Muslim Apartheid: Sexism

[August1991]

That was quite the rant, BM. One of the better ones that I've read on MLF.

What's worse is that you pretend to care about oppressed Muslim women.

As it happens, I have had several long conversations with Muslim (and Christian) women living in the Middle East about their life. Lebanon is better than Syria and Jordan. Saudi Arabia is the worst (although I once made a mental comparison bewteen Iran and Saudi and came to the conclusion that it's a toss up.)

I can only know about the life of a black person in the US South prior to the Civil War through books. (One of the best accounts that I read was by Harriet Ann Jacobs.) I don't think that the life of a slave in the US South in the 1850s is identical to the life of a woman in Saudi Arabia in, say, the 1990s but there are many points of comparison. In both cases, people are chattel - they do not even own themselves.

Here are two (random) cases: Nazia Quazi and Nathalie Morin.

The case of Morin is only less random because it has received alot of attention in the French Quebec media. If you went to the media in other countries, particularly in Asia, you would find reports of similar cases. Of course, Saudi (or Lebanese or Egytian...) women have no foreign embassy or journalist to which they can turn.

And Western Feminist Leftists are more concerned about the plight of Palestinians in Israel (who can vote, travel abroad, own property, send their children to Arabic school, etc.) than the plight of women in Saudi Arabia or Iran, or even Palestine (the West Bank/Gaza) itself.

Edited June 8, 2010 by August1991

[eyeball]

I am absolutely astonished that any Western Leftist would defend Palestine, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia. Do these Leftists understand how women are treated in these countries?

Have you never heard me suggest that Muslim men should wear blinders?

I've also suggested that Muslim women should rise up one night and with knives held tightly to their men's throats tell them to clean up their acts or else.

Edited June 8, 2010 by eyeball

[bloodyminded]

Have you never heard me suggest that Muslim men should wear blinders?

I've also suggested that Muslim women should rise up one night and with knives held tightly to their men's throats tell them to clean up their acts or else.

That's the trouble with this "The Left! The Left!" refrain: it bears so little resemblance to reality.

It's the very people complaining about the "hypocrisy" of this apparently monolithic entity called "the left" who refuse to hold the most powerful forces to any moral account whatsoever.

So: focus on the crimes and misdeeds of the Enemy. And when "the left", or anyone else, criticizes the crimes of the West and its allies...accuse them of hypocrisy.

They don't even understand the basic moral premises of their OWN religious and moral traditions, for Christ's sake.

Edited June 8, 2010 by bloodyminded

[WIP]

I think I'll stop you there, WIP.

There are not movements in every Muslim to break with the past.

Is that a rhetorical statement, or did you actually check to see if there are reform movements throughout the Muslim World? Your simplistic presentation of a large group of nations, with thousands of different racial and ethnic groups cannot be distilled down to one category. Even at ground zero (Saudi Arabia) there are stories that keep drifting out about women demanding voting rights, the right to drive cars, and I found this one particularly interesting, because it indicates a ground shift in cultural attitudes: New generation of Saudi novelists breaks taboos

On the contrary, women's freedom to choose, if anything, is shrinking. And please don't compare practicing Christians in the West with observant Muslims elsewhere. Modern atheists and agnostics do great damage to understanding the world when they lump all religious people together. Just because you see two people with a credit card doesn't mean they use teh card to buy the same things.

Now you're lumping all atheists together? Do you complain when the atheists are puppets of the American Enterprise Institute, such as Christopher Hitchens and Ayan Hirsi Ali, and parrot the Neoconservative foreign policy agenda?

There is simply no comparison between the way women are treated in the Middle East today, in Muslim communities, and they way women were treated in Italy 25 or even 50 years ago.

"Crimes of Passion" still occur in Italy, and if the defendant can prove adultery, he likely will still get off with a light sentence. The only difference 30 years ago, was that it was grounds for acquittal. But just as with honor-killings in the Muslim World, it did not work for the women who accused their husbands of adultery.

WIP, I find strange your argument that we should stop "bashing" Arabs on this point. Would you have argued that we should not "bash" white South Africans for apartheid because this "bashing" would only force them to be more restrictive?

I find it strange that you want to get on your soapbox and incite hatred without bothering to learn a few basic facts first! For one thing, Arab is not an equivalent term of Muslim. And you are judging the entire Muslim World by citing some shocking stories on the internet.

