Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Thursday, June 7, 2007 | Reason : Commentary | print version Print | Comments

Document In Saudi Arabia, a view from behind the veil

by Megan K. Stack, LA Times

Thanks to Adam for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fg-women6jun06,1,6178058,full.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

As a woman in the male-dominated kingdom, Times reporter Megan Stack quietly fumed beneath her abaya. Even beyond its borders, her experience taints her perception of the sexes.

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia — THE hem of my heavy Islamic cloak trailed over floors that glistened like ice. I walked faster, my eyes fixed on a familiar, green icon. I hadn't seen a Starbucks in months, but there it was, tucked into a corner of a fancy shopping mall in the Saudi capital. After all those bitter little cups of sludgy Arabic coffee, here at last was an improbable snippet of home — caffeinated, comforting, American.

I wandered into the shop, filling my lungs with the rich wafts of coffee. The man behind the counter gave me a bemused look; his eyes flickered. I asked for a latte. He shrugged, the milk steamer whined, and he handed over the brimming paper cup. I turned my back on his uneasy face.

Crossing the cafe, I felt the hard stares of Saudi men. A few of them stopped talking as I walked by and watched me pass. Them, too, I ignored. Finally, coffee in hand, I sank into the sumptuous lap of an overstuffed armchair.

"Excuse me," hissed the voice in my ear. "You can't sit here." The man from the counter had appeared at my elbow. He was glaring.

"Excuse me?" I blinked a few times.

"Emmm," he drew his discomfort into a long syllable, his brows knitted. "You cannot stay here."

"What? Uh … why?"

Then he said it: "Men only."

He didn't tell me what I would learn later: Starbucks had another, unmarked door around back that led to a smaller espresso bar, and a handful of tables smothered by curtains. That was the "family" section. As a woman, that's where I belonged. I had no right to mix with male customers or sit in plain view of passing shoppers. Like the segregated South of a bygone United States, today's Saudi Arabia shunts half the population into separate, inferior and usually invisible spaces.

At that moment, there was only one thing to do. I stood up. From the depths of armchairs, men in their white robes and red-checked kaffiyehs stared impassively over their mugs. I felt blood rushing to my face. I dropped my eyes, and immediately wished I hadn't. Snatching up the skirts of my robe to keep from stumbling, I walked out of the store and into the clatter of the shopping mall.

--

THAT was nearly four years ago, a lesson learned on one of my first trips to the kingdom. Until that day, I thought I knew what I was doing: I'd heard about Saudi Arabia, that the sexes are wholly segregated. From museums to university campuses to restaurants, the genders live corralled existences. One young, hip, U.S.-educated Saudi friend told me that he arranges to meet his female friends in other Arab cities. It's easier to fly to Damascus or Dubai, he shrugged, than to chill out coeducationally at home.

I was ready to cope, or so I thought. I arrived with a protective smirk in tow, planning to thicken the walls around myself. I'd report a few stories, and go home. I had no inkling that Saudi Arabia, the experience of being a woman there, would stick to me, follow me home on the plane and shadow me through my days, tainting the way I perceived men and women everywhere.

I'm leaving the Middle East now, closing up years spent covering the fighting and fallout that have swept the region since Sept. 11. Of all the strange, scary and joyful experiences of the past years, my time covering Saudi Arabia remains among the most jarring.

I spent my days in Saudi Arabia struggling unhappily between a lifetime of being taught to respect foreign cultures and the realization that this culture judged me a lesser being. I tried to draw parallels: If I went to South Africa during apartheid, would I feel compelled to be polite?

I would find that I still saw scraps of Saudi Arabia everywhere I went. Back home in Cairo, the usual cacophony of whistles and lewd coos on the streets sent me into blind rage. I slammed doors in the faces of deliverymen; cursed at Egyptian soldiers in a language they didn't speak; kept a resentful mental tally of the Western men, especially fellow reporters, who seemed to condone, even relish, the relegation of women in the Arab world.

In the West, there's a tendency to treat Saudi Arabia as a remote land, utterly removed from our lives. But it's not very far from us, nor are we as different as we might like to think. Saudi Arabia is a center of ideas and commerce, an important ally to the United States, the heartland of a major world religion. It is a highly industrialized, ultramodern home to expatriates from all over the world, including Americans who live in lush gated compounds with swimming pools, drink illegal glasses of bathtub gin and speak glowingly of the glorious desert and the famous hospitality of Saudis.

