Three young women from the women’s rights group Femen were detained as they staged a topless protest in the Tunisian capital of Tunis – their first public stunt in the Arab world.
The spectacle culminated in scuffles outside the capital’s main courthouse, as the group’s one German and two French female members stood by the railings shouting the slogan “Free Amina,” in reference to the young Tunisian woman who was earlier arrested and is hours away from being tried for protesting the policies of hardline Islamists.
Wearing only skimpy denim shorts, their bodies bearing the inscriptions “Brest Feed Revolution” and “Femen Extremist”, the ladies were quickly snatched up by authorities and taken inside the courthouse, as journalists stood by, observing the scene.
Tunisia, being a socially conservative country, saw a number of witnesses, including lawyers, try to cover up the young women and attack some of the journalists, claiming they were giving the activists a platform for their antics. Once inside the building, the lawyers followed the police and the women, singing the country’s national anthem and shouting “Get out!” – the words often heard during Tunisia’s own Arab Spring of January 2011.
Six of the journalists (among them one from Reuters and another from France’s Canal+) were also detained, but let go after giving statements about the event.
"An inquiry has been opened and they will be placed under arrest and brought to trial," said the justice ministry’s spokesman to AFP, also noting that indecency in Tunisia is punishable by six months in prison, adding that the female activists will not escape trial.
Martine Gambard-Trebucien, the French consul in Tunisia, has testified to the women’s condition, telling the reporters they were “fine.”
"It is the first action that we have taken in the Arab world... I prepared this international team in Paris and they were sent yesterday to Tunis," said Femen leader Inna Shevchenko to AFP in a phone conversation. "These countries and these totalitarian regimes prey on women. We don't take any notice of this kind," she concluded.
Despite this being the first show of such action in the Arab world, some of the group’s most recent run-ins with police also included the Turkish capital, Istanbul.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and German Chancellor Angela Merkel also could not avoid getting an eyeful of bare-breasted protest at the Hannover Messe technology show in April of this year, whereupon the president later joyfully remarked to journalists, “We knew it was coming. You should thank the Ukrainian girls for helping you promote the fair.”
Two french and one german protester stage a protest outside their own countries with no support i can see from within the country itself. Were they just seeking attention for the case or actually hoping to fight it because likeliness of the latter actually happening seems negligible if best.
I support them because they're being non violent and if putting themselves at risk by taking their clothes off is what it takes to draw any attention to cases such as this woman being on trial for protesting against hard line Islamists, then good on them. They were non violent, which is more than can be said of the public reaction to them.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I support them because they're being non violent and if putting themselves at risk by taking their clothes off is what it takes to draw any attention to cases such as this woman being on trial for protesting against hard line Islamists, then good on them. They were non violent, which is more than can be said of the public reaction to them.
It would be better if they worked out a little more first though.
gak only six months in prison? They got off light, pulling gak like that in Muslim nations is a good way to get stoned or beheaded... you will also notice that Ms. Inna Shevchenko the brave and fearless leader of this little band of merry nudist protesters stayed safely out of the line of fire in Europe for this one. Despite it being such a vital protest and all.
While I applaud the sentiments of what they were trying to achieve (highlighting the plight of women in Tunisia) I can't help but feel that their PETA-esque stunts will end up doing more harm than good in the long run. These three ladies are now facing jail time for a stunt that will probably only serve to underscore who women can be immoral among certain members of the elite, and the religious leaders. This just makes it harder for less sensationalist protest later.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
notprop wrote: Funny that they did this is a part of the world where no media outlet will run anything like this sort of story, certainly not with images.
Did you miss the Daily Mail's coverage of FEMEN's stunt in Paris?
Tunesia seems like a good 'testing ground' for these kind of protests in the Arab world, I'd say. Just read a bit about Tunesia on wikipedia - while Islam is the official religion of the country, shari'a law was abandoned in 1958 and hasn't been reinstated in any way - until now.
However, it seems that after the revolution of 2011, salafist islamists gained power and attention. The biggest party in the government has some islamistic tendencies, and their secretary general held a speech about a "liberation of Tunesia" and a "sixth Caliphate". As soon as French journalists became worried about this tendency, anti-French paroles became popular...
So, it seems that Tunesia is one of the more moderate countries in the region, but on the way to become more islamic-conservative or even full hardline. I guess the protesters were halfway sure they'd "only" get prison or equivalent punishment and not an execution.
Edit: In 2012, the Tunesian constitution was supposed to be changed - the equality of man and woman should be "changed" into the woman "complementing" the man. This seems to be a plan by religious groups to get closer to an Islamic state, this proposal was actually also supported by one woman. However, many protested against this, and apparently there are now discussions about this Article 28.
Homosexuality, of course, is still punishable by 3 years in jail and all the beatings the cops like to apply...
notprop wrote: Funny that they did this is a part of the world where no media outlet will run anything like this sort of story, certainly not with images.
