You are right on in that Muslim societies think of female sexuality as the Devils Temptation, which is why they oppress their women. It's not to show that the man is superior; its to restrain the more powerful female sexuality that tempts men into sin and un-Godly behavior. Sort of the Original Sin made permanent.
sgtted | Email | Homepage | 04.02.06 - 1:16 pm | #

Mussulmans are the most obsessed with sex, perhaps because they are taught absolutely no need to temper their unkempt libido in their given ideology. And then they are enslaved by the prescribed testerone control Order of the Mullahs. Two things real humanity needs no exaggerated promotion without calamity, sex and war. The first comes naturally and even have to evolve gradually, the second is a defensive right to all, even Buddhists. Fork tongue speaks of "holy war" as an excuse for aggression.
wits0 | Email | Homepage | 04.02.06 - 1:26 pm | #

Seems to me like they're more obsessed with the denial of female sexuality than the Victorians supposedly ever were.

But you're right - that's a damn unhealthy culture.

J.
JLawson | Email | Homepage | 04.02.06 - 1:38 pm | #

"Reality is a mistake, we must rectify it."

I can't speak towards the psychiatric analysis -- no qualifications to do so -- but I did see something worth commenting on: The above line. It seems to just epitomize the problem with not just the massively disconnected Imans and spiritual leaders of the militant, Jihad-as-open-war, paranoid, radical segments of the Muslim world, but also the spacey visions of every Utopian-type movement in US history, from the Anarchists, to the Nazi sympathizers, to the Socialists and Communists, to today's overly race-obsessed political class of academics and activists, neosocialists who can use the term "redistribution of wealth" while ignoring the irony that history casts on the concept, violent property destroying haters of humanity masquerading as animal rights activists (see here for a story about a victim, of these people; I do not include animal lovers, members of various SPCA's around the world, and those who simply practice philosophies which hold other creatures in higher esteem than average people do. I only refer to the radicalized subclass which expresses their worldview through destruction of research labs, acts of vandalism, and general hate directed at those not holding their narrow views), and so on.

Reality i.e. the real world is a bit harsh at times. It's certainly unforgiving. And it is all too often marked by a terrible level of injustice. But calling it a mistake that requires rectification is both a ridiculous, even dangerous naiveity towards the actual nature of reality, as well as an insane arrogance, proclaiming that one's perspective is so lofty that one alone perceives the proper path to rectification. Only a truly disconnected person can make such a massively ignorant statement.
ElMondoHummus | Email | Homepage | 04.02.06 - 1:51 pm | #

"Reality is a mistake, we must rectify it."

It is upon these words an entire society and culture are predicated.

And they want nuclear capabilities and to be considered equals.

While your diagnosis of 'psychotic' and 'delusional' are accurate, of course, adding the word 'fucking' before each one is a better way of conveying the magnitude- and implications of the diagnosis, as it applies to much of the Islamic world.
sigmund, carl and alfred | Email | Homepage | 04.02.06 - 2:03 pm | #

What a pre-oedipal mindfield!

The most sadistic unconscious fantasies of the male child toward his mother are not only indulged but institutionalized. It is a culture morbidly arrested at the psychosexual stage of an infant.

Reality is a mistake--specifically, the oedipal reality that mother is not a possession of the omnipotent infant.
Gagdad Bob | Email | Homepage | 04.02.06 - 2:34 pm | #

Bob - I completely agree; and what is interesting is that a little boy in this culture has more power and authority than a grown woman.
Dr. Sanity | Email | Homepage | 04.02.06 - 2:57 pm | #

Yes--they talk about "rape" in the case of that bimbo teacher in Florida who seduced the student. But imagine the unconscious "rape" that takes place when the male child possesses his mother in this way. Perhaps this is the source of all the anxiety around sex! There must be a father lurking somewhere, coming back to claim what is his. You cannot overturn the primordial order of the psychological comsos with impunity.

And what does the boy say to the primordial father? Bad mommy! She did it! She seduced me! Off with her clitoris!
Gagdad Bob | Email | Homepage | 04.02.06 - 3:06 pm | #

This post is a great tie in to one I put up yesterday This Child, This Beautiful Battered Child!" in as much as it too shows the barbarism of the muslim practice of abuse of women.

This has gotta change folks, it just gotta!
GM Roper | Email | Homepage | 04.02.06 - 3:32 pm | #

It just goes to show you: the child is the fatwa of the Imam.
Gagdad Bob | Email | Homepage | 04.02.06 - 3:46 pm | #

Well said Gagdad Bob, well said indeed!
GM Roper | Email | Homepage | 04.02.06 - 4:53 pm | #

Everywhere in the world, I suspect that the suppressing women is a way for insecure males to act our their fears. Call me weird, but as a man, sometimes women don't make much sense to me, and I suspect that goes for most of us. Furthermore, female sexuality can be even more befuddling than women's random mood swings.

However, I'm secure enough to take it, and sometimes I even like the confusion. I've been rejected for reasons that make no sense to me, but that's part of the fun in a strange sort of way.