The rules are different here. The same U.S. government that heightened public outrage against the Taliban by decrying the mistreatment of Afghan women prizes the oil-slicked Saudi friendship and even offers wan praise for Saudi elections in which women are banned from voting. All U.S. fast-food franchises operating here, not just Starbucks, make women stand in separate lines. U.S.-owned hotels don't let women check in without a letter from a company vouching for her ability to pay; women checking into hotels alone have long been regarded as prostitutes.

As I roamed in and out of Saudi Arabia, the abaya, or Islamic robe, eventually became the symbol of those shifting rules.

I always delayed until the last minute. When I felt the plane dip low over Riyadh, I'd reach furtively into my computer bag to fish out the black robe and scarf crumpled inside. I'd slip my arms into the sleeves without standing up. If I caught the eyes of any male passengers as my fingers fumbled with the snaps, I'd glare. Was I imagining the smug looks on their faces?

The sleeves, the length of it, always felt foreign, at first. But it never took long to work its alchemy, to plant the insecurity. After a day or two, the notion of appearing without the robe felt shocking. Stripped of the layers of curve-smothering cloth, my ordinary clothes suddenly felt revealing, even garish. To me, the abaya implied that a woman's body is a distraction and an interruption, a thing that must be hidden from view lest it haul the society into vice and disarray. The simple act of wearing the robe implanted that self-consciousness by osmosis.

In the depths of the robe, my posture suffered. I'd draw myself in and bumble along like those adolescent girls who seem to think they can roll their breasts back into their bodies if they curve their spines far enough. That was why, it hit me one day, I always seemed to come back from Saudi Arabia with a backache.

The kingdom made me slouch.

--

SAUDI men often raised the question of women with me; they seemed to hope that I would tell them, either out of courtesy or conviction, that I endorsed their way of life. Some blamed all manner of Western ills, from gun violence to alcoholism, on women's liberation. "Do you think you could ever live here?" many of them asked. It sounded absurd every time, and every time I would repeat the obvious: No.

Early in 2005, I covered the kingdom's much-touted municipal elections, which excluded women not only from running for office, but also from voting. True to their tribal roots, candidates pitched tents in vacant lots and played host to voters for long nights of coffee, bull sessions and poetry recitations. I accepted an invitation to visit one of the tents, but the sight of a woman in their midst so badly ruffled the would-be voters that the campaign manager hustled over and asked me, with lavish apologies, to make myself scarce before I cost his man the election.

A few days later, a female U.S. official, visiting from Washington, gave a press appearance in a hotel lobby in Riyadh. Sporting pearls, a business suit and a bare, blond head, she praised the Saudi elections.

The election "is a departure from their culture and their history," she said. "It offers to the citizens of Saudi Arabia hope…. It's modest, but it's dramatic."

The American ambassador, a bespectacled Texan named James C. Oberwetter, also praised the voting from his nearby seat.

"When I got here a year ago, there were no political tents," he said. "It's like a backyard political barbecue in the U.S."

One afternoon, a candidate invited me to meet his daughter. She spoke fluent English and was not much younger than me. I cannot remember whether she was wearing hijab, the Islamic head scarf, inside her home, but I have a memory of pink. I asked her about the elections.

"Very good," she said.

So you really think so, I said gently, even though you can't vote?

"Of course," she said. "Why do I need to vote?"

Her father chimed in. He urged her, speaking English for my benefit, to speak candidly. But she insisted: What good was voting? She looked at me as if she felt sorry for me, a woman cast adrift on the rough seas of the world, no male protector in sight.

"Maybe you don't want to vote," I said. "But wouldn't you like to make that choice yourself?"

"I don't need to," she said calmly, blinking slowly and deliberately. "If I have a father or a husband, why do I need to vote? Why should I need to work? They will take care of everything."

Through the years I have met many Saudi women. Some are rebels; some are proudly defensive of Saudi ways, convinced that any discussion of women's rights is a disguised attack on Islam from a hostile Westerner. There was the young dental student who came home from the university and sat up half the night, writing a groundbreaking novel exploring the internal lives and romances of young Saudi women. The oil expert who scolded me for asking about female drivers, pointing out the pitfalls of divorce and custody laws and snapping: "Driving is the least of our problems." I have met women who work as doctors and business consultants. Many of them seem content.

