Egyptian girl strips to protest; western media censors her photos

[GeoffP]

No kidding - should I be worried that its so hard to tell satire from reality?

Heh. You did miss it. Tsk.

And what about Captain America who covers his face like sexy ninja?

Offset by other accoutrements that proclaim his benign ethos.

 

[S.A.M.]

Heh. You did miss it. Tsk.

I always knew Frodo Baggins was a real person.

Offset by other accoutrements that proclaim his benign ethos.

His penis is blurred too?

Looks like he has no penis.

benign ethos

Unlike The Woman Who Veiled, one presumes

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

"My husband doesn't dictate what I do, much less the government" – but she says she now lives in fear of attack. "I still go out in my car, on foot, to the shops, to collect my kids. I'm insulted about three to four times a day," she says. Most say, "Go home"; some say, "We'll kill you." One said: "We'll do to you what we did to the Jews." In the worst attack, before the law came in, a man tried to run her down in his car.

"I feel that I now know what Jewish women went through before the Nazi roundups in France. When they went out in the street they were identified, singled out, they were vilified. Now that's happening to us."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/19/battle-for-the-burqa

if they strip, they scare the crap out of men

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

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

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

You're obviously a far more generous and patient person than I am of course.

I think quite a few of our members, and even a couple of my fellow moderators, would strongly disagree with that statement.

I agree. This is one of the most important human characteristics. The ability to not act instinctive. But there are also "animals", among humans.

It's only been a few hundred generations since the Agricultural Revolution both allowed and required us to override our pack-social instinct and begin living like a herd-social species. That's just not enough time for evolution to reprogram our instincts. So there is a caveman inside each of us. We bribe him with air conditioning, pizza, 24/7 music, sportscars, and a domesticated wolf who regards him as God, and most of the time he's willing to take the bribe. But occasionally something sets him off and he charges out of the cave and starts acting like a Paleolithic human. Most of the time he manages to rein himself in and not do something so bad that he'll be thrown in jail with the other cavemen. But occasionally an entire tribe is taken over by their inner cavemen--even their leaders, who are expected to be even more civilized than they are--and they march off to fight a war against the next tribe.

And this is when we have a little trouble maintaining civilization. Fortunately civilization has proven to be very durable and has survived all the tantrums of our inner cavemen.

if they strip, they scare the crap out of men.

As usual you completely misunderstood. These men are not scared. They are grossed out. The older we get, the less sexy our bodies appear, especially to people much younger than us.

When are you going to stop pretending that you have even the vaguest understanding of Euro-American civilization???

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

We've made great strides concerning the civil rights of ethnic and religious minorities. We haven't done quite so well with the rights of women, probably because women are far more numerous than ethnic and religious minorities so a much greater adjustment is required.

Nonetheless enormous progress has been made since my childhood. The greatest joy I ever saw my mother express in the 1950s were over the introduction into our home of:

• An automatic washing machine to replace her wringer model
• A clothes dryer to obviate hanging the laundry on a clothesline (including the sheets and towels!)
• A dishwasher that still required washing the pots and pans by hand.

These technological advances shortened her "work day" by about two hours.

She never even asked for an electric sewing machine to replace her treadle model.

 

[GeoffP]

I always knew Frodo Baggins was a real person.

Not my point.

His penis is blurred too?...
Looks like he has no penis.

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

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

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

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

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

One out of two isn't bad, right?

 

[The Esotericist]

Unlike The Woman Who Veiled, one presumes

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

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

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

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

 

[Emil]

Amazing isn't it? If women veil, they scare the crap out of men

 

[adoucette]

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

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

 

[spidergoat]

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

 

[madanthonywayne]

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

 

[chimpkin]

No kidding - should I be worried that its so hard to tell satire from reality? And what about Captain America who covers his face like sexy ninja?

How does he fly?

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

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

 

[S.A.M.]

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

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

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

Good point.