Did you miss the Daily Mail's coverage of FEMEN's stunt in Paris?
Nah, I caught that.
From mammary I felt the Paris demonstration was superior.
Howard A Treesong wrote:I support them because they're being non violent and if putting themselves at risk by taking their clothes off is what it takes to draw any attention to cases such as this woman being on trial for protesting against hard line Islamists, then good on them. They were non violent, which is more than can be said of the public reaction to them.
I agree.
notprop wrote:I may be becoming a little OCP in my old age but I approve that they ranked in both height and er...size.
I think you mean OCD. Becoming a little OCP is when you get implanted with cybernetics.
Sigvatr wrote: But how could anyone take them seriously?
I think that's the problem. They are setting out to highlight injustice and inequality for the women of Tunisia, but are doing it in such a way as to distract from the issues. With sensationalist protests such as this people more often remember the stunt than the cause.
Firehead158 wrote: I call dibs on the redhead in the middle. Just need to get her a tan, and tighten up that belly, and we're good to go.
Ya know, I don't discourage topless protests. Why can't the protestors be the girls from the Hooters calendar or something like that? Dumb hippies.
Are you a very beautiful man?
Oh, I am sure he has rippling six-pack abs and a flowing mane of hair so silken and luxurious that women fall to their knees when he passes them on the street. Yep. I am sure of it.
On topic, these women have a level of courage that I find inspiring. I am not applauding Femen, as I know very little about the organization other than they stage topless protests, but I do admire the personal courage and conviction of these three women protesting women's rights in an Islamic country where western laws have no sway. I hope they are not mistreated while in custody.
Sigvatr wrote: But how could anyone take them seriously?
I think that's the problem. They are setting out to highlight injustice and inequality for the women of Tunisia, but are doing it in such a way as to distract from the issues. With sensationalist protests such as this people more often remember the stunt than the cause.
I can't shake off the feeling that Femen is doing to feminism what PETA did to animal rights a decade ago: A huge disservice.
Sigvatr wrote: But how could anyone take them seriously?
I think that's the problem. They are setting out to highlight injustice and inequality for the women of Tunisia, but are doing it in such a way as to distract from the issues. With sensationalist protests such as this people more often remember the stunt than the cause.
I disagree. I think that this is exactly the kind of peaceful protest that is effective in highlighting the cause. After all, any reprimands or punishments given to them will clearly be based on the Sharia morality laws, which will serve as a perfect example of how injust those laws are.
Sigvatr wrote: But how could anyone take them seriously?
I think that's the problem. They are setting out to highlight injustice and inequality for the women of Tunisia, but are doing it in such a way as to distract from the issues. With sensationalist protests such as this people more often remember the stunt than the cause.
I can't shake off the feeling that Femen is doing to feminism what PETA did to animal rights a decade ago: A huge disservice.
Honestly, I do not see the comparison, other than that you might have a similar emotional reaction to both. Femen is trying to highlight inequalities through the use of a highly visible protest that is only outrageous when you view it through the lens of the very mindset they are protesting against. PETA, on the other hand, employs arson and kills your pets because of a feigned moral high ground.
Looking around the internet they've been mistreated by the public, there's a few photos of them covered in blood and being hit. It seems that some people can't help but react violently towards a provocative but non-violent form of protest. When you lash out with your fists instead of attempting to debate or simply ignore, then you merely appear thuggish and stupid, incapable of articulating an idea beyond attacking the opposing view. Femen also seem to be targeting islam in general for it's overt misogyny and inequality.
There are some muslim women speaking against Femen saying it's their right and their choice to dress the way they do. But I don't buy it. Firstly, although some are genuinely keen on that mode of dress, most muslim women dressing that way don't actually have the choice offered. If they had the choice, and were supported by muslim men to make that choice freely, it might be a different story. But they aren't given a reasonable choice. The second thing is that they are culturally conditioned from an early age to accept it as normal and expected. We are all conditioned to think certain things and act a certain way, people want things because they have been conditioned to want them. There are plenty of examples of this in all cultures, but muslim women covering themselves up is overtly a form of oppression, they are under expectation to do so by their culture, their parents, their husbands. When they want to wear the burka they want to adhere to a cultural/religious hegemony, they don't really have the freedom to choose. Women have fought, and still fight, for equal status in western societies (see the gender pay gap) but the gap between muslim men and women is so much wider. And when you look to some muslim countries, they are treated like chattel. If Femen keep getting attention and exposing the outrageous treatment of women in muslim societies it will be harder for us to ignore them. They might get some sniggers for getting their tits out, but the fact is that Tunisia has received very little coverage since the Arab Spring when we were supposed to believe that they were overthrowing their oppressive governments. Prior to this demonstration I hadn't heard of Amina, and had seen very little coverage of what the Tunisian government is not like since the revolution, and what there is, isn't very nice at all.
azazel the cat wrote: I disagree. I think that this is exactly the kind of peaceful protest that is effective in highlighting the cause. After all, any reprimands or punishments given to them will clearly be based on the Sharia morality laws, which will serve as a perfect example of how injust those laws are.