Whatever their thoughts on the matter, they have been assigned a central, symbolic role in what seems to be one of the greatest existential questions in contemporary Saudi Arabia: Can the country opt to develop in some ways and stay frozen in others? Can the kingdom evolve economically and technologically in a global society without relinquishing its particular culture of extreme religious piety and ancient tribal code?

The men are stuck, too. Over coffee one afternoon, an economist told me wistfully of the days when he and his wife had studied overseas, how she'd hopped behind the wheel and did her own thing. She's an independent, outspoken woman, he said. Coming back home to Riyadh had depressed both of them.

"Here, I got another dependent: my wife," he said. He found himself driving her around, chaperoning her as if she were a child. "When they see a woman walking alone here, it's like a wolf watching a sheep. 'Let me take what's unattended.' " He told me that both he and his wife hoped, desperately, that social and political reform would finally dawn in the kingdom. He thought foreign academics were too easy on Saudi Arabia, that they urged only minor changes instead of all-out democracy because they secretly regarded Saudis as "savages" incapable of handling too much freedom.

"I call them propaganda papers," he said of the foreign analysis. "They come up with all these lame excuses." He and his wife had already lost hope for themselves, he said.

"For ourselves, the train has left the station. We are trapped," he said. "I think about my kids. At least when I look at myself in the mirror I'll say: 'At least I said this. At least I wrote this.' "

--

WHEN Saudi officials chat with an American reporter, they go to great lengths to depict a moderate, misunderstood kingdom. They complain about stereotypes in the Western press: Women banned from driving? Well, they don't want to drive anyway. They all have drivers, and why would a lady want to mess with parking?

The religious police who stalk the streets and shopping centers, forcing "Islamic values" onto the populace? Oh, Saudi officials say, they really aren't important, or strict, or powerful. You hear stories to the contrary? Mere exaggerations, perpetuated by people who don't understand Saudi Arabia.

I had an interview one afternoon with a relatively high-ranking Saudi official. Since I can't drive anywhere or meet a man in a cafe, I usually end up inviting sources for coffee in the lobby of my hotel, where the staff turns a blind eye to whether those in the "family section" are really family.

As the elevator touched down and the shiny doors swung open onto the lobby, the official rushed toward me.

"Do you think we could talk in your room?" he blurted out.

I stepped back. What was this, some crazy come-on?

"No, why?" I stammered, stepping wide around him. "We can sit right over here." I wanted to get to the coffee shop — no dice. He swung himself around, blocking my path and my view.

"It's not a good idea," he said. "Let's just go to your room."

"I really don't think … I mean," I said, stuttering in embarrassment.

Then, peering over his shoulder, I saw them: two beefy men in robes. Great bushes of beards sprang from their chins, they swung canes in their hands and scanned the hotel lobby through squinted eyes.

"Is that the religious police?" I said. "It is!" I was a little mesmerized. I'd always wanted to see them in action.

The ministry official seemed to shrink a little, his shoulders slumped in defeat.

"They're not supposed to be here," he muttered despondently. "What are they doing here?"

"Well, why don't we go to the mall next door?" I said, eyes fixed on the menacing men. "There's a coffee shop there, we could try that."

"No, they will go there next." While he wrung his hands nervously, I stepped back a little and considered the irony of our predicament. To avoid running afoul of what may be the world's most stringent public moral code, I was being asked to entertain a strange, older man in my hotel room, something I would never agree to back home.

I had to do something. He was about to walk away and cancel the meeting, and I couldn't afford to lose it. Then I remembered a couple of armchairs near the elevator, up on my floor. We rode up and ordered room-service coffee. We talked as the elevators chimed up and down the spine of the skyscraper and the roar of vacuum cleaners echoed in the hallway.

--

ONE glaring spring day, when the hot winds raced in off the plains and the sun blotted everything to white, I stood outside a Riyadh bank, sweating in my black cloak while I waited for a friend. The sidewalk was simmering, but I had nowhere else to go. As a woman, I was forbidden to enter the men's half of the bank to fetch him. Traffic screamed past on a nearby highway. The winds tugged at the layers of black polyester. My sunglasses began to slip down my glistening nose.

The door clattered open, and I looked up hopefully. But no, it was a security guard. And he was stomping straight at me, yelling in Arabic. I knew enough vocabulary to glean his message: He didn't want me standing there. I took off my shades, fixed my blue eyes on him blankly and finally turned away as if puzzled. I think of this as playing possum.