But what triggers my gag reflex every time one of these Muslim-bashing threads start is that it is the right wing conservatives who are deliberately setting economic and social policy to bring back patriarchy in the West. The very people who are pointing fingers at misogyny in Muslim nations would damn well do the same thing here once they have adequate control. The case has been presented by a number of conservative theorists that feminism, and even extending the vote to women, has harmed the interests of conservatism by creating the demand for social spending, while weakening the "needs" for military spending.

But when you use South Africa as an example, I hope you're aware aren't that it was the right - in the form of Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, who fought against imposing sanctions on South Africa. Certainly economic sanctions is not as harsh a penalty as actual military invasions, occupations, and an exodus of refugees; but nevertheless, the Afrikaners in South Africa dug in deeper when faced with universal condemnation. The situation of South Africa under Apartheid was more akin to Israel -- one group of people with full rights of citizenship, and another without civil rights.

It attacks "Israeli Apartheid" on one side while ignoring the blatant "Muslim Apartheid" on the other.

What is Muslim Apartheid?

----

[bloodyminded]

Is that a rhetorical statement, or did you actually check to see if there are reform movements throughout the Muslim World? Your simplistic presentation of a large group of nations, with thousands of different racial and ethnic groups cannot be distilled down to one category. Even at ground zero (Saudi Arabia) there are stories that keep drifting out about women demanding voting rights, the right to drive cars, and I found this one particularly interesting, because it indicates a ground shift in cultural attitudes: New generation of Saudi novelists breaks taboos

Very interesting point. Salman Rushdie--no stranger to the potential dangers to writing fiction--made the same point, and happily refers to dissenting Muslim authors as performing "a salvo in the growing Islamic reformation."

The fascinating and depressing fact of the matter is that whenver a liberal-minded, freedom-aspiring person from one of the more repressive societies begins to speak out, he is met with scorn, derision, or total silence....by the Westerners who call most loudly for Muslims to speak out. That's because the democratic-minded, secular liberal voices, like Malalai Joya of Afghanistan, speaks out, she condemns the West along with the Taliban and the Islamist oppressors.

So...wrong narrative. Ignore it, and then ask, with world-weary sadness, "Where are the Muslims who are speaking out?"

Now you're lumping all atheists together? Do you complain when the atheists are puppets of the American Enterprise Institute, such as Christopher Hitchens and Ayan Hirsi Ali, and parrot the Neoconservative foreign policy agenda?

That's different, because they have the "correct" narrative. so when Hitchens actively and explicitly condones the administration lying the country into war, that's okey-dokey for these "lovers of Liberty," who consider taxes the only matter of moment in discussions of freedom. (Hitchens called the administration deceit "[p]art of the charm of the regime-change argument."

What a douchebag.

"Crimes of Passion" still occur in Italy, and if the defendant can prove adultery, he likely will still get off with a light sentence. The only difference 30 years ago, was that it was grounds for acquittal. But just as with honor-killings in the Muslim World, it did not work for the women who accused their husbands of adultery.

The assaults of homosexuals in Jamaica (a continual occurrance), and even the murder of homosexuals in Jamaica, will receive scarce punishment.

Edited June 8, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Argus]

I find it strange that you want to get on your soapbox and incite hatred without bothering to learn a few basic facts first! For one thing, Arab is not an equivalent term of Muslim

.

True, but Islam is an Arab religion which was spread to other corners of the world. Its heartland is still in the Arab world, and the radicalization which has occurred occurred in the Arab world and then began to spread to other parts of the Muslim world.

But what triggers my gag reflex every time one of these Muslim-bashing threads start is that it is the right wing conservatives who are deliberately setting economic and social policy to bring back patriarchy in the West.

That would be something from your imaginary world. I'm afraid I can't address this. I hear it's a fearful place, though, with little reality or logic to its behavior.

Edited June 8, 2010 by Argus

[WIP]

Very interesting point. Salman Rushdie--no stranger to the potential dangers to writing fiction--made the same point, and happily refers to dissenting Muslim authors as performing "a salvo in the growing Islamic reformation."

Yes, even with a contract on his life from Ayatollah Khomeini, Rushdie has refused to travel the low road with other Muslim dissidents like Ayan Hirsi Ali -- who no one would argue does not have legitimate reasons for anger with the religion and culture she was raised in, but she lied about her personal circumstances when she sought refugee status in Holland and has completely embraced the other side of the conflict, including Western interests who colonized the Middle East and share a big part of the credit for the resurgent fundamentalism in Islamic countries. I was particularly disgusted with her call for Afghanis to support the government soldiers against local Taliban, since she either isn't aware that most of the soldiers are corrupt and taken from northern tribesmen, or she just doesn't care, and will say whatever Neocon propaganda the A.E.I. wants her to say.