Yes, because we're all liable to forget about examples of Sharia like women being stoned to death for adultery, forced female genital mutilation etc. unless some Western women go to Tunisia and go to jail for a stunt masquerading as protest.
Tell me. Out of all the coverage of FEMEN protests what gets the most publicity and column inches, and what do most people remember - the issue, or the fact that they were topless? How much of an impact have their protests had to date? Are they being taken seriously, or are the issues they highlight receiving more long term attention and having more interest shown in a resolution?
azazel the cat wrote: Honestly, I do not see the comparison, other than that you might have a similar emotional reaction to both. Femen is trying to highlight inequalities through the use of a highly visible protest that is only outrageous when you view it through the lens of the very mindset they are protesting against. PETA, on the other hand, employs arson and kills your pets because of a feigned moral high ground.
Do PETA employ arson, or did they send funds to a person charged with arson? There is a difference there.
However the PETA comparison seems very apt in my opinion. Both groups employ protest methods that gain more publicity than the issues they wish to highlight, both are very sensationalist and both are seen as fringe groups with little actual impact other than grabbing the occasional headline for whatever stunt they have elected to pull for their most recent protest.
azazel the cat wrote: I disagree. I think that this is exactly the kind of peaceful protest that is effective in highlighting the cause. After all, any reprimands or punishments given to them will clearly be based on the Sharia morality laws, which will serve as a perfect example of how injust those laws are.
Yes, because we're all liable to forget about examples of Sharia like women being stoned to death for adultery, forced female genital mutilation etc. unless some Western women go to Tunisia and go to jail for a stunt masquerading as protest.
Tell me. Out of all the coverage of FEMEN protests what gets the most publicity and column inches, and what do most people remember - the issue, or the fact that they were topless? How much of an impact have their protests had to date? Are they being taken seriously, or are the issues they highlight receiving more long term attention and having more interest shown in a resolution?
As a matter of fact, we unfortunately *are* likely to forget those examples, because they get basically zero coverage in the media. However, some Western women going to jail in Tunisia is the equivalent of a white girl going missing in the Caribbean.
As far as what it remembered, I cannot say for certain. Time will tell. However, I suspect that more people will remember the event, at least, of which at least a fraction will remember the issue. However, if they were not topless, I doubt this would have even made it to the OT board, and thus nobody would remember the stunt, and thus nobody would remember the cause, either.
Femen has found a non-violent and succinct way to grab sensationalist headlines in order to publicize their cause. I commend them for that.
azazel the cat wrote: Do PETA employ arson, or did they send funds to a person charged with arson? There is a difference there.
Senior members of PETA have been demonstrated to endorse arson. Coupled with funding a known arsonist before and after the commission of an act of arson, I'd say that's as much "employing" arson as you can get without actually shrieking "I am employing arson as a method of protest!" whilst running down the street with a gas can.
azazel the cat wrote: As a matter of fact, we unfortunately *are* likely to forget those examples, because they get basically zero coverage in the media. However, some Western women going to jail in Tunisia is the equivalent of a white girl going missing in the Caribbean.
As far as what it remembered, I cannot say for certain. Time will tell. However, I suspect that more people will remember the event, at least, of which at least a fraction will remember the issue. However, if they were not topless, I doubt this would have even made it to the OT board, and thus nobody would remember the stunt, and thus nobody would remember the cause, either.
Femen has found a non-violent and succinct way to grab sensationalist headlines in order to publicize their cause. I commend them for that.
Sounds just like PETA's modus operandi.... With most of the media attention on the stunt itself rather than the reason for the stunt. Great for short term publicity, not so good for long term solutions. All this achieved was to get three FEMEN protesters arrested and their pictures in the headlines. It hasn't done anything to advance the equality of women's rights in Tunisia, rather it has given more conservative elements ammunition not to address gender inequality and plenty of reason not to pay attention to overtures from the decadent West.
Your mileage may vary, some of us are under no illusions of what life can be like under Sharia and do not need attention grabbing stunts to remind us and act as a distraction
azazel the cat wrote: Senior members of PETA have been demonstrated to endorse arson. Coupled with funding a known arsonist before and after the commission of an act of arson, I'd say that's as much "employing" arson as you can get without actually shrieking "I am employing arson as a method of protest!" whilst running down the street with a gas can.
It was my understanding that they funded the arsonist's legal defense when he was charged, not that they paid him in advance.
Ingrid Newkirk (born June 11, 1949) is an English-born British American animal rights activist and the president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, also known as PETA, which is the world's largest animal rights organization. . .