He disappeared again, only to reemerge with another security guard. This man was of indistinct South Asian origin and had an English vocabulary. He looked like a pit bull — short, stocky and teeth flashing as he barked: "Go! Go! You can't stand here! The men can SEE! The men can SEE!"

I looked down at him and sighed. I was tired. "Where do you want me to go? I have to wait for my friend. He's inside." But he was still snarling and flashing those teeth, arms akimbo. He wasn't interested in discussions.

"Not here. NOT HERE! The men can SEE you!" He flailed one arm toward the bank.

I lost my temper.

"I'm just standing here!" I snapped. "Leave me alone!" This was a slip. I had already learned that if you're a woman in a sexist country, yelling at a man only makes a crisis worse.

The pit bull advanced toward me, making little shooing motions with his hands, lips curled back. Involuntarily, I stepped back a few paces and found myself in the shrubbery. I guess that, from the bushes, I was hidden from the view of the window, thereby protecting the virtue of all those innocent male bankers. At any rate, it satisfied the pit bull, who climbed back onto the sidewalk and stood guard over me. I glared at him. He showed his teeth. The minutes passed. Finally, my friend reemerged.

A liberal, U.S.-educated professor at King Saud University, he was sure to share my outrage, I thought. Maybe he'd even call up the bank — his friend was the manager — and get the pit bull in trouble. I told him my story, words hot as the pavement.

He hardly blinked. "Yes," he said. "Oh." He put the car in reverse, and off we drove.

--

DRIVING to the airport, I felt the kingdom slipping off behind me, the flat emptiness of its deserts, the buildings that rear toward the sky, encased in mirrored glass, blank under a blaring sun. All the hints of a private life I have never seen. Saudis are bred from the desert; they find life in what looks empty to me.

Even if I were Saudi, would I understand it? I remember the government spokesman, Mansour Turki, who said to me: "Being a Saudi doesn't mean you see every face of Saudi society. Saudi men don't understand how Saudi women think. They have no idea, actually. Even my own family, my own mother or sister, she won't talk to me honestly."

I slipped my iPod headphones into my ears. I wanted to hear something thumping and American. It began the way it always does: an itch, an impatience, like a wrinkle in the sock, something that is felt, but not yet registered. The discomfort always starts when I leave.

By the time I boarded the plane, I was in a temper. I yanked at the clasps, shrugged off the abaya like a rejected embrace. I crumpled it up and tossed it childishly into the airplane seat.

Then I was just standing there, feeling stripped in my jeans and blouse. My limbs felt light, and modesty flashed through me. I was aware of the skin of my wrists and forearms, the triangle of naked neck. I scanned the eyes behind me, looking for a challenge. But none came. The Saudi passengers had watched my tantrum impassively.

I sat down, leaned back and breathed. This moment, it seems, is always the same. I take the abaya off, expecting to feel liberated. But somehow, it always feels like defeat.

--

megan.stack@latimes.com

Stack reported in Saudi Arabia repeatedly during her tenure as The Times' Cairo Bureau chief from September 2003 until last month.

Comments 1 - 45 of 45 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #48322 by Logicel on June 7, 2007 at 12:49 pm

 avatarExcellent and extremely moving article.

Other Comments by Logicel

2. Comment #48324 by Rtambree on June 7, 2007 at 1:03 pm

>Some blamed all manner of Western ills, from gun violence to alcoholism, on women's liberation.

Fascinating how throughout history, the moral fabric of society is always about to be torn asunder if:

1. Women obtain equal rights
2. Gays have equal rights
3. Slavery is abolished
4. Nudity in films and on TV is not censored.
5. Alcohol is legalised.
6. Marijuana is legalised.
7. Swimsuits get skimpier.
8. The lesser classes get the vote.
9. Contraception is made available.
10. Firearms are regulated.

A good idea for a book is a listing of all the rationales used by "intellectuals" throughout the ages against any social change. I'm sure you'd see a pattern emerging.

Other Comments by Rtambree

3. Comment #48325 by NJS on June 7, 2007 at 1:06 pm

Rtambree: You missed the biggest one of all:

1. People reject religion.

Other Comments by NJS

4. Comment #48328 by Rtambree on June 7, 2007 at 1:13 pm

>3. Comment #48325 by NJS o

Yes, you're right. There was a time when it was formally illegal in Europe.

Other Comments by Rtambree

5. Comment #48335 by flyingscot on June 7, 2007 at 1:34 pm

 avatarVery good article. Can't help but feel sorry for the women who have to live their lives in an inferior position. Shame on the West for condoning this kind of behaviour.

