the MOST IMPORTANT issue in the world today. This does not mean that I support the antagonism and anger that sometimes pollutes the topic here. I care about women's rights, but I think some of its champions enjoy making inflammatory statements, scroring points, and masking aggression as righteous feminist outrage.

I would like to believe that you are nothing like this in, that it is an artifact of the medium, and that if we were sitting down over coffee instead of posting here we could find a lot of common ground. I would like to believe this, but so far you have given me little reason (outside your obvious intelligence and your presence here) to do so.

I would suggest that you take a page from Redqueen. I don't always agree with her, but I never DISAGREE with her until I have given a topic a whole lot of thought. She always gives me something to think about. That could and should be you. You are clearly intelligent and I believe you have some important things to say. I would like you to be one of the people here I look to for answers.

And now... I need more coffee. I REALLY need more coffee, and if none of the above made sense that's why.

Peace

Last edited Sun Mar 31, 2013, 04:26 PM - Edit history (1)

The fact is many if not most women are survivors of domestic violence and or rape. It would be helpful if those lucky enough to have been spared such experiences would keep that in mind.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022592343


I always articulate why I disagree with something. Here you have chosen not to back up your characterization of someone's earlier statements, which strike me as skewed. You are asking I articulate a thorough response to your statement, yet you don't offer much to work from. You instead say you can't be bothered. That hardly creates a basis for thoughtful exchange. Perhaps you should consider treating all posters with the same consideration you give to Redqueen?