The fascinating and depressing fact of the matter is that whenver a liberal-minded, freedom-aspiring person from one of the more repressive societies begins to speak out, he is met with scorn, derision, or total silence....by the Westerners who call most loudly for Muslims to speak out. That's because the democratic-minded, secular liberal voices, like Malalai Joya of Afghanistan, speaks out, she condemns the West along with the Taliban and the Islamist oppressors.

So...wrong narrative. Ignore it, and then ask, with world-weary sadness, "Where are the Muslims who are speaking out?"

I was even surprised by the reaction to a Lebanese-American girl winning the Miss USA pagent recently. I started a thread on it partly for the nice picture links to her and runner up Miss Oklahoma, but more importantly because right from the start there were right wing agitpropagandists declaring that she was a Hezbollah agent....because she has the same last name as some Hezbollah commander! Obviously if she's wearing a bikini in a beauty pagent, she didn't come from a fundamentalist home -- her brief bio indicated that her parents were Muslim and Christian ( I forget which is which) and she attended a Catholic School in her youth. But, nevertheless, any Muslims reading the reaction to her winning the title have even more evidence that no Muslim is acceptable regardless of how Western they are.

[WIP]

True, but Islam is an Arab religion which was spread to other corners of the world. Its heartland is still in the Arab world, and the radicalization which has occurred occurred in the Arab world and then began to spread to other parts of the Muslim world.

So, we shouldn't trust Arab Christians either I suppose, because these people are barbaric by nature?

That would be something from your imaginary world. I'm afraid I can't address this. I hear it's a fearful place, though, with little reality or logic to its behavior.

I'm glad there are sites like JewsOnFirst which keep a list of the stories that pop up in the news from time to time, and demonstrate the over-arching theme of the Christian Right.

[Argus]

So, we shouldn't trust Arab Christians either I suppose, because these people are barbaric by nature?

I'm glad there are sites like JewsOnFirst which keep a list of the stories that pop up in the news from time to time, and demonstrate the over-arching theme of the Christian Right.

Another opinion might be that it's hysterical nonsense from someone with an obsessive compulsive disorder.

[August1991]

That's the trouble with this "The Left! The Left!" refrain: it bears so little resemblance to reality.

It's the very people complaining about the "hypocrisy" of this apparently monolithic entity called "the left" who refuse to hold the most powerful forces to any moral account whatsoever.

I think Avi Lewis is a good example of a typical North American leftist. He even has a show on the CBC.

Well, take a look at this interview between Hirsi Ali and Lewis. (I will give credit to Lewis for having invited her):

Lewis makes the foolish and naive comparison between fanatical Muslims in the Middle East and fundamental Christians in the West (which Hirsi Ali easily dismisses).

Hirsi Ali makes a subtle but very telling point about Islam and the Koran. Islamophobia is a myth propagated by the Muslim belief that the Koran is the exact word of God. Hence, criticsm of Islam is tantamount to criticizing God. Blasphemy is too weak a western word.

----

To get back to the point of my OP, here we have a Leftist and a woman who is every sense a feminist and yet Lewis cannot bring himself to defend her or even sympathize with her. IMV, Lewis shows himself to be something of what Leftists would call (horrors) a "misogynist".

Edited June 12, 2010 by August1991

[Bonam]

I think Avi Lewis is a good example of a typicalk North American leftist. He even has a show on the CBC.

Well, take a look at this interview between Hirsi Ali and Lewis. (I will give credit to Lewis for having invited her):

Lol, I love the last part. She tells him "you spit on freedom, because you don't know what it is", and then a few moments later they smile, thank each other, and shake hands.

[kimmy]

I think Avi Lewis is a good example of a typical North American leftist. He even has a show on the CBC.

I wouldn't say he is a typical North American leftist. I think he's about as left a leftist as you can find in the public sphere North America. (though, I don't know if he's still in the public sphere... I think he is now with Al Jazeera English, which would mean he's about as much in the North American public sphere as you or I.)