Other Comments by flyingscot

6. Comment #48339 by konquererz on June 7, 2007 at 1:43 pm

 avatarWow, this article is simply stunning. I was moved by this and empassioned against a Saudi government that is perpetrated as modern and democratic here in the united states. This opens up a new world of understanding for me.

Other Comments by konquererz

7. Comment #48340 by Cdat on June 7, 2007 at 1:44 pm

One of the more disturbing articles I have read in quite a while.

Other Comments by Cdat

8. Comment #48371 by Hip_Priest on June 7, 2007 at 3:39 pm

The incident in the Starbucks happened 10 years ago. Do Starbucks enforce this policy in Islamic countries today? Do they have a choice? Should this earn them a place on my boycott list?

Other Comments by Hip_Priest

9. Comment #48376 by GodlessHeathen on June 7, 2007 at 3:55 pm

 avatarI'd like to assure anyone from that region that should I discuss women's liberation with you it is not a disguised attack on Islam.

Other Comments by GodlessHeathen

10. Comment #48377 by CJ on June 7, 2007 at 4:06 pm

 avatarRememeber that if hardcore Saudi Muslims get their way the whole world would end up like that, forever.

If this article worried you and you have yet to read The End of Faith by Sam Harris don't, it'll scare the living crap out of you!

This is good, in a totally related article this female reporter explains what it is like for women who want to swim in Saudi

Other Comments by CJ

11. Comment #48379 by wendelin on June 7, 2007 at 4:11 pm

Having spent the past 3 weeks among educated, "liberated" upper-middle-class Indians, I'm perhaps not as shocked as I should be by this incredibly moving article. The humiliation of living in a deeply sexist society can only be understood from experience. It seeps into the littlest things, everyday liberties I took for granted were checked during my trip: was I talking to a man other than my husband for too long? Was I wearing my bindi, my nuptial necklace, or had I forgotten them again? Was I learning their language quickly enough to suit them? Was I being polite and respectful of the most offensive pronouncements of the elders? It was like being transported into a Jane Austen novel, without the fun and games.

Putting up with it all makes one feel cheap. This writer speaks for me with the words: "But somehow, it always feels like defeat."

Other Comments by wendelin

12. Comment #48401 by BAEOZ on June 7, 2007 at 6:19 pm

 avatarMan, that's just so wrong! Can't really think of how to describe it better. Sickening.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

13. Comment #48406 by BigJohn on June 7, 2007 at 6:46 pm

 avatarIn 1985, I spent two months in Jeddah. I was a middle aged, middle class, working, American, male. I never felt comfortable. I never felt really safe. Since most of the rules there make no sense, I was always worried about doing something wrong. I can't even imagine being a female in Saudi Arabia. If I were a female, I would not have gone to Saudi for any reason. This article reinforces my thought.

Other Comments by BigJohn

14. Comment #48440 by Enlightenme.. on June 8, 2007 at 1:24 am

 avatarThis article should be in the top list, scary stuff.

The exchange #'s 2,3 & 4 made me realise that this article isn't really about religion at one level, whilst also pointing out it's power as an instrument of chauvinist oppression.

How much would things change in this society if you magic'ed it away, the time from the enlightenment to full liberation in the west is depressingly long isn't it.

@rtambree, I think comment 4 could have done with more words, it looks a bit cold & sarcy!

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

15. Comment #48461 by rokort on June 8, 2007 at 3:21 am

 avatarNothing new but nevertheless very disturbing. To put it bluntly: what good are Arabic men and their "values" for this part of the world? It's all based on an extremely obvious and very childish game of power via torture. It's sickening, and "economic" ties with the West keep this in place. So to some extent we could all be held responsible...

I wouldn't be surprised if the women that seem to have accepted their "faith" share a condition akin the Stockholm Syndrome btw.

Other Comments by rokort

16. Comment #48466 by Rtambree on June 8, 2007 at 3:48 am

14. Comment #48440 by Enlightenme.

>the time from the enlightenment to full liberation in the west is depressingly long isn't it.

Yes, it is, and we in the west still haven't quite achieved complete female equality yet. There's still a pay gap, underrepresentation of women in positions of power, women have to cover their tops in public while men can be barechested, nudity is still heavily censored in TV/films while violence is much less so, the sale of non-violent erotica is still illegal even to adults (e.g. Australia), and the traditional wedding ceremony where the father of the bride symbolically hands over the bride (dressed in virginal white) to the groom is still a vestige of our common Abrahamic ancestery, and the bride still adopts the husband's surname.