Newkirk has been criticized for publicizing actions carried out in the name of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). She supports the goals of the ALF, arguing that "Not until black demonstrators resorted to violence did the national government work seriously for civil rights legislation ... In 1850 white abolitionists, having given up on peaceful means, began to encourage and engage in actions that disrupted plantation operations and liberated slaves. Was that all wrong?"[7] She has said that she understands, but shrinks from, actions that involve arson:
"I do support getting animals out in the same way I would have supported getting human slaves out, child labor, sex slaves, the whole lot. But I don’t support burning. I don’t support arson. I would rather that these buildings weren’t standing, so on some level I understand. I just don’t like the idea of that. Maybe that is wishy-washy of me, because I don’t want those buildings standing if they are going to hurt anyone. And the ALF has never hurt mice nor mare."[21] She has been accused of having had advance knowledge of one ALF action. During the 1995 trial of Rod Coronado, in connection with an arson attack at Michigan State University (MSU), U.S. Attorney Michael Dettmer alleged that Newkirk had arranged, in advance of the attack, to have Coronado send her stolen documents from the university and a videotape of the action
So while accused of it almost 20 years ago there is nothing to suggest that she had advanced knowledge of the crime, nor that she condoned it.
Newkirk commented to the Chronicle of Higher Education in 1999, "When you see the resistance to basic humane treatment and to the acknowledgment of animals' social needs, I find it small wonder that the laboratories aren't all burning to the ground. If I had more guts, I'd light a match."
And all of this stands, of course, as rank hypocrisy given that PETA's own animal shelter in Florida euthanized so many animals (something like 95%) that the government tried to force them to re-label it as a euthanization clinic.
Anyway, Femen's protest, I think, is effective because it clearly demonstrates the difference of rights between women and men; that is, men would not be arrested for standing around without shirts. Women, however, are. All Femen are doing is making noise while placing that hypocrisy on display in public. If PETA were to do something similar, it would require something akin to butchering a chicken in the middle of the street so that everyone can see what it looks like. However, even then it would be questionable as the laws against butchering in public are rooted in sanitation, not morality, as they are with the Femen protests. And also, butchering animals shouldn't deter people from eating them (but maybe that's just me as I'm not so far removed that I fail to understand where my food comes from).
Newkirk commented to the Chronicle of Higher Education in 1999, "When you see the resistance to basic humane treatment and to the acknowledgment of animals' social needs, I find it small wonder that the laboratories aren't all burning to the ground. If I had more guts, I'd light a match."
PETA funds a number of activists and groups—some with links to militant groups, including the ALF, which the FBI has named as a domestic terrorist threat.
So PETA does not have direct links with the ALF. But it funds activists who then in turn have links with the group. Again, in the strict sense PETA can say that they maintained a distance from criminal activities and had no say on where the funds went after they were donated to another group.
Generally speaking, a conspiracy is an agreement by two or more persons to commit a criminal act or series of criminal acts, or to accomplish a legal act by unlawful means.
[A] The Agreement
[1] Common law – At common law, a conspiracy need not be based on an express agreement. Furthermore, an agreement can exist although not all of the parties to it have knowledge of every detail of the arrangement, as long as each party is aware of its essential nature. [Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U.S. 539, 557–58 (1947)] Moreover, a "conspiracy may exist even if a conspirator does not agree to commit or facilitate each and every part of the substantive offense."[Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 63 (1997)] It is enough that each person agrees, at a minimum, to commit or facilitate some of the acts leading to the substantive crime.
[2] Model Penal Code – Four types of agreement fall within the definition of conspiracy. A person is guilty of conspiracy if he agrees to:
1.) commit an offense;
2.) attempt to commit an offense;
3.) solicit another to commit an offense; or
4.) aid another person in the planning or commission of the offense.
azazel the cat wrote: Anyway, Femen's protest, I think, is effective because it clearly demonstrates the difference of rights between women and men; that is, men would not be arrested for standing around without shirts. Women, however, are. All Femen are doing is making noise while placing that hypocrisy on display in public. If PETA were to do something similar, it would require something akin to butchering a chicken in the middle of the street so that everyone can see what it looks like. However, even then it would be questionable as the laws against butchering in public are rooted in sanitation, not morality, as they are with the Femen protests. And also, butchering animals shouldn't deter people from eating them (but maybe that's just me as I'm not so far removed that I fail to understand where my food comes from).
I'll be honest here Azzy, your argument comes across as a little disjointed.
I think you missed the point of my comparison with PETA. Of course, Femen's action is far less harmful than the violent acts of quasi-terrorism commited in PETA's name. But now think of how that reckless violence ended up being used to paint a legitimate cause, the ethical treatment of animals, in a negative light. With their actions, they caused more harm than they wanted to avert.