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

westernised

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

ninja

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

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

Muslim superhero comics meet resistance in U.S.

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

 

[Anti-Flag]

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

 

[quadraphonics]

There is no connection, then, between the asserted moral evil of a woman's breasts (as, say, opposed to a man's chest) and misogyny?

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

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

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

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

Or are you saying the misogynistic aspects of various international cultures associated with Islam are not among common Western complaints about those portions of the world?

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

The very fact that the one is acceptable while the other isn't. Acceptability and obscenity are subjective, and culturally defined.

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

I would note, for instance, that many of our European and Australian neighbors, at least, scratch their heads over the American neurosis about potentially sexual content compared to our market-driven permissiveness toward astounding violence and human destruction.

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

To the other, I think it stands up under scrutiny: the psychoanalytic meaning of American history is brilliantly insane. We make no sense. And that is how one makes sense of us. We get so much done, for good or ill, because we don't need anything to make any real, substantive sense. And so we become accustomed to it. But we cannot extinguish that flicker of doubt permanently, lest we become downright sociopathic. The result of this tension is found in the neurotic conflicts by which we make absolutely no sense.

When we repress our most basic desires, be they for sex or food or power or even basic order that we can take a breath and make sense of, those desires find alternate routes to gratification.

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

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

Any bullet point phrasing—

But we're going to show you censored versions of the pictures, because her tits are more offensive to us than a murdered or mangled corpse.​

—is open to some kind of objection, but please, man—

"Where is your support for the attribution of motive there?"​

—you must be fucking with me on that question.

Considering the broader behavior of the American culture, which can to some degree be said to represent the results of behavioral averages, what is the most likely reason for blurring the breasts, if not the obvious?

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

I don't think I'm stating anything unkind about a collective that insists on fighting with itself as well as many of our international neighbors.

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

If truth is unkind, we must change the circumstances that truth describes. Because truth is truth.

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

And there is no prevailing moral plank about which our culture is absolute. We assert our moral components in order to accommodate our desires, so there are inherently limits of application; we can exclude from our moral consideration whomever or whatever we want.

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

Our Western psychoanalytic outlook would agree in abstract theory.

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

Whether or not we can apply the theory is an open question, but we do find hints toward the answer in the fact that we so resent such challenging scrutiny of our basic functional assumptions.

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

We don't really have a good explanation of the difference between one and the other, so people get angry.

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

 

[quadraphonics]

there is a comic series where one of the woman is veiled and it has met with quite a bit of resistance from the western critics

Muslim superhero comics meet resistance in U.S.

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

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

 

[S.A.M.]

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

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

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

According to the article I linked:

The film’s director, Isaac Solotaroff, began shooting before the comic was released.

He said that one of the most surprising aspects of the story is how “a very small group of people who scream very loud, have a disproportionate share of the public discourse when it comes to culture.”

Echoing Al-Mutawa, Solotaroff calls it a case of the tail wagging the dog. He says that initial concerns of censorship in the Middle East began to change as the project progressed.

“We were waiting for a fatwa from a cleric in Saudi Arabia, Solotaroff says,” when it ended up being the U.S. market that has been resistant to “The 99.”

“Realizing that The 99 will not survive if focused solely on the Middle East, Al-Mutawa must now target an international and predominantly non-Muslim market,” reads the website for “Wham! Bam! Islam!”

Citing The Hub holdup, Solotaroff says the project is now stuck in the most important market” for “The 99.”

Al-Mutawa is also trying to gain distribution for his TV series in France and other countries, but his main focus remains the United States.

“One way or the other,” he says, “‘The 99’ will get on air in the U.S.”

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

 

[adoucette]

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

Al-Mutawa says criticisms of burqas are evidence that, “for some people anything to do with Islam is bad.”

 

[quadraphonics]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[S.A.M.]

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

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

 

[quadraphonics]

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

He's not clueless.

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

 

[quadraphonics]

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

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