Also, gay's can't get married in a lot of western countries.

So people in the year 2200 will be looking back at us in our time with "look at how primitive they were".

We have far more progressive social morals than Muslim countries, but we still have a little way to go ourselves.

Other Comments by Rtambree

17. Comment #48476 by Logicel on June 8, 2007 at 5:51 am

 avatarRtambree, spot on.

Other Comments by Logicel

18. Comment #48479 by pewkatchoo on June 8, 2007 at 6:04 am

 avatarI agree wholeheartedly with Rtambree. I am going to start a campaign straight away demanding more women with their tops uncovered in public!

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

19. Comment #48493 by Bonzai on June 8, 2007 at 7:10 am

Comment #48466 by Rtambree

women have to cover their tops in public while men can be barechested.


In Canada it has been legal for women to be topless in public for more than a decade. To pewkatchoo: I can assure you that the sky hasn't fallen.

Other Comments by Bonzai

20. Comment #48497 by Rtambree on June 8, 2007 at 7:35 am

19. Comment #48493 by Bonzai

Thanks Bonzai - that's good to hear. I still remember when breastfeeding in public was a big debate - that seems to have settled down now, so slowly we're moving forward.

Then there's always news like this...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4249831.stm

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/02/10/virginia_bill/index.html

Other Comments by Rtambree

21. Comment #48498 by BAEOZ on June 8, 2007 at 7:41 am

 avatar
So people in the year 2200 will be looking back at us in our time with "look at how primitive they were".

I concur. One point of order. I may be wrong, but in OZ, you can breast feed pretty much where you like. You can't do a boobie romp. but members of state parliament have breastfeed in the camera....

Other Comments by BAEOZ

22. Comment #48499 by Dax on June 8, 2007 at 7:41 am

Me almost thinks the US bombed the wrong country.

But seriously, we only deal with the Saudi's (who's royal members are known for bisexual encounters, drinking, et cetera) is because of that black gold.

God really f***ed things up, right? He gave all the oil to the heathens who do not believe in the divinity of Jesus.
Oh, wait, God does not exist.

Other Comments by Dax

23. Comment #48500 by Bonzai on June 8, 2007 at 7:42 am

Rtambree,

Many years ago a woman in Guelph, Ontario was walking topless during a heat wave. She was promptly arrested and charged with public indecency. Instead of paying the fine she went to court arguing that the law was discriminatory, it went all the way to the Supreme Court if I remember correctly and she won. In the U.S. I can see the government getting around the court by making it illegal for men to be topless as well. But hey, we are the baston of liberalism and we lived up to expectations.

Over the years there have been some wonderfully liberal court rulings. A few years ago a bunch of guys were charged with public nudity for parading naked during Gay Pride. The court threw out the charges arguing that the guys were wearing shoes, hence were not totally naked.

Other Comments by Bonzai

24. Comment #48501 by BAEOZ on June 8, 2007 at 7:43 am

 avatar
Oh, wait, God does not exist.

Or he's a racist, misogynistic, homosexual bigot who gets a kick out of lying.....hang on it all makes sense now!

Other Comments by BAEOZ

25. Comment #48503 by Bonzai on June 8, 2007 at 7:47 am

Or he's a racist, misogynistic, homosexual bigot


Hey, do you have a problem with a gay God?

Other Comments by Bonzai

26. Comment #48504 by Bonzai on June 8, 2007 at 7:51 am

From Rtambree's link

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/02/10/virginia_bill/index.html

So the plumber's crack will carry a fine of $50 in virginia?

Other Comments by Bonzai

27. Comment #48505 by BAEOZ on June 8, 2007 at 8:00 am

 avatar
Hey, do you have a problem with a gay God?

Not at all, bring on the Highest pride march! I have a problem with a racist, misogynists of any gens.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

28. Comment #48507 by Rtambree on June 8, 2007 at 8:04 am

An example of Scandinavians pushing the social boundaries.

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article824116.ece

I wonder how this would have gone down in Saudi Arabia

Other Comments by Rtambree

29. Comment #48510 by Philip1978 on June 8, 2007 at 8:07 am

 avatarYeesh,
Ok, for all you guys who dont know about Marks & Spencers, it is a sort of clothes store/supermarket. They make male y fronts which have a bit of a sad status over here in England, highly unsexy! I can see them making laws against showing them but honestly, showing your pants off if they are not smelly/filthy etc why not? Is this another form of uncontrollable lust in Virginia?