Well, take a look at this interview between Hirsi Ali and Lewis. (I will give credit to Lewis for having invited her):

I'm sure he was looking at it as a chance to take her on. His description of her as a "born-again America-booster" particularly telling: if you're on the far left, "born-again" and "America-booster" are two of the meanest things you could possibly say about somebody. In his introduction, he goes on to try to diminish her by suggesting that it's her personal story, not what she's saying, that people are interested in. Clearly he went into this with the idea that she was an adversary, and that he could score some points by taking her down.

-k

[Bonam]

I'm sure he was looking at it as a chance to take her on. His description of her as a "born-again America-booster" particularly telling: if you're on the far left, "born-again" and "America-booster" are two of the meanest things you could possibly say about somebody. In his introduction, he goes on to try to diminish her by suggesting that it's her personal story, not what she's saying, that people are interested in. Clearly he went into this with the idea that she was an adversary, and that he could score some points by taking her down.

Yup, I noticed that too. Unfortunately for him, he was completely outclassed.

[Bob]

Bonam - Just as a side note, it's interesting how so many Western liberals are Jewish. Evan Solomon and Avi Lewis come to mind from the Canadian perspective.

Here's a video of Evan Solomon interview Hassan Moab Yussuf:

With respect to Avi Lewis, for what it's worth, he's married to Naomi Klein - who we all know is very left-leaning. Just another Jew in the long list of hard leftists.

Edited June 12, 2010 by Bob

[August1991]

Let me enjoy a minor thread hijack, but get back to the point at hand.

I wouldn't say he is a typical North American leftist. I think he's about as left a leftist as you can find in the public sphere North America.

I realize that we're generalizing but Avi Lewis strikes me as a typical North American Leftist: he purports to defend the little guy, the underdog, the victim.

Bonam - Just as a side note, it's interesting how so many Western liberals are Jewish. Evan Solomon and Avi Lewis come to mind from the Canadian perspective.

Bob, you're far too narrow in your view of leftism.

IME, North American Leftism is a curious mix of Irish Catholic, Protestant Lutheran, French-Canadian Catholic and Jewish intellectual. As a common denominator, they want to defend the victim.

Elsewhere in the world, the Left has different motivations or goals.

----

I think Lewis was flummoxed by this victim who didn't behave as one. In North American Leftist ideology, she is the victim of victims. I am surprised that Lewis didn't take this approach because if he had, he would have felt perfectly comfortable. North American Leftists see the world in terms of underdogs and victims. (Instead, the interview is jarring to a Leftist because Hirsi Ali does not at all sound like a victim or an underdog.) I guess that while Lewis is articulate, he's also stupid.

To North American Leftists, women in the Middle East are victims of men in the Middle East who are also victims. So I suppose that there are children in the Middle East who are victims of victims of victims.

Maybe this explains why Leftists have trouble opposing sexism among Muslims. There are too many victims.

Edited June 14, 2010 by August1991

[Bob]

Let me enjoy a minor thread hijack, but get back to the point at hand.

I realize that we're generalizing but Avi Lewis strikes me as a typical North American Leftist: he purports to defend the little guy, the underdog, the victim.

IME, North American Leftism is a curious mix of Irish Catholic, Protestant Lutheran, French-Canadian Catholic and Jewish intellectual. As a common denominator, they want to defend the victim.

Elsewhere in the world, the Left has different motivations or goals.

----

I think Lewis was flummoxed by this victim who didn't behave as one. In North American Leftist ideology, she is the victim of victims. I am surprised that Lewis didn't take this approach because if he had, he would have felt perfectly comfortable. North American Leftists see the world in terms of underdogs and victims. (Instead, the interview is jarring to a Leftist because Hirsi Ali does not at all sound like a victim or an underdog.) I guess that while Lewis is articulate, he's also stupid.

To North American Leftists, women in the Middle East are victims of men in the Middle East who are also victims. So I suppose that there are children in the Middle East who are victims of victims of victims.

Maybe this explains why Leftists have trouble opposing sexism among Muslims. There are too many victims.

I agree with you. Avi Lewis' statements are very typical and unoriginal. I've heard them all before, from a wide variety of Canadians (and non-Canadians).

I don't find Avi Lewis articulate, at all. Rather, I find him obnoxious. When he laughs at Ayaan in rejecting this position of hers or that, he comes across like a moron... that's to say nothing of his moronic positions on the issue being discussed.

[Bonam]

I don't find Avi Lewis articulate, at all. Rather, I find him obnoxious. When he laughs at Ayaan in rejecting this position of hers or that, he comes across like a moron... that's to say nothing of his moronic positions on the issue being discussed.

Yeah that's the impression I got. I've never watched him before but in that video he came across as a dumbass.

[August1991]

I don't find Avi Lewis articulate, at all.

Avi Lewis speaks English well, like his father (Stephen Lewis), and grandfather (David Lewis). David Lewis came from a poor Jewish family but Avi (third generation) studied at Upper Canada College, where his "socialist"/NDP parents (Michele Landsburg/Stephen Lewis) sent him.

I think Avi Lewis is articulate like his father and grandfather. Indeed, Avi's only claim to fame is his ancestry. Avi and his father are, in American speak, Limousine Liberals. They live well and they ask the rest of us to live simply.

The grandfather, David Lewis, came from an ordinary Jewish Montreal family (never bothered to learn correct French). He became a federal NDP leader and created the term "Corporate Welfare Bum". His son and grandson have benefitted from his reputation.

----

What do I think about this Lewis family? They don't/didn't care about the downtrodden around them. The Lewis were ambitious; they wanted to get ahead in the world.

Defending the poor people made their ambition easier.

---

Gawd, what a thread hijack. Sorry.

Edited June 14, 2010 by August1991

[bloodyminded]

Bonam - Just as a side note, it's interesting how so many Western liberals are Jewish. Evan Solomon and Avi Lewis come to mind from the Canadian perspective.

Here's a video of Evan Solomon interview Hassan Moab Yussuf:

With respect to Avi Lewis, for what it's worth, he's married to Naomi Klein - who we all know is very left-leaning. Just another Jew in the long list of hard leftists.

there are a lot of leftist Jews--a phenomenon that has never been intelligently addressed by those who have tried, such as Cal Thomas.

And in fact, the number of North American Jews who deem themselves "liberal" is larger than the number of those calling themselves "conservative," "moderate," "non-aligned," or "none of the above"...combined.

As for the farther left...you're right: Klein, Lewis, Chomsky, Lapham, Finkelstein, Avnery...the list goes on.

[JB Globe]

In Saudi Arabia, women cannot drive a car. In Iran, women cannot shop alone.

Yet in Bangladesh, Senegal, Turkey, Indonesia, Pakistan, they can be elected to lead their countries, so your characterization of the situation is completely absurd

Are there problems? Of course.

Is this a black and white issue where all Muslim women are ruthlessly oppressed? Absolutely not.

I am absolutely astonished that any Western Leftist would defend Palestine, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia. Do these Leftists understand how women are treated in these countries?

What on earth are you talking about? What "lefitsts" defend these nations? And what is their argument? Either you're completely mischaracterizing what this "defence" is, or you're just making some baseless accusation that can't be backed up.

For several years, I lived in Damascus and Beirut. I travelled to Riyadh. I have been to Tunis, Cairo and Annaba.

And if this is true, it appears you didn't really bother to leave your expat compound, and get out on the street and talk to ordinary people before making gross assumptions about everything and everyone.

But it does seem quite odd that someone who has such an enormous disdain for Muslims would travel and work so extensively throughout the Arab world.

[sharkman]

To North American Leftists, women in the Middle East are victims of men in the Middle East who are also victims. So I suppose that there are children in the Middle East who are victims of victims of victims.

Maybe this explains why Leftists have trouble opposing sexism among Muslims. There are too many victims.

August, I find the contents of this thread to be sad, and a good illustration of why I've become somewhat disenchanted with this forum.

Your subject, that the Muslim faith is sexist and treats woman as property is well known, as is the Western left's silence on the matter. Yet what kind of responses do you get? Mostly denials, personal attacks and the typical knee jerk that the right is wrong, blah blah blah.

Then, of course, you get the threads that are nothing but a thinly veiled attack on a group, be it Musims, Jews, Christians, gays or fill in the blank. And the posters who do nothing but argue as if it the best arguer should win out instead of the truth. I once proved that the terrorist suicide martyr mindset existed in ancient history but the fellow I was explaining it too simply moved the goal posts and denied the facts. He simply wanted to 'win' the debate as if it was a contest. I have grown tired of this.

I have started to realize that these forums can actually curtail discussion and learning and even pressure one to 'take a side'. Instead of agreement of at least the fact that the Muslim faith is sexist, which is so obvious a blind man could see it, not one person from the left will admit it. They circle the wagons and pull out the Winchesters. How sad.

I know things are much the same on the right, and I've gotten quite tired of it. I believe now that constant exposure with the contents here can actually polarize people to one side or the other instead of an exchange of ideas. These internet forums probably have a much greater influence on people than the effects of a left or right wing flavoured newscast. I mention that because there is a thread on Fox news north in which several people decry the start up of such a channel because it may polarize viewers. Hah, and then they hang around here polarizing people.

I have also begun to suspect that it is of no benefit to discuss things with those who have no absolutes guiding their morals. It's like you are talking to someone from Mars, there is simply no common ground from which to start. Take Whoopi Goldberg's defense of that movie director found guilty of raping an under age girl in the 70's: "But it wasn't rape rape." Whatever.

Anyway, sorry for the thread wander.

Edited June 15, 2010 by sharkman

[JB Globe]

Your subject, that the Muslim faith is sexist and treats woman as property is well known, as is the Western left's silence on the matter. Yet what kind of responses do you get? Mostly denials, personal attacks and the typical knee jerk that the right is wrong, blah blah blah.

Way to completely absolve the OP and your "side" in this debate of any responsibility.

The reason no one wants to directly engage the central premise of this post is because it's pretty clear the OP is speaking from a position of utter ignorance, and makes good use of logical fallacies to try and cover that up.

I think the reason you're fed up with all of this is because you can't seem to formulate the kind of argument that's supported by the kind of objective facts that stands up to critical analysis, and as a result, people pick it apart quite easily.

If you want to make simplistic generalizations in 5 sentences or less - go to the comments section on The Star or CBC.

If you want to actually construct an argument, than you'll have to put some thought into it.

[sharkman]

And so we get another knee jerk personal attack, both me and the OP. Have you nothing of substance to offer?

[bloodyminded]

And so we get another knee jerk personal attack, both me and the OP. Have you nothing of substance to offer?

To be fair, JB Globe offers some of the more substantive posts on this forum.

Here's a reiteration of the point: since most of us don't feel that many of the critiques of the oppression of women are sincere, or are meant seriously at all except as a way of demonizing official enemies and castigating this monolthic entity called "the Left," we generally refuse to play; which is to say, we generally refuse to submit to the lunatic idea that y'all have some authority to determine the actual parameters of the debate.

You know, the treatment of women in many Muslim countries is beyond deplorable. It sickens me. But I don't like to play these two little games, that are the points of so many born-again, temporary feminists-of-convenience who bemoan the fate of Muslim women:

1. That this somehow justifies military action....even though military action is totally unrelated to the treatment of women anywhere, which as you must know has never been of the slightest concern to the foreign policies of the powerful democracies;

2. That the perceived "silence" of something you call "the Left" on this subject somehow connotes sympathy for medievalist theocrats....rather than what it really is: a statement ON the insincere and politically convenient machinations of the more hawkish among us.

We're not fooled, you see. That's all; nothing more sinister than that.

Edited June 15, 2010 by bloodyminded

[sharkman]

To be fair, JB Globe offers some of the more substantive posts on this forum.

Here's a reiteration of the point: since most of us don't feel that many of the critiques of the oppression of women are sincere, or are meant seriously at all except as a way of demonizing official enemies and castigating this monolthic entity called "the Left," we generally refuse to play; which is to say, we generally refuse to submit to the lunatic idea that y'all have some authority to determine the actual parameters of the debate.

You know, the treatment of women in many Muslim countries is beyond deplorable. It sickens me. But I don't like to play these two little games, that are the points of so many born-again, temporary feminists-of-convenience who bemoan the fate of Muslim women:

1. That this somehow justifies military action....even though military action is totally unrelated to the treatment of women anywhere, which as you must know has never been of the slightest concern to the foreign policies of the powerful democracies;

2. That the perceived "silence" of something you call "the Left" on this subject somehow connotes sympathy for medievalist theocrats....rather than what it really is: a statement ON the insincere and politically convenient machinations of the more hawkish among us.

We're not fooled, you see. That's all; nothing more sinister than that.

Your points are not legitimate. No one here is calling for military action, just saying the Muslim faith has it wrong WRT women. August is not trying to fool anyone. He doesn't do that. He's simply calling a spade a spade, and the left on this forum won't because it's an idea that came from the unclean right. And that rigid ideologue mentality seems to grow in forums like this.