Associating feminism with reckless attitudes towards morality and sex is a dangerous stunt to pull in a socially-backwards country that's struggling with a delicate political transition. I'm worried that Femen's untimely, uncalled for action might spark a moral panic that ends up taking its toll on the budding northern african feminist and secularist movements, handing off free rhetorical ammunition to the religious extremists. The entire problem is further agravated by the fact that the three activists detained in Tunisia are europeans. Islamists and other traditionalist factions (secular nationalists can be as harsh in this issue as their opponents) have usually painted feminism as a western import, harmful to morality, decency and national values. With their stunt, Femen have made the Tunisian feminists' future a bit bleaker: From now on, they're not just women with outreageously modern views on their role on society, but also potential foreign sympathizers or even enemy agents.
Don't forget that Tunisia is a former Western colony and nationalist, anti-imperialist sentiments still run high. Opponents of secularism and modernization will surely resort to them to rally supporters to their cause.
And then there's Sharia. Femen activists have been beaten by the police, incarcerated and ridiculed by the governmental media in Ukraine and Russia. They were chased and vexed by an angry mob in the Vatican and France. You don't need Sharia to have injustice and brutality but one thing I concede: Femen's actions expose the irrationally brutal nature of the regimes and organizations they protest against. But then again, we already know that.
I admit, I was ashamed at their protest in France. Mocking Catholic imagery was NOT the way to show the french religous/identitarian conservatives that gay marriage doesn't pose a threat to their customs and beliefs. For the very same reasons, I'm irked at their actions in Tunisia.
Firehead158 wrote: I call dibs on the redhead in the middle. Just need to get her a tan, and tighten up that belly, and we're good to go.
Ya know, I don't discourage topless protests. Why can't the protestors be the girls from the Hooters calendar or something like that? Dumb hippies.
Are you a very beautiful man?
Oh, I am sure he has rippling six-pack abs and a flowing mane of hair so silken and luxurious that women fall to their knees when he passes them on the street. Yep. I am sure of it.
Other than the hair, describes me perfectly. Only hippies have long hair.
...but it was a joke. I was objectifying women. At least they shaved their pits.
Agent_Tremolo wrote: I can't shake off the feeling that Femen is doing to feminism what PETA did to animal rights a decade ago: A huge disservice.
I would compare them to Anonymous, not PETA. Yes, both PETA and Femen have cottoned onto the idea that female nudity gets attention, but nobody hates PETA because they convince attractive women to take their clothes off for the cause. I compare them to Anonymous because they protest a variety of things, some of them good, some of them bad, that makes it hard to support the organisation as a whole. They seem to be defined by a tactic, not an objective.
azazel the cat wrote: Anyway, Femen's protest, I think, is effective because it clearly demonstrates the difference of rights between women and men; that is, men would not be arrested for standing around without shirts. Women, however, are. All Femen are doing is making noise while placing that hypocrisy on display in public. If PETA were to do something similar, it would require something akin to butchering a chicken in the middle of the street so that everyone can see what it looks like. However, even then it would be questionable as the laws against butchering in public are rooted in sanitation, not morality, as they are with the Femen protests. And also, butchering animals shouldn't deter people from eating them (but maybe that's just me as I'm not so far removed that I fail to understand where my food comes from).
I'll be honest here Azzy, your argument comes across as a little disjointed.
How is it disjointed? Honest question; it seems straightforward to me.
And yes, PETA does have direct links to both ALF and ELF in that PETA has directly funded both groups in the past, not only in lawyer's fees, but also in the form of grants and in at least one instance, a flat payout.
azazel the cat wrote: How is it disjointed? Honest question; it seems straightforward to me.
You start off with a comparison of the physical characteristics of the male and female body, which seems like a distraction from the issue and largely immaterial to the discussion as you're attempting to imply Western standards on a non-Western country where the protest was heard (even though a bare chested FEMEN protester was arrested in Paris, although we have yet to find out if her lack of attire was a contributing factor). You then attempt to liken a women exposing her breasts in a cheap political stunt to the public slaughter of an animal (conflating non-violent and violent actions), and then have a quick mention of morality vs sanitation (again appearing to rely on Western standards). Finally you close with people needing to know where their meat comes from. I'm sorry but that read like a series of ideas that didn't seem anything other than tangentially related at best. Maybe it just needed developed more, or a common thread better established.
azazel the cat wrote: And yes, PETA does have direct links to both ALF and ELF in that PETA has directly funded both groups in the past, not only in lawyer's fees, but also in the form of grants and in at least one instance, a flat payout.
Were this "payout" before or after the crime? I'm aware that PETA contributed to ALF's defense after the fact, but that was almost 30 years ago with no evidence to suggest (must less charge) for criminal conspiracy
Sounds just like PETA's modus operandi.... With most of the media attention on the stunt itself rather than the reason for the stunt. Great for short term publicity, not so good for long term solutions.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how demonstrations work.