Hehehe, I remember reading a Stephen Fry book, I think its called The Liar, I recommend it to all. A character gets caught by the school matron nude sunbathing, she tells him to cover up so he promptly thanks her and puts on his sun glasses! hehehe!

Other Comments by Philip1978

30. Comment #48539 by Disturbance on June 8, 2007 at 10:11 am

If you find this story interesting, please read Ayan Hirsi Ali's book "Infidel".

Didn't Jerry Falwell say that America's ills were due to "feminists" and "gays" and "people who tolerate feminists and gays"?? I'm convinced that at the root of all of this isn't religion per se, but more the desire to contol women' reproductive rights. I think religious dogma is a tool to achieve that in some societies.

If the fundgelicals have their way, we'd be moving in the direction of fundamentalist Islamic nations. The day all fundies start to realize they have more in common with each other than a liberal athiest female like me, is the day we are truly f*cked.

Up with the athiest revolution!

Other Comments by Disturbance

31. Comment #48543 by Rtambree on June 8, 2007 at 10:27 am

30. Comment #48539 by Disturbance

>I'm convinced that at the root of all of this isn't religion per se, but more the desire to contol women' reproductive rights.

Yes, good point, and what motivates this is concealed ovulation. For some reason not well understood by anthropologists, female homo sapiens have their fertile time of the month concealed, unlike most other species.

Studies of evolutionary psychology and comparative religion then suggest that in DESERT environments, where resources are particularly scarce (where Abraham was), it was particularly important to a man that he knew he was the father of the children he's investing in, to avoid cuckolding. Hence the repression of women in those environments.

Just think - if ovulation were obvious, then gender politics and religious taboos might be about something entirely different!!

Abrahamic theists think they're following God's laws, but it's just an accident of nature that the actions of the pituitary gland has no discernible outward manifestation.

Other Comments by Rtambree

32. Comment #48557 by Corylus on June 8, 2007 at 11:24 am

 avatarDisturbance

I do like your word 'fundgelicals'!

It has the economy of combining two groups with similar ideals. It also has the added advantage of sounding like something that a person would get from their doctor when they have picked up a "dodgy" infection. :)

Other Comments by Corylus

33. Comment #48562 by Disturbance on June 8, 2007 at 11:50 am

Corylus, Thanks, though I can't take credit for that one. You might also like the term "Talibangelist" often used to describe Falwell, Dobson and their ilk.

Rtambree, I like the idea of being able to turn ovulation on and off without requiring anyone's permission to do so. I'm sure the "witches" of the middle ages were merely competent herbalists who knew a thing or two about a thing or two!

Other Comments by Disturbance

34. Comment #48563 by Lara Avara on June 8, 2007 at 11:52 am

 avatarInterestingly, I've heard that Saudi ARabia realizes its finite oil reserves are dwindling and is actually looking to tourism to support its economy. I'm not especially keen on laying on the beach in an abaya and facing verbal and physical abuse should the wind expose an ankle to a man.

Although part of me thinks "neener neener neener" when I consider the calamitous loss to the Saudi economy when their oil goes bye bye, the rest of me sees even more privations for the women of the country. Think Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Other Comments by Lara Avara

35. Comment #48568 by Enlightenme.. on June 8, 2007 at 12:05 pm

 avatar^^ I thought that paternalism was almost universal in anthropology, not just deserts?

rtambree, agree with your post, I certainly did mean present tense (hence is) e.g. - full gay liberation is still in it's infancy.

Still think this should be in the top articles list.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

36. Comment #48571 by NJS on June 8, 2007 at 12:16 pm

I read The third Chimpanzee by Jared Diamond recently and he wrote that it was ironic that the catholic church's "recommended" method of contraception was the rhythm method which tries to ascertain something that evolution has deliberately "hidden".

He also wrote that we should imagine a world where human females did "show" in the same way as chimps - though I think the enlarged genitals would be weird - I think he suggested a bright red face or something like it - either way - it would be fun if it suddenly happened now :)

The posters above are right - I think its a fundamental (sic) reason for the invention of religion to oppress women - as much a part of it as maintaining "order" among the masses. This political/cultural side to it is a major stumbling block - even if we could convince more people to give up the irrational side, the control side will be harder to give up in much of the world.