But I've noticed that a lot of insecure men like to coerce acceptance from women so as to avoid having to confront the possibility that they won't get affection otherwise. We men often lie or yell or force women into doing what we want because we feel like we have to.

In the West, these men are frowned upon, at least overtly (although plenty of women out the seem to like abuse). Islamic societies promote letting men avoid ever having to hear from a women that he's not enough for her, which leads me to suspect that a lot of their women would if they could.
The Bunnies | Email | Homepage | 04.02.06 - 5:37 pm | #

I'm glad you're writing about this. I hope more will.

It occurred to me, when reading of the reaction to the death sentence imposed on the Aphganie man who'd converted to Christianity, that as bad as that was, the greatest problem with Sharia is its treatment of women.

He'd made a choice and whatever the consequences, he could take pride in standing up for his convictions.

But the lot of girls and women in traditional Islamic societies is truly horrific. Not just for them as individuals, but as you rightly explain, for their society and culture.

This is surely the fault line between our cultures. Nothing separates us more than the position and treatment of women in our societies. And I don't think that anything about our culture is as threatening to them. Forget cartoons of Mohammed. Forget Palestine. Forget the Jews.

This is the issue that makes them crazy. Because this is the locus where change will cause the collapse of all lines of authority and power within their civilization. They, of course, won't deal with this because it's entirely too threatening.

But we should and must. So thank you for writing about this.
Guest | Email | Homepage | 04.02.06 - 7:44 pm | #

In the current issue of The American Enterprise, there's an interesting article on sexuality by Jennifer Roback Morse. She observes that most men would not enjoy a sexual experience in which the woman--however attractive and compliant--was not at all responsive. While I think this is definitely true of most American men, I think there's also a cultural component which she didn't go into. Societies which engage in practices such as female genital mutilation must clearly have male populations which do not in any way value or enjoy sexual responsiveness on the part of their women..otherwise, they wouldn't be doing their best to eliminate the possibility of such responsiveness.
David Foster | Email | Homepage | 04.02.06 - 7:54 pm | #

It's also still amazing that NOW hasn't issued one peep about the mistreatment of women in Muslim cultures. What a bunch of phonies.
Garry K | Email | Homepage | 04.02.06 - 8:07 pm | #

Another very thoughtful article:
"When Islam Breaks Down" Thomas Dalrymple
http://www.city-journal.org/ html...when_islam.html

Dalrymple's observations of Muslim males in London, with their double-standards of having multiple concubines, is just one of the aspects of the arrested development implicit in Islam. This is a fairly long but insightful piece.
onlineanalyst | Email | Homepage | 04.02.06 - 10:29 pm | #

The Muslim men are akin to serial rapists...even worse.
They don't allow intimacy or sharing.
It's all about absolute power to them, and a psychotic narcissism that has no equal.
I truly hope that the newfound right's of women in Iraq and Afhanistan have a profound effect on the attitudes of men in those societies.
So far, it appears as if the Kurds are the only sensible,and honorable muslims in the region, concerning women and culture (overall, though there are exceptions).
Ben USN (Ret) | Email | Homepage | 04.02.06 - 11:10 pm | #

You don't need women to be subjugated for barbarism to occur.
Solomon2 | Email | Homepage | 04.02.06 - 11:43 pm | #

In spirit, I find myself agreeing with you, Dr. S. (a first, actually), and am glad to see you are not berating women in these cultures for falsely claiming victimhood or some other such nonsense. Down with the patriarchy!

Analytically, I have some disagreements.

While psychological motivations are clearly in play here, the more difficult questions are political and sociologial. How do these pathological attitudes come to play such a role in some culture? (i.e If we accept the notion that such issues always arise in psychological development, why are they acted out so viciously in some cultures and not others?)

Your answer, in large part, is to lay the blame at the foot of Islam as a kiind of dominant discourse that encourages and ratifies violent misogyny.

The theoretical question here is, of course, a complex one (no less than the one about the chicken and the egg), but by and large I think it makes more sense to see psychological and socio-economic factors as primary, with a particularly patriarchial brand of islam as the result not the cause.

I say this partly because I don't think it's possible to generalize about a monolithic "muslim culture" given the diversity of such cultures (Garry K has the plural right) in which Islam plays a role. The obvious counter-example to the middle east is indonisia, which, of course, has the largest population of muslims in the world (close to 200 million, far more than the arab world). Outside of some militant groups who take advantage of the country's geography to base and hide themselves, the Muslims in that country practice their religion peacefully and do not engage in the kind of brutality cited in your post. Megawati 's presidency and opposition to Suharto is the obvious example of the public leadership role a woman can play in that highly diverse and polyglot nation -- a stark contrast to what is possible in "liberated" iraq.

To stress this point, i would remind you that it would be similarly difficult to generalize about "christian culture" and its relation to patriarchy. At one point in time, the two were inextricably linked (Filmer is the classc text) and an outside observer might have seen (as you do with Islam) religion as the driving cultural force behind women's oppression in the west (not to mention the oppression of minorities and the slaughter of native americans). In the modern era, we've seen christianity become compatable with all kinds of liberating ideologies, including feminism.