They are not meant to communicate an explicit message, they are meant to attract attention to a given organization (and therefore the Causes they endorse) such that observers will then do further research. Of course most people won't do that research, but that's just the nature of humanity.
dogma wrote: You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how demonstrations work.
They are not meant to communicate an explicit message, they are meant to attract attention to a given organization (and therefore the Causes they endorse) such that observers will then do further research. Of course most people won't do that research, but that's just the nature of humanity.
They also will not do their research if they indulge in tactics that alienate the general public, or those that they seek to aid.
Clearly you and I have a fundamental difference in our understanding as to how we believe a demonstration should work (although I will thank you for not trying to attribute it to my being an immigrant this time). I believe the following;
- Demonstrations are a great way to gain public attention for an issue
- The issue that are being highlighted should be easily communicable
- The issue should be presented in such a way as to appeal to a wide audience
- It should be done in a reasonably mature manner so as to engage with as many members of the public as possible, without alienating them
- That any demonstration should leave the audience better informed about the issue, and why it is being protested, than just simply getting attention for your group.
- That there is such a thing as bad publicity
- The demonstration should make the possibility for future discussion of the issue more likely, not less likely
- If you have to rely upon cheap publicity it is likely that it is your group, rather than the issue, that gets attention. This in turn distracts people from the issue itself. If your protest is tasteless enough then the issue may suffer from guilt by association
The goal that FEMEN set out to achieve was to highlight the plight of women in Tunisia. The result of their protest is that more people are talking about the group than the issue that they wanted, and they have likely harmed any discourse on women's rights by thumbing their noses at local traditions. It's hard to change the minds of people to your perspective if they are of the opinion that you are insulting them and their culture (which can be very important in some countries). Never mind that conservative elements can now point to the decadent West and it's values as a warning against what will happen if un-Islamic values flourish. Are you still of the opinion that this was a successful demonstration? How about the one in Paris? Again, there was more coverage of the group that the issue being demonstrated there.
Remind me again though just how successful PETA have been in recent years, in part because of their overblown stunts that have alienated the public.
azazel the cat wrote: How is it disjointed? Honest question; it seems straightforward to me.
You start off with a comparison of the physical characteristics of the male and female body, which seems like a distraction from the issue and largely immaterial to the discussion as you're attempting to imply Western standards on a non-Western country where the protest was heard (even though a bare chested FEMEN protester was arrested in Paris, although we have yet to find out if her lack of attire was a contributing factor). You then attempt to liken a women exposing her breasts in a cheap political stunt to the public slaughter of an animal (conflating non-violent and violent actions), and then have a quick mention of morality vs sanitation (again appearing to rely on Western standards). Finally you close with people needing to know where their meat comes from. I'm sorry but that read like a series of ideas that didn't seem anything other than tangentially related at best. Maybe it just needed developed more, or a common thread better established.
Fair enough. Allow me to explain:
My point is that the reason Femen as protesting, is the enequal treatment that women receive in the Islamist world, which is most strictly demonstrated in the form of its moral-based laws. (hence, the "feth your morals" slogans). By protesting topless, Femen is clearly demonstrating this inequality, as if men were to perform the same action, they would likely not be punished, as there are no laws against men going shirtless that I am aware of. This protest serves two purposes: first, as outlined, it serves to highlight this inequality. And second, it draws attention to a peaceful protest because, well, breasts.
Now, if PETA wanted to make a statement that was both shocking (in the sense that it grabs headlines) and peaceful, then they would likely need to do something similar to Femen, in the sense that Femen is making a scene of disobeying an unjust law in public (and thus demonstrating that law's injustice. So for PETA, this would likely need to be something along the lines of butchering an animal publicly, in order to draw awareness of how animals are slaughtered for our consumption. However, I digress, as even that would likely not have the same substance beyond the shock & awe effect; as the laws against butchering in public (which is what PETA would be breaking) are not based in morality (and thus arbitrary and unjust) but rather are based around sanitation (and thus likely very just and appropriate). The bit about "where food comes from" was entirely an aside, trying to explain why the butchering would be shocking.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
azazel the cat wrote: And yes, PETA does have direct links to both ALF and ELF in that PETA has directly funded both groups in the past, not only in lawyer's fees, but also in the form of grants and in at least one instance, a flat payout.
Were this "payout" before or after the crime? I'm aware that PETA contributed to ALF's defense after the fact, but that was almost 30 years ago with no evidence to suggest (must less charge) for criminal conspiracy
Coronado received a monetary grant from PETA, and after committing arson, his father received a flat payout for no reason other than (speculation, but not far reaching here) it would look very bad for PETA to pay the arsonist directly.
Firehead158 wrote: I call dibs on the redhead in the middle. Just need to get her a tan, and tighten up that belly, and we're good to go.
Ya know, I don't discourage topless protests. Why can't the protestors be the girls from the Hooters calendar or something like that? Dumb hippies.
Are you a very beautiful man?
Oh, I am sure he has rippling six-pack abs and a flowing mane of hair so silken and luxurious that women fall to their knees when he passes them on the street. Yep. I am sure of it.
Other than the hair, describes me perfectly. Only hippies have long hair.
...but it was a joke. I was objectifying women. At least they shaved their pits.
Keep fighting the good fight. Gotta keep those Hooters wings flowing and the hippies at bay. Amirite, bro?
I bow to your sophisticated taste in cuisine and women, especially since such paragons of their classes can be found under the same grease-stained roof. That is just genius masquerading as a simple economy of choice. Wings and peroxide? Fried pickles and shimmering pantyhose? All in one place? Perfection. But, all of that pales in comparison of your rapier wit and cutting sense of humor which, as your previous posts demonstrate, is a shining light in this drab, unfunny world. You have brought humor to the situation of women's rights and given us all an example to aspire to. I am truly moved and feel shame for even beginning to question your profound insight into the world of gender discrimination, humor, and depilation.
Consider me schooled as I wander off to sulk and think about how you are truly a god among men.
azazel the cat wrote: Fair enough. Allow me to explain:
My point is that the reason Femen as protesting, is the enequal treatment that women receive in the Islamist world, which is most strictly demonstrated in the form of its moral-based laws. (hence, the "feth your morals" slogans). By protesting topless, Femen is clearly demonstrating this inequality, as if men were to perform the same action, they would likely not be punished, as there are no laws against men going shirtless that I am aware of. This protest serves two purposes: first, as outlined, it serves to highlight this inequality. And second, it draws attention to a peaceful protest because, well, breasts.
Now, if PETA wanted to make a statement that was both shocking (in the sense that it grabs headlines) and peaceful, then they would likely need to do something similar to Femen, in the sense that Femen is making a scene of disobeying an unjust law in public (and thus demonstrating that law's injustice. So for PETA, this would likely need to be something along the lines of butchering an animal publicly, in order to draw awareness of how animals are slaughtered for our consumption. However, I digress, as even that would likely not have the same substance beyond the shock & awe effect; as the laws against butchering in public (which is what PETA would be breaking) are not based in morality (and thus arbitrary and unjust) but rather are based around sanitation (and thus likely very just and appropriate). The bit about "where food comes from" was entirely an aside, trying to explain why the butchering would be shocking.
Ok, that is slightly easier to follow. I still find the premise about the difference between men and women's physiology and the effect on the law regarding exposure above the waist a distraction as many Western countries also prohibit females from exposing their breasts in public, except under certain situations. So there isn't a firm Western consensus on the issue.
The fact that FEMEN thought that the best way to show the inequality of women in Tunisia was to say that women can't go topless when men can comes across as very ignorant of some of the more real and serious problems that women can face under Sharia law - female genital mutilation, so-called honor killings, being stoned to death for adultery (or in some instances rape), having fewer inheritance rights, having their word count for less than a man's etc. Also they are dealing with a religious faith that can be very conservative and distrustful of Western ideas. Turning up unannounced and showing massive disrespect for the customs of the country they are protesting in does not help those being repressed achieve equality. What it has done instead is give a conservative faith and it's adherents even more reason not to give women equality (or even to move towards a more liberal society), as they may see the protest as an example of what happens when they do.
Judging by much of the reaction the only real recipient of attention was FEMEN, rather than the issue that they wanted to highlight. Again, very similar to the results that PETA manage to obtain with stunts such as;
- veggie sex Superbowl commercial
- comparing meat eaters to Nazis/serial killers
- BDSM protest over cows
- naked female BBQ with the "Meat Is Murder" slogan
- breast milk ice cream
And none of these stunts in a liberal Western democracy have garnered much public support. FEMEN's stunt in a much less tolerant country just looks even more ill advised and publicity seeking than a constructive attempt to highlight the issue
azazel the cat wrote: Coronado received a monetary grant from PETA, and after committing arson, his father received a flat payout for no reason other than (speculation, but not far reaching here) it would look very bad for PETA to pay the arsonist directly.
So was this entirely after the fact and with no evidence to suggest that it was for services rendered? Everything I have read suggested no direct link between PETA and ALF (as I showed above), I was unaware that there was a direct link, have you a source for this?
azazel the cat wrote: Fair enough. Allow me to explain:
My point is that the reason Femen as protesting, is the enequal treatment that women receive in the Islamist world, which is most strictly demonstrated in the form of its moral-based laws. (hence, the "feth your morals" slogans). By protesting topless, Femen is clearly demonstrating this inequality, as if men were to perform the same action, they would likely not be punished, as there are no laws against men going shirtless that I am aware of. This protest serves two purposes: first, as outlined, it serves to highlight this inequality. And second, it draws attention to a peaceful protest because, well, breasts.
