M.Dancer Posted September 12, 2007 Report Share Posted September 12, 2007 (edited) that sounds like a great idea buffycat! Sheesh! Prudes! Coincidently, while some defend men's rights to make their women wear tents, other defend genital mutilation. It was a surprise to Janice Boddy when she realized that the altering of female genitals through surgery, professional or amateur, looms large whenever the Sudan is mentioned. In 1976, when she went there for the first time, she was interested in studying religious beliefs of rural Muslim women. But her fellow graduate students in Canada made it clear that when they thought of the Sudan they thought first of female circumcision.Moreover, the women in the village she chose for her anthropological research insisted that she should learn about this practice and see it performed if she hoped to understand them. She followed this advice and eventually concluded that circumcision validates the village women’s lives, safeguards their fertility and establishes “the meaningful parameters of their selfhood.” Now chair of the anthropology department at the University of Toronto, she boldly addresses this question with her new book, Civilizing Women: British Crusades in Colonial Sudan (Princeton University Press). The fact that she then falls on her face, academically speaking, does not necessarily diminish her bravery. Her readers discover, almost at the beginning, that she has a limited idea of academic detachment and fairness. A chronology of events at the front of her book twice uses the politics-laden term “propaganda” to describe Britain’s efforts in the 1940s to publicize the harm done by genital cutting. But then she quickly buckles down to her own propaganda project, a storm of disapproval directed at those who argue against the ritual cutting of female genitals. http://www.red-alerts.com/comintern/defend...tal-mutilation/ Edited September 12, 2007 by M.Dancer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffycat Posted September 12, 2007 Report Share Posted September 12, 2007 In another show of solidarity with oppressed muslim women....activists line up for clitoral circumcision..... ??? WTF ??? Dancer - really scrapping the bottom of the barrel with your one liners today huh? Nothing worthwhile to add? Oops I forgot who I am corresponding with - silly me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted September 12, 2007 Report Share Posted September 12, 2007 Something to think about anyway, since folks vote by mail currently, and so do not show their faces this whole veil thing really makes no sense - it feels like there is something missing in the context.Anyway - just musings on the continued assaults on all of our liberties... I don't know what the rules are for authenticating mail votes, but perhaps they need to be updated. (I'm guessing you wouldn't be happy if your favorite candidate loses because of a suspiciously one-sided barrage of mail-in votes?) Providing a means of authenticating your identity is a reasonable need in our society. Passports and drivers licenses will require the same. Is a passport with a photo of a person wearing a mask going to get them across any borders? I'm guessing not... The 'activist' part of me would love to see a solidarity display of the sisterhood of women - we gals should all don the viel on voting day! (I guess that's the $hit disturber in me eh? ) 40 years ago women were burning their bras as a statement of freedom, and today... you want women to hide their faces in support of the sisterhood? We've come a long way, baby. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffycat Posted September 12, 2007 Report Share Posted September 12, 2007 (edited) 40 years ago women were burning their bras as a statement of freedom, and today... you want women to hide their faces in support of the sisterhood? We've come a long way, baby. -k The majority of women here in Canada who CHOOSE to wear the viel are very devout women, and while I may not follow their traditions myself in this so called FREE country I will defend these women's right to do so. I think that this the whole point that you so obviously missed. It's like the freedom of speech thing - while I might not agree with what another has to say I will defend their right to say it. Get it now? edited to comment on the burning of bras: bad idea - especially for more well endowed women! Edited September 12, 2007 by buffycat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trex Posted September 12, 2007 Report Share Posted September 12, 2007 (edited) there's the xenophobia i was talking about... without understanding. Those women don't want that done to them, but they may have a valid reason for wanting to wear the veil. ??? WTF ??? Dancer - really scrapping the bottom of the barrel with your one liners today huh? Nothing worthwhile to add? Oops I forgot who I am corresponding with - silly me... Edited September 12, 2007 by tbud Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jennie Posted September 12, 2007 Report Share Posted September 12, 2007 (edited) The majority of women here in Canada who CHOOSE to wear the viel are very devout women, and while I may not follow their traditions myself in this so called FREE country I will defend these women's right to do so. I think that this the whole point that you so obviously missed. It's like the freedom of speech thing - while I might not agree with what another has to say I will defend their right to say it. Get it now? Quote... kimmie 40 years ago women were burning their bras as a statement of freedom, and today... you want women to hide their faces in support of the sisterhood? blink.gif We've come a long way, baby. dry.gif I have an idea ... we can go to the polls wearing our bras over our faces!! And hand in our mail-in votes. Edited September 12, 2007 by jennie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 12, 2007 Report Share Posted September 12, 2007 there's the xenophobia i was talking about... without understanding. Those women don't want that done to them, but they may have a valid reason for wanting to wear the veil. And then again, they may not. Lets not pretend for a moment that many of these women have a choice....okay, they do have a choice......but not many willing choose to be ostracised, beaten, raped or worse. Anyone who prentends that the MEN are goiing to allow their sisters, wwives and daughters walk about in public unvieled knows little about the inherint sexism and oppression in that culture. Only recently in Australia a Muslim cleric said that women who don't hide their faces and get raped have no one to blame but themselves. Sheesh! Tolerance and understanding is one thing, but you don't have to be naive .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffycat Posted September 12, 2007 Report Share Posted September 12, 2007 I have an idea ... we can go to the polls wearing our bras over our faces!! And hand in our mail-in votes. LMAO!!! Good one!!! :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jennie Posted September 12, 2007 Report Share Posted September 12, 2007 LMAO!!! Good one!!! :lol: My I borrow yours for better 'coverage' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffycat Posted September 12, 2007 Report Share Posted September 12, 2007 Only recently in Australia a Muslim cleric said that women who don't hide their faces and get raped have no one to blame but themselves. Does he take tea with some of the fundies in the US who say girls who wear short skirts or go to bars deserve whatever's coming to them? Gosh Dancer - I was hoping you'd improved, sadly dissappointed again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffycat Posted September 12, 2007 Report Share Posted September 12, 2007 My I borrow yours for better 'coverage' not sure how well it would cover! *snicker* Thanks so much for the laugh around here!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted September 12, 2007 Report Share Posted September 12, 2007 I don't recall ever saying he was a personal appointee or that they were good pals. The Conservatives did vote for him and appointed him to his present position though. And they've been battling with over a host of issues ever since.My response in this thread was to the suggestion that it was somehow a Liberal appointee who was responsible for stymieing the wishes of Parliament in this matter. Perhaps you should have corrected the original poster who made the claim that it was a Liberal. I simply pointed out the fact that the appointment was made by Harper and voted on by Conservatives. "I don't recall ever saying he was a personal appointee....." "I simply pointed out the fact that the appointment was made by Harper......" You said, "The Chief Electoral Officer was appointed by the Harper government in February." in response to a claim of political partisanship on the behalf of Liberals regarding the issue of identification and being veiled at voting booths. What am I supposed to think that means? Basically, I understand it to mean that because you claim the Harper government appointed the CEO (untrue) that the Liberals are squeaky clean on the issue (also, in my view, untrue). Any bets on how Mayrand votes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 12, 2007 Report Share Posted September 12, 2007 Does he take tea with some of the fundies in the US who say girls who wear short skirts or go to bars deserve whatever's coming to them?Gosh Dancer - I was hoping you'd improved, sadly dissappointed again! No really....your mock show of support will certainly encourage those who think unvieled woman are sluts who deserve to be raped.....and unless you have some factual citation for suggesting that fundies in the US are along with that, I would say once again your crackpot notions are shining bright...... Speaking of crackpots and the viel...... A copy of the cleric's comments delivered in a sermon to some 500 worshippers in Sydney last month during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan was initially published in The Australian. "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside... and the cats come and eat it... whose fault is it, the cats' or the uncovered meat?" he asked. The uncovered meat is the problem, he went on to say. "If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred," he added. Sheikh Hilali also condemned women who swayed suggestively and wore make-up, implying they attracted sexual assault. "Then you get a judge without mercy... and gives you 65 years," he added. Sheikh Hilali's critics have previously accused him of praising suicide bombers and claiming the attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001 were "God's work against oppressors". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6086374.stm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuzadd Posted September 12, 2007 Report Share Posted September 12, 2007 hey I'll wear my bra, on my face, cause this is a load of shite! Maybe, I will wear my Canadian toque and scarf, if it's winter! When we vote, we aren't even asked for ID, and most of the time we know the "people in our neighbourhood" who are workin' the polls! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuzadd Posted September 12, 2007 Report Share Posted September 12, 2007 The fingerprint technology is an invasion of privacy no matter when it is used today. Not only can they takean image of your fingerprint, but by touching the apparatus they have a sample of your body fluids and can determine not only who you are, but what you have been ingesting, touching, etc. Another example of this is the swipe test they do on your luggage at airports. They claim to be looking for bomb making chems but with the sample they can do much more than that. with todays technology its as good as giiving a urine test, simply by touching a surface and leaving skin oils. and possibly they get even a sample of your DNA. Now what can they do with that, do you suppose... SADLY, there are to many non-thinking people demanding, invasions/reductions of personal privacy, for the illusion of security. Of course while there at it, the opportunity to scapegoat Muslims is always good! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jennie Posted September 12, 2007 Report Share Posted September 12, 2007 SADLY, there are to many non-thinking people demanding, invasions/reductions of personal privacy, for the illusion of security.Of course while there at it, the opportunity to scapegoat Muslims is always good! Absolutely!! It will be interesting to see how Harper manages to save face on this issue because he will find out that there are many reasons why Canadian voters do not show their face (eg, they are on a beach in Mexico, voting by mail), and thus many reasons other than Muslim women to allow voting without physical identification. It is again embarrassing for Canada that he has targeted a vulnerable population for harassment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trex Posted September 12, 2007 Report Share Posted September 12, 2007 ... I see huge sexism taking place in our own society. Everywhere I go I see it in postures hanging on the walls of shopping mall stores, bus stops, magazines. near nakedness is shown all in advertisements, continually. The imagery of sexism is everywhere and its used for marketing products and so on I question, what kind of a message is this for our society, that wants to encourage a sense of confidence and equality in females? And how is it posible for a male to take them seriously, when they are constantly portrayed as eye candy at every turn? To me this is a fundamental question about the treatment of women, how they are perceived. I say for the veil, it should be up them, and expect that our laws in this country will protect them from being raped etc. if they wish to remove it. Even women in the western world have converted to islam and want to wear the veil. They have their reasons, and they should be allowed to wherever legally applicable. and in this case there's no law against it, to vote without showing their faces. so to Mr Harper I say"change the law, or shut up". Also stop making Canada look ridiculous to other nations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuzadd Posted September 12, 2007 Report Share Posted September 12, 2007 Absolutely!!It will be interesting to see how Harper manages to save face on this issue because he will find out that there are many reasons why Canadian voters do not show their face (eg, they are on a beach in Mexico, voting by mail), and thus many reasons other than Muslim women to allow voting without physical identification. It is again embarrassing for Canada that he has targeted a vulnerable population for harassment. Yeah , but Harpers minions are *generally * rabidly xenophobic , and he knows it, so he is playing to HIS audience. It is again embarrassing for Canada that he has targeted a vulnerable population for harassment. yeah but it's highly fashionable right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 12, 2007 Report Share Posted September 12, 2007 .....and expect that our laws in this country will protect them from being raped etc. if they wish to remove it. My mother used to say, wish in one hand and shit in the other. Which ever is filled first is the most likely. There are laws against rape already, but no one law can change a person's mind. If true believers think that an unvieled muslim woman is an invition to rape, then no law will protect her, although the law may punish her attackers. And as far as sexism in our own society.....how is that relevant to forcing woman to wear tents? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 12, 2007 Report Share Posted September 12, 2007 Yeah , but Harpers minions are *generally * rabidly xenophobic ........... Citation please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jennie Posted September 12, 2007 Report Share Posted September 12, 2007 Citation please. The fact that he keeps them coralled away from the press says it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted September 12, 2007 Report Share Posted September 12, 2007 The fact that he keeps them coralled away from the press says it all. Says what exactly. It says they are xenophobic? That stretch of the imagination needs more elastic and less rubber. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuzadd Posted September 12, 2007 Report Share Posted September 12, 2007 (edited) Citation please. don't need one, it's my opinion, I just generally get that from this forum OR I can go over to FREEDOMINION and read what the conservative supporters say there!!!!!!!!! :lol: Edited September 12, 2007 by kuzadd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted September 12, 2007 Report Share Posted September 12, 2007 I don't know what the rules are for authenticating mail votes, but perhaps they need to be updated. (I'm guessing you wouldn't be happy if your favorite candidate loses because of a suspiciously one-sided barrage of mail-in votes?)Providing a means of authenticating your identity is a reasonable need in our society. Passports and drivers licenses will require the same. Is a passport with a photo of a person wearing a mask going to get them across any borders? I'm guessing not... 40 years ago women were burning their bras as a statement of freedom, and today... you want women to hide their faces in support of the sisterhood? We've come a long way, baby. -k Aaah you see, it's not really about about agreeing or not with unmasking yourself, it's about siding with anything that can be seen as opposing the U.S. Israel, or the west in general. Apologists generally will side with pretty much any movement that opposes them, I just wonder how the apologists would cope under Islamic law in an Islamic society? Not only that, all the parties are in agreement with issue of removing veils, so I guess they are xenophobic too. http://www.thestar.com/Article/254476 MONTREAL–Federal and Quebec political leaders have unanimously blasted an Elections Canada decision to let Muslim women wear traditional face coverings when voting in three federal by-elections in Quebec. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted September 12, 2007 Report Share Posted September 12, 2007 Says what exactly. It says they are xenophobic? That stretch of the imagination needs more elastic and less rubber. Funny how the name calling starts whenever these issues come up, guess it replaces intelligent debate. FD doesn't represent ALL conservatives either, as a matter of fact they represent the small minority of radical social conservatives, but hey I suppose Rabble doesn't represent all the lefties either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.