The rhetoric and ideology of both religions has been used for both good and evil.

Indeed, it's clear that islam's compatibility with feminism is not some far-off future goal we must wait for. Muslim feminists and other leaders for civil rights and social equality are have been working hard for many years to bring about change where it is needed.

A recent issue of Foreign Affairs contains a "balanced" overview: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20...e-new- iraq.html

Some links that you and your readers may find interesting:

Islamic feminism in early 20th-century Egypt: http://www.mediterraneas.org/art...? id_article=178 (some wonderful photographs here that will remind you of Susan B. Anthony, Sojourner Truth, and other feminist pioneers in the US)

The website of Fatima Mernissi, an influential muslim feminist theologian: http://www.mernissi.net/

Links with information on two notable muslim feminists in the US:

Professor Riffat Hassan: http://www.louisville.edu/ur/uco...2004/ peace.html

Asma Barlas:
http://faculty.ithaca.edu/abarlas/

Finally, while containment and supression may be the key modes of oppression towards women's sexuality in some arab cultures, it's worth remembering that they are not the only modes of oppression. Foucault's take on Freud is useful in this regard.

**********
P.S. Garry K: I suggest a little research prior to future pronouncements. See some NOW "peeps" at:

http://www.now.org/nnt/fall- 2003...afghaniraq.html
http://www.now.org/issues/peace/ ...omeniniraq.html
http://www.now.org/press/05-05/0...5-05/05- 26.html
http://www.now.org/nnt/ summerfal...iraqiwomen.html
http://www.now.org/press/10-05/1...0-05/10- 13.html
old man | Email | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 12:29 am | #

Old man-
Certainly some feminists have spoken out about treatment of women in Islam.
But they aren't screaming about it and making headlines, like they do about abortion on demand rights, or debate about how a female mind (in general) is different than a male mind.
The culture, laws and politics (in most Muslim countries) is directly a result of Islam, because Islam (in general) has not changed at all.
Poverty is also linked to Islam, because Islam stifles economic freedom, and yes, freedom itself, especially for women.
Look at what has been invented under Islam, compared to Christianity, Judaism, and other religions.
Ben USN (Ret) | Email | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 1:15 am | #

A group/society of men who cannot compete in the real/wider world, of course they must subjugate the women. How else, what better way to hide their shame and inadequatecy.

What truly amaze me and I am at a loss for is:

What do the femmist ignore this brutal sadistic repression of their sisters? They should be leading the parade to free their sister in IRAN, SAUDI ARABIA, .... The silence is deafening.

So Doctor, WHY the SILENCE????
jorie | Email | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 1:32 am | #

Ben: you've made some assertions but no arguments.

they aren't screaming about it and making headlines, like they do about abortion on demand rights, etc.
Are your trying to suggest that American conservative/republican groups have been more vocal in supporting women's rights in the middle east than american feminist organizations? (No, of course not, ha ha ha ha...)

Headlines are up to the market-successful-media (MSM), which largely ignores ongoing human rights violations around the world. They (we, really; I'm a feminist too) are indeed screaming, believe me. Maybe you don't want to hear it because you came late to the party. (Would you like a quick history of the support from western feminists for women's rights in the middle east?)

The culture, laws and politics (in most Muslim countries) is directly a result of Islam, because Islam (in general) has not changed at all.
Poverty is also linked to Islam, because Islam stifles economic freedom, and yes, freedom itself, especially for women.

i can't say much to this except to ask to you re-read my original commnet. "linked," yes, but correlation does not mean causation.

Look at what has been invented under Islam, compared to Christianity, Judaism, and other religions.
I have no idea what this means.

jorie:
are you drunk?

************************

P.S. In general, the failure of US administrations to support women's rights in the middle east is one of our great shames as a nation. in this regard, cold-war logic ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend") has been our debilitating religion. After the soviet invasion of afganistan, for example, we supported the fundamentalist mujahideen (who later morphed into the taliban -- oops!), leaving afghani women at their merciless hands. (See http://www.rawa.us/index.htm Note the Italian delegation at their recent confernce -- not Berlusconi voters, I'd guess, eh what?)

And this has been the pattern: our goverment has supported the kings, princes, shahs and strongmen; human rights violations -- despite the "screaming' of feminists and those folks over at amnesty international that you love to hate -- have come last and usually not at all.
old man | Email | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 2:14 am | #

> But calling it a mistake that requires rectification is both a ridiculous, even dangerous naiveity towards the actual nature of reality, as well as an insane arrogance, proclaiming that one's perspective is so lofty that one alone perceives the proper path to rectification. Only a truly disconnected person can make such a massively ignorant statement.

I think they should all be rounded up and dropped, individually, in bear country, tiger country, and lion country, naked and unarmed, to experience Nature At Its Most Benign™.

Nothing better could happen to them than that they all get Treadwelled.
OBloodyHell | Email | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 3:30 am | #

> t's also still amazing that NOW hasn't issued one peep about...

Garry, NOW lost ALL pretense of legitimacy when they looked the other way as Clinton blatantly sexually harrassed his interns.