Other Comments by NJS

37. Comment #48576 by Rtambree on June 8, 2007 at 12:38 pm

>He also wrote that we should imagine a world where human females did "show" in the same way as chimps

We're almost at the stage where an off-the-shelf DNA kit purchased by a suspicious father can confirm or deny his paternity. The courts can't compel child support payments from a cuckolded man, and resources are abundent, so the dynamics of the African savannah couldn't be more different.

However, we've got this hardwired in our brains after thousands of generations. Men are still going to be jealous even if paternity of children can be known with 100% accuracy. The rational can't usurp the emotional - perhaps understanding this gives us an inkling as to what it's like for faithheads to give up their invisible friend.

Other Comments by Rtambree

38. Comment #48582 by Bonzai on June 8, 2007 at 1:08 pm

The law can't compel child support payments for a cuckolded man, and resources are abundent, so the dynamics of the African savannah couldn't be more different.


But there is an interesting twist. Recently a German doctor was ordered by the court to pay child support for one of his patients. She got pregnant because a contraceptive implant from the doctor failed. Me think the Pope should be made to pay child support for millions of children.

Other Comments by Bonzai

39. Comment #48585 by Rtambree on June 8, 2007 at 1:16 pm

38. Comment #48582 by Bonzai
>Me think the Pope should be made to pay child support for millions of children.

Now there's a class action in every sense of the word.

Other Comments by Rtambree

40. Comment #48592 by Logicel on June 8, 2007 at 1:26 pm

 avatarRtambree wrote: Now there's a class action in every sense of the word.

http://www.earthsgreatestlawsuit.org/

I had a ball filling out a claim against my childhood Catholic parish!!! I am asking 10,000 bucks in damages.

Other Comments by Logicel

41. Comment #48595 by Elentar on June 8, 2007 at 1:39 pm

 avatarI suspect that the true measure of civilization for any society is its treatment of women. The main distinction between men and women is simply that men have greater upper body strength. The oppression of women is therefore symptomatic of a broader brutality in the society, a sign that might has been allowed to make right. I really have no respect for cultures that treat their women as chattel, nor do I think those societies deserve any respect.

Other Comments by Elentar

42. Comment #48730 by Dr Benway on June 8, 2007 at 9:09 pm

 avatarStepford wife:
If I have a father or a husband, why do I need to vote?
Because sadists exist and power corrupts. You must retain and excercise your power, as must everyone else. When people abdicate their power, over time power becomes more centralized and more oppressive.

Sadists stand accused for hurting people. Masochists stand accused for feeding the sadists.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

43. Comment #49252 by chezzyd on June 11, 2007 at 7:03 am

A truly horrifying story. I would also recommend 'Princess' by Jean Sasson. What disturbs me most is not just the psychological impact that such repression has on women there but the complicity of Western govts in supporting such a regime. 17 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi and Saudi has an even worse human rights record than Iraq - yet who got bombed? The sooner the oil runs out the better. Funnily enough it was women's rights groups in the US that stalled the original attempt to build the Afghan pipeline and objected to talks in Texas with the Taliban. Voila now there is a pipeline. It seems that the West places little more value on female life than the Taliban.

Other Comments by chezzyd

44. Comment #49443 by Sargeist on June 12, 2007 at 1:43 am

 avatarHi. Sorry, this is a touch off-topic, but with reference to the link given, above, to the BBC news article about a law to force people to cover up their underwear, does anyone here think that it would actually be *racist* to use the law against black people?

What I mean, specifically, is that if: a) *Anyone* is capable of breaking that law; and, b) the only people who are breaking it are people of some set X; and, c) Set X consists of people who have some obvious other defining attribute (blackness, gayness, femaleness for instance); then does this actually mean that the law is discriminatory?

As I get older, it seems that sensible laws brought in to protect people against persecution end up being applied to almost everything.

Other Comments by Sargeist

45. Comment #52116 by logical on June 26, 2007 at 7:42 am

 avatarThe speculations about men inventing religion to avoid to pay for another man΄s genetics forget that the attack of the religionists is concentrating on women wanting to decide over their bodies and most extreme those who do not want husband and/or children!
And as for "the men" - there are a lot of men who do not care for their own, do not even pay the beggar sum of legal child support, let alone time and emotions. It is yet to show that the vocal few who fight for custody had ever any impact, genetic or otherwise.

Other Comments by logical
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: