Message
Anonymous wrote:I think the big thing you're missing here is choice. These women CHOOSE this lifestyle.
Some Saudi women also chose that lifestyle...
http://nyti.ms/1HnkDOC
Fascinating read. I couldn't help but notice so many parallels with Saudi culture in the article above.I'd like to preface this by saying that I know and understand that there are many laws, cultural norms in Saudi Arabia that are misogynistic and stem from tribalism and the fact that Bedouin society has always been segregated. I'm not debating that. Where I want to take the conversation is more on the article's point that there are many upper class women in the US who are educated stay at home parents who live very segregated lives from their male counterparts in a non segregated culture. However, this is completely acceptable and these same women are praised for their selfless choices and these choices are culturally acceptable. However, when women in other parts of the world make these same choices, they are automatically labeled as brainwashed and submissive. The part where the author states :
“It’s easier and more fun,” the women insisted when I asked about the sex segregation that defined their lives.“We prefer it,” the men told me at a dinner party where husbands and wives sat at entirely different tables in entirely different rooms" is particularly telling. As I could see Saudi men and women answering this question the same way, using the same logic. Thoughts?
And then, there's the wife bonus. I'd be curious to know if any DCUM moms get end of year bonuses?
Fascinating read. I couldn't help but notice so many parallels with Saudi culture in the article above.I'd like to preface this by saying that I know and understand that there are many laws, cultural norms in Saudi Arabia that are misogynistic and stem from tribalism and the fact that Bedouin society has always been segregated. I'm not debating that. Where I want to take the conversation is more on the article's point that there are many upper class women in the US who are educated stay at home parents who live very segregated lives from their male counterparts in a non segregated culture. However, this is completely acceptable and these same women are praised for their selfless choices and these choices are culturally acceptable. However, when women in other parts of the world make these same choices, they are automatically labeled as brainwashed and submissive. The part where the author states :
“It’s easier and more fun,” the women insisted when I asked about the sex segregation that defined their lives.“We prefer it,” the men told me at a dinner party where husbands and wives sat at entirely different tables in entirely different rooms" is particularly telling. As I could see Saudi men and women answering this question the same way, using the same logic. Thoughts?
The women I met, mainly at playgrounds, play groups and the nursery schools where I took my sons, were mostly 30-somethings with advanced degrees from prestigious universities and business schools. They were married to rich, powerful men, many of whom ran hedge or private equity funds; they often had three or four children under the age of 10; they lived west of Lexington Avenue, north of 63rd Street and south of 94th Street; and they did not work outside the home.
Instead they toiled in what the sociologist Sharon Hays calls “intensive mothering,” exhaustively enriching their children’s lives by virtually every measure, then advocating for them anxiously and sometimes ruthlessly in the linked high-stakes games of social jockeying and school admissions.
But as my inner anthropologist quickly realized, there was the undeniable fact of their cloistering from men. There were alcohol-fueled girls’ nights out, and women-only luncheons and trunk shows and “shopping for a cause” events. There were mommy coffees, and women-only dinners in lavish homes. There were even some girlfriend-only flyaway parties on private planes, where everyone packed and wore outfits the same color.
“It’s easier and more fun,” the women insisted when I asked about the sex segregation that defined their lives.
“We prefer it,” the men told me at a dinner party where husbands and wives sat at entirely different tables in entirely different rooms.
Sex segregation, I was told, was a “choice.” But like “choosing” not to work, or a Dogon woman in Mali’s “choosing” to go into a menstrual hut, it struck me as a state of affairs possibly giving clue to some deeper, meaningful reality while masquerading, like a reveler at the Save Venice ball the women attended every spring, as a simple preference.
And then, there's the wife bonus. I'd be curious to know if any DCUM moms get end of year bonuses?
A wife bonus, I was told, might be hammered out in a pre-nup or post-nup, and distributed on the basis of not only how well her husband’s fund had done but her own performance — how well she managed the home budget, whether the kids got into a “good” school — the same way their husbands were rewarded at investment banks. In turn these bonuses were a ticket to a modicum of financial independence and participation in a social sphere where you don’t just go to lunch, you buy a $10,000 table at the benefit luncheon a friend is hosting.
I somehow missed this. What's even more infuriating is that he got released on bail and was advised to get psychiatric evaluations while many Muslims are currently being detained, sitting in jail indefinitely on conspiracy charges without bail. Yet, this guy is not being called a terrorist and not much discussion about the case anywhere
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/failed-congressional-candidate-pleads-guilty-in-plot-to-massacre-muslims-we-will-be-cruel-to-them/
To all those denying islamophobia, would you call him a Christian terrorist since he is an ordained Christian National Church minister ? Not a lot of buzz about this, wonder what the news would look like if this was plotted by a Muslim? Oh and he remains free on bond and only faces up to 5 years if convicted.....
To all those denying islamophobia, would you call him a Christian terrorist since he is an ordained Christian National Church minister ? Not a lot of buzz about this, wonder what the news would look like if this was plotted by a Muslim? Oh and he remains free on bond and only faces up to 5 years if convicted.....
Our small group will soon be faced with the fight of our lives. We will offer those lives as collateral to prove our commitment to our God,” Doggart wrote in a Facebook post. “We shall be Warriors who will inflict horrible numbers of casualties upon the enemies of our Nation and World Peace.”
A federal judge granted his release on bond over the government’s objections as long as Doggart agreed not to use alcohol or pain medication and to undergo psychiatric evaluation for depression and an unspecified personality disorder.
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:Dude, Israelis don't want schwarzes around in the 'homeland'.
Israeli people HATE blacks like you wouldn't believe.
You have to separate your typical upper middle class ashkenazi jewish-american who isn't all that religious (and most probably athiest/agnostic) from israelis.
Most israelis act like the arabs they proclaim to be so different from.
What is that supposed to mean?
clannish, insular, dislike blacks, and not naturally accepting of western liberal thought/ideas/values.
Stereotypical much?
As someone who spent half of my life in Boston, I didn't expect the death penalty but can't say I was totally surprised due to the emotional nature of the trial, the horror of the bombing, and the effect this has had on Boston to this day. Some of the victims did want the death penalty so I guess there will be mixed emotions.
Anonymous wrote:Dude, Israelis don't want schwarzes around in the 'homeland'.
Israeli people HATE blacks like you wouldn't believe.
You have to separate your typical upper middle class ashkenazi jewish-american who isn't all that religious (and most probably athiest/agnostic) from israelis.
Most israelis act like the arabs they proclaim to be so different from.
What is that supposed to mean?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:jsteele wrote:Anonymous wrote:I do believe in fact, that Islam does kill gay men, that they support killing gay men, and that it is much more than a small minority that believe this to be ok.
These are your words. No argument, right? So, just drop your protestations that you only oppose "radical" Muslims. The words that you type clearly show that you attribute to an entire religion the deeds of a small minority. The vast majority of Muslims do not kill gay men and do not support killing gay men. This is a misrepresentation based in your Islamophobia.
Does the government of, say, Iran, prosecute the murder of gay individuals? How about Syria? The Washington Post had this to say:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-double-threat-for-gay-men-in-syria/2014/04/25/30117ee2-ca3a-11e3-a75e-463587891b57_story.html
it's not a 'phobia' to state the truth, that a particular religion has persecuted gays in countries that do not prosecute it, because they condone it.
It is, however, bigoted to minimize the horror gay individuals face in these countries. Congrats. You've earned it.
I believe you have conveniently forgotten the persecution gay men face from others as well. I'll just leave these here:
http://m.thenation.com/blog/179191-its-not-just-uganda-behind-christian-rights-onslaught-africa
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/04/pastor-calls-for-killing-gays-to-end-aids/19929973/
http://m.christianpost.com/news/bible-says-gays-should-be-executed-and-i-believe-every-word-says-arizona-pastor--99583/
Does that justify Islam's horrific track record re: gay people? I'd say no.
It doesn't justify it, no. But it should signify that you should not single out Islam as homophobic when other religions also have this issue. You can fight against homophobic regimes, nations, politics, but to single out Islam over other equally homophobic religions for that issue is just bigoted.
Some of the anti-Muslim posters have singled out Islam for their homophobic issues, despite the fact that it has been pointed out that these issues are common in other religions as well including Christianity (as illustrated above).
Some anti-Muslim posters have denounced Islam for FGM, yet the issue is not a religious issue. This is a practice that is common on the continent of Africa in multiple nations, many of which are Muslim, but also common in several other nations, including Christian ones.
The point is that yes, many Muslims have these deplorable practices, but these practices are not a part of their religion, but usually part of the culture or nation. Some of us are saying don't blame the religion for non-religious practices performed by some members. Otherwise it would be appropriate to blame all of Christianity for the deplorable behavior of the Westboro Baptist Church. Or for abortion house bombings.
Well said!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Muslim here, I knew the story was a big lie when they said he was buried at sea. Seriously?
Why?
Because it is very unlikely that they would care about his religion and go out of the I way to give him a burial in accordance with his religion.
Burial at sea?
https://youtu.be/6gGptMo8WeE
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So can anyone tell me how a First Amendment proponent can try to block a house of worship, of any religion, on private property? Even if you really, really, don't like the idea? Is there an exception to the First Amendment that I haven't heard of, one which makes Pam Geller something other than a hypocrite?
I'm all ears.
Wasn't the school using public funds?
Regarding the 'cultural center', the government did not try to block the house of worship. Those that protested it did so due to what they perceived as cultural insensitivity. That's their right by law.
HAHA what a dodge.
The question is whether Pam Geller is an advocate of the First Amendment, or whether she is an opponent of Islam. I gather you think she is the latter. A First Amendment advocate would not try to block someone from exercising their constitutional rights.
She is a very vocal opponent of radical Islam. She is not an opponent of Islam, much to the left's chagrin. I think sane people are opponents of radical Islam. Doesn't the first amendment give both of them the same rights? Or does it only count if you support those rights? Seems to me, you feel the latter.
By the way? If you think we should be upholding the rights of radical Islamists, you're insane.
Are you for real? Geller supports mass murder and praised the Norwegian terrorist who killed 77 people .
She justifies Breivik’s attack on the Norwegian Labour Party summer youth camp because she says the camp is part of an anti-Israel “indoctrination training center.” She says the victims would have grown up to become “future leaders of the party responsible for flooding Norway with Muslims who refuse to assimilate, who commit major violence against Norwegian natives including violent gang rapes, with impunity, and who live on the dole.”
To get her point across, Geller posts a picture of the youth camp children Breivik targeted. The picture was taken on the Utøya island camp about 24 hours before Breivik killed over 30 children, so it is likely Geller is mocking many of the victims. Under the picture, Geller writes: “Note the faces which are more MIddle [sic] Eastern or mixed than pure Norwegian.”
Source: http://dangerousminds.net/comments/muslim-hating_wingnut_pamela_geller_justifies_mass_murder_in_norway
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:OMG, Why do you care? I am not an Immigrant.
I care because you see fit to disparage this country and it makes me wonder why you don't move to the country of your ancestors. Wouldn't you be as free there?
Because being patriotic means to agree with what every other American is doing
Again, would you have the same freedoms in your own ancestral country that you have here? I can say, being of Russian heritage, that I would decidedly not. By realizing that, it makes me appreciate the freedoms I have here that much more.
Maybe if I were "allowed" to live in my ancestral country, I'd have something to compare to
Where my great grandparents hail from is irrelevant to this discussion. It is great that you are enjoying our American freedom and i stand for those some values and that is the reason why I can never support bigots and islamophobes like Pam Geller, not in my DNA or my upbringing. I value, embrace and adore my American Freedom, I have never said otherwise and don't know why you felt the need to bring it up? Being patriotic doesn't make you an imbecile who just nods, agrees and smiles at everything that your country does ....
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:OMG, Why do you care? I am not an Immigrant.
So you either do not live here in America, or you were born here. But if you were born here, then you would have said so outright.
Give it up! I have been asked this same question a zillion times on this forum and I stopped answering after the 100th time. Unless I show you my birth certificate, I wouldn't be American enough I guess, and even then you'd find a way to say it was fake.
Move the heck on !
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:OMG, Why do you care? I am not an Immigrant.
I care because you see fit to disparage this country and it makes me wonder why you don't move to the country of your ancestors. Wouldn't you be as free there?
Because being patriotic means to agree with what every other American is doing
OMG, Why do you care? I am not an Immigrant.
Anonymous wrote:jsteele wrote:Anonymous wrote:jsteele wrote:
Thank you, but I already knew the definition of "intifada".
There is no threatening letter.
According to YOU. According to others, it was threatening. Why on earth do you feel that because YOU see something one way, that it's the truth? You cannot possibly be that vain!
There is an easy way to solve this dilemma: link to the letter and quote the threatening part. The recipient of the letter did not find it threatening. Why would you care about whether or not a bunch of Islamophobes who hate Muslims are claiming it is threatening? The letter didn't even involve them
The part where he wrote about what's happened before when people have drawn Mohammed. Quite the warning. So in other words, back down or risk being attacked. And we, as Americans, are supposed to ...what....back down right? Because....racism....for drawing an image. I mean, who can blame them for attacking. We DREW THEIR PROPHET.
Wowwww, Im so scareddddddddddddddd.....