They only pound the nails in its coffin when they ignore the issue of clitorectomies simply because there is a right-leaning president in office who likely would actually accomplish something in regards to it, unlike a certain former president.
OBloodyHell | Email | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 3:36 am | #

> Are your trying to suggest that American conservative/republican groups have been more vocal in supporting women's rights in the middle east than american feminist organizations? (No, of course not, ha ha ha ha...)

OM: It's not their central issue as it is with NOW. Show me one public utterance by a high NOW official that acks that this admin has done more for the prevention of clitorectomies than any previous admin (even *if* it includes a backhanded swipe that much more remains to be done). Show me one public protest that shows a group of women demanding that this current admin do more to stop clitorectomies in other nations, and to fight even more for women's rights in those places?

No, they don't do these things -- because they know full well that this admin would likely take them seriously and DO something, and then they'd be obligated to recognize it.

> Headlines are up to the market-successful-media (MSM), which largely ignores ongoing human rights violations around the world.

Ah, yes... and if women's groups started openly making a big deal about this, the liberal press would, of course, just ignore this fact. UMMMhhhmmmm.

If women's groups started acking that, while there was still much progress to be done, this admin has done more to promote women's civil rights in Islamic countries than any other in history (I certainly can't think of any previous one that even comes close) -- yeah, the liberal press WOULD likely downplay that.
OBloodyHell | Email | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 4:01 am | #

I think the Muslim male is in a state of arrested development. Insane jealousy is an illness; if you can't trust your main squeeze out in public without a bag over her head, the problem is with you, not her! I wonder where was the Islamic world in the 60's and 70's; trying to go backward in history?
Tom TB | Email | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 4:27 am | #

"Insane jealousy is an illness.." Certainly is, among other things, but a ppl who regard themselves (as stated in their 'religion')as the best in the world has no need of changing one iota. We must change to accomodate their egoistic assumption!
wits0 | Email | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 8:10 am | #

Dr. Muhammad Wahdan: "Reality is a mistake, we must rectify it."

This line in the translation doesn't sound right. I strongly suspect that Dr. Wahdan doesn't mean to say what the transcript seems to suggest (disdain for objective reality as it pertains to girls' circumcision).

Wadhan's callous lack of concern for the victims of female genital mutilation is strongly implied by the excerpt, taken as a whole.

But translations aren't perfect. I'd be careful about building a case around a damning line that probably (IMHO) will turn out to have a pedestrian explanation.
AMac | Email | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 9:19 am | #

"That men and women could relate equally in every sphere of human endeavor..."

Historian Bernard Lewis, in one of his books about Islam's encounter with the West, notes precisely this in a (fifteenth century?) Muslim traveller's horrified description of European women being allowed to actually mix freely in society, have a public life.
pst314 | Email | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 9:32 am | #

Remember Toqueville as the explainer of why America is leading the world:

"....if anyone asks me what I think the chief cause of the extraordinary prosperity and growing power of this nation, I should answer that it is due to the superiority of their women."

From Dr. Samity to my own wife and daughters, it is clear that smart, productive, and wise women make a nation great. You waste half of the population and you pay a price.
Duane | Email | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 9:59 am | #

This excerpt from Sandra Mackey's book "The Saudis" (1990):

"The pampering of a male child is not solely the preserve of the mother. All of the women in the hareem participate. It is common practice for the women of the hareem to pacify baby boys by fondling their genitals. As with breast-feeding, this continues so long that the child carries into adult life memories of women stroking his penis. A Saudi boy comes to believe very early in childhood that women are there to provide for his pleasure." (137)

Deeply, deeply disturbing. The necrotic nature of this culture is far-reaching and malignant. Wouldn't this be considered sexual abuse?
Eileen | Email | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 10:16 am | #

I would point out to 'old man' that The Prophet himself was a great reformer when it came to the treatment of women in Arab culture. He forbid female infanticide for example. The problem is an Arab cultural tendency that predates The Prophet, hence the difference you accurately observe in non Arab Indonesia. It is also worth noting that Arab culture at its height in the late middle ages or even as late the 19th century and early 20th century were not as repressive of women as today's extreme Islam. It is quite consistent with all of these observations that the ultra puritanical Wahabi sect - a prime source of much of what we are discussing - arose among the 18th century bedu of the Saudi peninsula. What I see is a combination of a fundamentalist puritanism spreading from its limited Saudi locus within a culture with strong misogynist tendencies. That spread of Wahhabism or Islamic extremism is a recent phenomena that really got going in the 70s. I think it is a symptom of general cultural failure - a reactionary attempt to stem decline and failure in comparison to the West by going back to basics by following a severe regimen of very strict rules. As I think about it I don't see that this history contradicts Dr. Sanity's characterization of how this extremism has disproportionately effected women. Indeed it may be one of the great ironies of history that the socialist legacy of the Baath in Iraq, which mandated a quota for women members of parliament and encouraged women in professional and public life, might produce the destabilizing force that breaks up the wave of puritanical fundamentalism that is sweeping the Middle East. Might, that is, if the new government in Iraq can go forward without becoming a theocratic anti modern state. I'm still optimistic about it, but the issue is by no means decided.
lgude | Email | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 10:16 am | #

It is not just sex. It is also family structure.

The Origins of Islamic Rage.

The above article refers to Phylis Chessler and Alice Miller among others.
M. Simon | Email | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 10:36 am | #

In Richard Holbrook's editorial this morning, he writes "One vivacious legislator on the provincial council in Herat told me that while she did not like the burqa, she dared not let her "beautiful" 15-year-old daughter out without it. "The burqa," she said, "is my weapon." And self-immolation, forced on women by their families if they violate strict codes of conduct, is actually on the rise."

It's interesting that she views the burqa as a weapon. I couldn't help but wonder if it's not a weapon she wields against men in her culture. She's denying them what they most crave, acess to her daughter, depriving them of the means furthering their bloodlines.

I also struggle with the expression "forced self-immolation." Are these women forced to douse themselves with gasoline, are they forced to strike the match? Even in their deaths, their murderers are absolved.
veronica | Email | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 10:42 am | #

The subjugation of women did indeed predate Mohammed. But the vehicle for abuse today is Islam. Religion, God Himself, is used to keep women covered to save a man's honor.

One problem in the Arab Muslim world today is economic. Men are used by bigger men (their own leaders)are impotent to do anything about their lot in life, and simply let the you-know-what roll downhill. This nasty externalizing of frustrations hits the women. Ultimately this is an issue of freedom--for all.
Melissa | Email | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 10:47 am | #

Is it possible that the increase in attacks against the West by Islamic jihadists beginning in the 1970's was fueled in part by the contemporaneous development of the women's movement in the U.S.?
DRJ | Email | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 10:50 am | #

Dr. Sanity,

I think your analysis is spot-on.

Let me add more. The most significant piece of literature that came out of the middle-east is the "Thousand Nights and A Night" tale. Not the watered down story with flying carpets we tell to kids. No, the real and original story with Shaherazadi who entertained her kings with fantasy tales for 1001 nights to avoid being killed, because she was no longer "chaste" (for having sex with him). The basis of the tale is that two Arab kings were "betrayed" by their wives, because their wives slept with black slaves (yes, this is the original tale) and the two kings were driven by jealousy to sleep with a new virgin each night, only to kill her the following day (because she was no longer "chaste"). Shaherazadi managed to stay alive for 1001 nights because she entertained her king with a new tale each night. After the 1001st night, the king set her free (after never having slept with him during the whole time).

The "Thounsand Nights and A Night" tale is twisted and tells alot of Arab/Muslim culture.

BTW, I have spent considerable time around Arabs and I can tell you: you are definitely correct in that they are the most sex-obsessed males I have ever met. I mean, they're worse than 2LiveCrew, if you can imagine that.
Kurt | Email | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 10:54 am | #

The belief that reality is a mistake is shared by utopianists of the left, whose worldview is based upon a Rousseau-derived denial of human nature. As I blogged a couple of years back in What a Saudi woman wants, Part II:

"Single life beats marriage to an emasculated man" headlines a Haaretz article on Saudi internet iconoclast Wajiha al Huwayder. Fired last year by a Saudi newspaper because she "damaged the foundations of the nation and wrote about issues not permitted by Shari'a," al Huwayder turned to the internet and a British Arab website called Ilaf, where she "embarked on a major attack against those whom she defines as 'the pathetic and emasculated men of the East.'"

Cherchez la femme!
Sissy Willis | Email | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 10:58 am | #

One factor no one is addressing here is polygamy. In polygamous societies marriagable woman are in short supply, which leaves a large contingent of unattached males, who might try win over one of someones else's multiple wives.

There seems to be two cultural responses to this. The first, common in subsahara Africa, is to cast a blind eye to this, primarily because in these societies the wives do much of the work. The husband in this case tolerates some infidelity because he makes out so well economically.

In the Muslim world, it appears that the response is to monitor the sexual and social activity of women very closely to prevent them from going astray. Hence female circumcision, honor killings, gang rape, etc.
Joe K. | Email | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 12:25 pm | #

A great article on the past and future of warfare, with many predictions. A good read.
Tester | Email | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 12:40 pm | #

I'm amused that a discussion on a post about the subjugation of women in some Islamic cultures somehow shifted for a time into a discussion of the political actions or lack thereof of Western feminists as if Western feminists are somehow responsible for the oppressed state of some Islamic women. There's an implicit theme in these comments that seems to suggest that the West must dash in and save the day for these poor people who cannot possibly help themselves. Clearly, the type of feminist advocacy that works in the US would not work in Iran. Western women have a long history of providing assistance to struggling women's movements in the third world, encouraging a cultural subversion without forcing it.

There's that horrible old joke...

Q: How many psychologists does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: One, but it has to want to change.

There's a tiny grain of wisdom in that. You can't take a group of people who don't acknowledge a problem and say, "hey you, change!"

I think the biggest challenge in overcoming the damaging patriarchy running rampant in Islamic nations is convincing the population, women included, that something's broken in the first place.
Becky | Email | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 12:52 pm | #

The fear of female sexuality is not a recent phenomenon in the Arab world. The ancient tales from the "One Thousand Nights and a Night" are almost entirely focused on unfaithful wives. Read the original Burton translation and see for yourself.
Matthew | Email | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 12:55 pm | #

Don't miss this post: How will Italian women be persuaded to adopt the veil?

It doesn't seem nearly as improbable as it did when first posted. And not just in Italy, either.
David Foster | Email | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 2:50 pm | #

"Reality is a mistake, we must rectify it."

With an inverted worldview that binds them to an upside down existence, their utterances have to come from the the anal os. Since they walk on their head, thinking gets compromised from the effort. Who can blame them under these circumstances?
wits0 | Email | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 3:53 pm | #

Much of your analysis applies equally well to the Christian fundamentalists in this country - they too are primarily concerned with regulating and where possible eliminating female sexuality. I know how to fight them, and I have the means to do so. I don't know how to fight the rulers of Saudi Arabia, and I lack the means to do so. Hence my decision about which group to devote my energies to stopping.
Ted | Email | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 4:47 pm | #

Oh please, ted. Get your priorities straight. The idea that Christians or Christianity is a danger in our society is just a bizarre delusion. You probably predicted that Bush would impose a theocracy here, didn't you? Well, he better hurry up, don't you think? People like you are funny. You spend your time trying to kill an ant, while a tiger is attacking you.
Jan | Email | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 5:10 pm | #

If what I am hearing here is true, then we had better look out for China here in the next 20 years. Close to one billion horny Chinamen would not be a good thing for anyone... well, maybe not for the Strip clubs of our fair nation...
Paul Gaddis | Email | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 5:21 pm | #

I think I read somewhere that after Mohammed claimed Allah ordained that faithful male martyrs would receive 70 some celestial virgins, that men could have multiple wives, and allowed any women belonging to a conquered infidel to kept as a sex slave, he quickly realized that all these inflamed young men would begin to prey upon everybody else's wives, sisters and daughters! He had to put in place all the restrictions on women in order to keep them from being raped in the streets.
Emily | Email | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 5:42 pm | #

lgude:
thanks for your thoughtful and informative reply. At least there is one irony that isn't painful.

becky:
I'm amused that a discussion on a post about the subjugation of women in some Islamic cultures somehow shifted for a time into a discussion of the political actions or lack thereof of Western feminists...
I thought it strange too!

Jan:
ted's point was about attitudes toward women's sexuality in some "christian cultures," not about dangerous christian terrorists (although there are some of those...); it was also a response to those who were criticizing western feminists for supposed inaction and/or silence on behalf of women in the middle-east. ted was saying the reason he devotes more time and energy to women's rights in the US is practical: he knows how to do it, while he doesn't know how to take on the powers that be in the arab world.

Emily:
would you like to know about some websites where you can find out some basic things about islam? it seems like you are interested in the subject but have gotten some strange ideas.

OBloodyHell:
Show me one public utterance by a high NOW official that acks that this admin has done more for the prevention of clitorectomies than any previous admin....Show me one public protest that shows a group of women demanding that this current admin do more to stop clitorectomies in other nations, and to fight even more for women's rights in those places?

I don't understand the first question. Did you see the NOW links in my previous post?

In response to your second question: I can google with the best of them:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ ar...MNG71ECO591.DTL
http://www.madre.org/articles/ me...nstitution.html
http://www.onlinejournal.org/ Com...82805bohne.html
old man | Email | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 9:17 pm | #

About a month ago I had an exchange of letters to the editor of our local paper with a Muslim woman who said she was a lifelong civil rights activist, and wrote: "I have never felt 'oppressed.' Quite the opposite, I have felt extremely free. Free of being ogled as a sex object, free of my body being used to sell products, free of many, many things I would find very uncomfortable."
I am sure her position on Muslim women's rights is typical, that non-Muslim women are the oppressed because Western culture compels women to exhibit sexualtiy. And the more fortunate Muslim women have all the freedom, because their culture does not compel them to offend God by wearing immodest dress.
The world is turned upside down -- personal freedom is oppressive!
http://strongasanoxandnearlyassm...slim- women.html
Major Mike | Email | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 10:25 pm | #

We'll be in a better position to criticize muslim treatment of women when population growth in Western countries exceeds population growth in muslim countries. Understand, I don't much care whether that's brought about through increases in non-muslim, Western total fertility or decreases in muslim total fertility.

There are plenty of people to make the true, oft-remarked, easy point that women are treated badly under Islam. I've chosen instead to be one who points out that the muslim regime of oppression of women is presently working better, in an important way, than whatever it is we have.
Arafel | Email | Homepage | 04.03.06 - 11:40 pm | #

Jan: "You spend your time trying to kill an ant, while a tiger is attacking you."

Exactly! Moral equivalence can be misapplied and inappropriate. Know your enemy and his bottom (on-going)intention. And there's history. A tree is known by its fruit. Christianity cannot(again)
be organised any where close to becoming a real threat.

The Advanced Bonewits’ Cult Danger Evaluation Frame
(version 2.0.1)
http://www.teenwitch.com/ESSAYS/...SSAYS/ CULTS.HTM

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles.htm

The Golden Rule:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Arti...s/ sina50428.htm
wits0 | Email | Homepage | 04.04.06 - 12:10 am | #

As long as we continue to ignore the abuse of boys in muslim culture, we can carp and complain about how females are treated till the end of time and it still won't provide us with any real solutions.

Problem is, we have a huge blind spot here in the west about routine and ritual male genital amputation because, well, we do it to our boys too. Just not at the later, more aware ages that many muslim communities do it to theirs.

There may be no greater obstacle to our ends-directed understanding of middle-eastern cultural derangement than our own chauvanistic blind spot towards the dehumanization of males.

Men and boys are no more natively prone to becoming insane abusers on a massively common national scale than women and girls are. They are made so, not born so. Therefore, if we truly intend to reduce the massively common national scale of insane abuse, we must identify the means by which men and boys are made its participants and promoters.

I'm not seeing any signs of that step being investigated here, at all; I'm not even seeing signs of the awareness of its existence. But I'm willing to believe the host and commenters here are likewise willing to take it on, now that they've had it pointed out to them.

So I suggest, as a place to start, that folks engage in some consideration of the way that muslim boys who are old enough to understand what is happening to them are forcibly restrained by their family and neighbors so that their penises may be brutally degloved as an audience watches, cheers, and applauds.
Acksiom | Email | Homepage | 04.04.06 - 4:08 am | #

I don't disagree with you Acksiom. One of the reasonsboys are abused is because of the devaluation of females and the complete disruption of normal family life. Boys have "greater status" than their mothers. This does not lead to a happy outcome in their development nor heir relationship with their fathers. Frankly the entire culture is rather toxic for Men, Women, Boys and Girls.
Dr. Sanity | Email | Homepage | 04.04.06 - 10:11 am | #

What exactly is a "female circumcision" according to these people? Tell me this is not female genital mutilation.
John Di Saia MD | Email | Homepage | 04.04.06 - 4:33 pm | #

It varies by culture and even by local community, JDS. Sometimes it is female prepucectomy, i.e. the amputation of the clitoral hood; sometimes it is that and more.

However, if your understanding is that 'circumcision', whether male or female, is meaningfully distinct from mutilation per se, your sources have misinformed you about the subject.

While female prepucectomy is arguably 'less' harmful than male, they're still both genital mutilation. I simply try to avoid using the term mutilation for either, because of how it enrages the insecure where the male case is concerned, while how its use exclusively for female genital cutting reinforces the cultural myths about male prepucectomy being comparatively harmless and trivial where everyone is concerned.

It isn't. Male prepucectomy, 'circumcision', is indeed mutilation, causing signficant lifelong harms and losses to sexual sensitivity and functioning, and likely having psychological consequences as well. But for numerous reasons, north americans are in serious denial about this, despite both common sense and empirical, peer-reviewed evidence.
Acksiom | Email | Homepage | 04.04.06 - 5:21 pm | #

Like Ted, I'd prefer to stop our own Christian fundies from oppressing women before I take on the rest of planet. We have our own group of misogynist who are more than happy casting female sexuality as the ruin of the culture. Why just recently, the state legislature in MO thought that contraception was such a threat to hearth and home that they decided to end funding for contraceptives for women on Medicaid. Fight the fundies here first!
Sharon | Email | Homepage | 04.04.06 - 5:43 pm | #

Sharon: You go, girl!
old man | Email | Homepage | 04.05.06 - 12:28 am | #

The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Left.

this title was for an article on your blog from November 2005. I wanted to copy it but I can't find it now. It was a cogent explanation of why the noble intentions of the left from the 60's had morphed into something opressive. Can you direct me to it. Great site and the phrase " reality is wrong" from the recent Muslim article says it all}
lorin hart | Email | Homepage | 04.05.06 - 1:09 pm | #

"Reality is a mistake, we must rectify it."

This comes close to identifying the root problem: The one fundamental premise of Islam -- God fucked up.

As long as we have any semblance of free will, we will choose. We may choose good over evil, or red over blue, or anything else that human beings may choose between or among. But take away that semblance of free will (circumcise the girls so they can't enjoy sex; cover them up so we can't be aroused by the sight of them; take away their shoes so we can't be turned on by the sound of female shoes clicking on the stone pathway)and we will be more virtuous simply because we cannot choose not to. Mohammed didn't like the reality God created, and so directed that reality (God) be corrected.
Doug | Email | Homepage | 04.05.06 - 2:36 pm | #

A few more links for old man, Sharon:

Right woman at the right time

A conversation with Iraqi National Assemblywoman Tanya Gilly-Khailany

www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/WThomasSmithJr/ 2006/02/20/187115.html

-

Men of character, boys of fortune

...what America* needs perhaps more than anything else is fathers who will father.

-

I ain’t crazy -- either as a columnist or a wife. So as just one small voice in today’s mass media, I’m going to do my part to say to all the great dads out there, “Thank you. We need you.”

And to the wonderful fathers of the families we are so thankful to have as close friends and allies in the effort to raise boys of character, I say, “Thank you. It is a true blessing to have you in our lives.”

And to my wonderful husband -- the man of my dreams -- “Thank you. I love you. Happy Anniversary to the best dad in the world.”

Rebecca Hagelin ("funde" mom)

www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/rebeccahagelin/ 2005/11/01/173704.html

(* what the world needs most of all, imho)

-

Hopefully

American manhood will prevail:

www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/WThomasSmithJr/ 2006/03/06/188596.html

-

Thank you, Dr. Sanity, Gagdad Bob for being adult role models instead of excuse-makers and users.
. | Email | Homepage | 04.05.06 - 6:02 pm | #

One point that seems to be missed by all these so-called Islamic religious "leaders" is just how, um, progressive women are supposed to be treated if they bothered to read the Koran at all.

For example, a man is allowed to marry several women but must treat them as equally as possible. Anyone who has been married to ONE woman can tell you how hard a task that is, and how difficult it would be to keep two or more wives satisfied in marriage.

Compare this with the many men who are marrying for convience, usually sexual , every time they tire of their current bride.

Women in Koranic law (which should not be confused with much-interpreted "Shariah law") may elect to get divorced from their husbands as their own decision. The Koran authorizes up to two trial separations if both parties elect to use them to determine if the marriage is worth saving. Sort of a "time out" that makes a great deal of sense.

The Koran specifically forbids, in strong language, that women are married against their will (to the Koran! Really!) or forbidden from divorcing their husbands. It also gives women the right to own property, including communal property.

Remember that these edicts were laid out by a 12th century car clreic and you can begin to get an idea of just how progressive these ideas are.

The current limits on womens' rights by the so-called Islamic "leadership" in these backwards lands is in actuality a reactionary movement. Inasmuch as they advocate treating women like brood mares, human sacrifice (daniel perl, anyone?), and the deliberate murder of innocents. All of which is strictly prohibited by Muhammed.

Yet another case of religious "leaders" reading their texts with eyes firmly shut-and the inadequate criticism from rank-and-file Muslims to take the time to read and understand their holy book.

This "doctor" is Muslim. Sure he is. And I am a Chinese jet pilot.

Oh, and any "man" who would seek out a wife who is mutilated in this way is not any kind of "man" at all. Except perhaps a cave man.

Just another Catholic person who believes that a true religious person cannot skip over the parts of their holy texts that do not support their sick ideology.
Peter Bland | Email | Homepage | 04.05.06 - 8:49 pm | #

Peter, do you similarly so characterize women who insist upon prepucectomy for their husbands?

In case you weren't aware --

Catechism of the Catholic Church
Paulist Press, Mahwah, New Jersey, Copyright 1994

No. 2297: Respect for bodily integrity

"... Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law."

It's been a while since my four years under the Jesuits, but as far as I can tell, this means Catholics are in fact required to oppose circumcision.

And one more recent point, regarding that blind spot I referred to previously --

http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2006...ys-is- okay.html
Acksiom | Email | Homepage | 04.05.06 - 11:53 pm | #

Doc, something I heard on the radio this morning seemed to connect with your posting in a weird way. This may just be my weird mind free-associating, but:

The radio news item was a "Zero Tolerance" school policy where one student hugged another and ended up getting forced to write an abject apology for "unwanted touching", i.e. Sexual Harassement (Panda!).

1) Wouldn't this sort of thing tend to teach that ALL touching can only be sexual?

2) Though the above may be welcomed by The Sexual Revolution (TM), it isn't that much of a stretch to Sexual Harassment (and sexual appetites/urges) being uncontrollable.

3) And isn't that (as pointed out in your posting) a similar rationale to Islam's justification of its male-supremacist attitude?

4) In which case, could actions such as the incident on the radio be teaching a foundation for a later "para-Islamic" attitude?
Ken | Email | Homepage | 04.07.06 - 1:10 pm | #

one: Female circumcision predates Islam.
Two: It is not done in Indonesia.
Three: Some African tribes that perform it are not islamic.
Four: It is a bitch to deliver someone who has had a radical clitorectomy. It sometimes takes an anterior and a posterior episiotomy to deliver the kid.
Five: women can still orgasm.
boinkie | Email | Homepage | 04.07.06 - 7:26 pm | #

Excellent piece, Pat!
Congrats on your win!
Freedom Fighter | Email | Homepage | 04.14.06 - 5:43 pm | #

Speaking as a liberated American female who has the freedom to have as much sex as I want and if I so choose as many partners as I want, I have never had to worry about the religious Christer police burying me in a hole in the ground and stoning me to death just for getting my rocks off.

I cannot relate to those who fear the ant and not the tiger.
syn | Email | Homepage | 04.16.06 - 9:56 pm | #

queen of hearts is always your best bet queen of hearts is always your best bet queen of hearts is always your best bet // student loan guide student loan guide student loan guide
tlunmpcs | Email | Homepage | 02.03.07 - 11:51 am | #