Now, if PETA wanted to make a statement that was both shocking (in the sense that it grabs headlines) and peaceful, then they would likely need to do something similar to Femen, in the sense that Femen is making a scene of disobeying an unjust law in public (and thus demonstrating that law's injustice. So for PETA, this would likely need to be something along the lines of butchering an animal publicly, in order to draw awareness of how animals are slaughtered for our consumption. However, I digress, as even that would likely not have the same substance beyond the shock & awe effect; as the laws against butchering in public (which is what PETA would be breaking) are not based in morality (and thus arbitrary and unjust) but rather are based around sanitation (and thus likely very just and appropriate). The bit about "where food comes from" was entirely an aside, trying to explain why the butchering would be shocking.
Ok, that is slightly easier to follow. I still find the premise about the difference between men and women's physiology and the effect on the law regarding exposure above the waist a distraction as many Western countries also prohibit females from exposing their breasts in public, except under certain situations. So there isn't a firm Western consensus on the issue.
The fact that FEMEN thought that the best way to show the inequality of women in Tunisia was to say that women can't go topless when men can comes across as very ignorant of some of the more real and serious problems that women can face under Sharia law - female genital mutilation, so-called honor killings, being stoned to death for adultery (or in some instances rape), having fewer inheritance rights, having their word count for less than a man's etc. Also they are dealing with a religious faith that can be very conservative and distrustful of Western ideas. Turning up unannounced and showing massive disrespect for the customs of the country they are protesting in does not help those being repressed achieve equality. What it has done instead is give a conservative faith and it's adherents even more reason not to give women equality (or even to move towards a more liberal society), as they may see the protest as an example of what happens when they do.
Well, the fact that it's also a problem of inequality in many Western nations does not alleviate the fact that it is a problem in the Islamic world. While you do bring up several good point, of which I agree with most, if not all, I think that this particular protest action is more effective because it does not detract from awareness of problems like genital mutilation, and I fail to see how you think otherwise, beyond the fallacy of believing that Femen is harming awareness of a more serious issue by focusing on a less serious one. That would be like saying we are hindering our ability to find a cure for AIDS by also trying to find a cure for Diabetes.
With regards to the disrespect of the local customs, that is also the point: the local customers should be disrespected because they endorse inequality. Respecting the local customs is to maintain the status quo. Would you have insisted that Europeans visiting in the US in the 19th century buy some slaves in order to respect the local customs? Or would you consider that to be an unjust practice that is not worthy of being respected by foreigners? I do understand the point you make about giving the hardline conservative fundamentalists fuel for their fire; I just happen to think that placating douchebags is not the right course of action.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
azazel the cat wrote: Coronado received a monetary grant from PETA, and after committing arson, his father received a flat payout for no reason other than (speculation, but not far reaching here) it would look very bad for PETA to pay the arsonist directly.
So was this entirely after the fact and with no evidence to suggest that it was for services rendered? Everything I have read suggested no direct link between PETA and ALF (as I showed above), I was unaware that there was a direct link, have you a source for this?
No, I have no hard evidence directly linking it; it is entirely circumstantial. If there was direct evidence it was for services rendered, then PETA would be listed as a domestic terrorist group just like ALF. However, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law is a higher standard than I personally require when it comes to PETA. While I'm sure PETA did not receive a receipt for "1 count of arson", it is my belief that PETA's grant given to Coronado, coupled with his previous issues teaching how to construct incendiary bombs and preaching for their use, followed by the payout to Coronado's father, and augmented by the philosophy of PETA's co-founder is more than enough to say that PETA endorsed his acts of arson.
There are running conspiracy theories that many animal rights extremists used PETA to fund more extreme individuals and groups in the animal rights movement back in the 90's. However PETA has been heavily restructured over the last ten years internally and I don't think people talk much about that happening anymore.
azazel the cat wrote: Ok, that is slightly easier to follow. I still find the premise about the difference between men and women's physiology and the effect on the law regarding exposure above the waist a distraction as many Western countries also prohibit females from exposing their breasts in public, except under certain situations. So there isn't a firm Western consensus on the issue.
The fact that FEMEN thought that the best way to show the inequality of women in Tunisia was to say that women can't go topless when men can comes across as very ignorant of some of the more real and serious problems that women can face under Sharia law - female genital mutilation, so-called honor killings, being stoned to death for adultery (or in some instances rape), having fewer inheritance rights, having their word count for less than a man's etc. Also they are dealing with a religious faith that can be very conservative and distrustful of Western ideas. Turning up unannounced and showing massive disrespect for the customs of the country they are protesting in does not help those being repressed achieve equality. What it has done instead is give a conservative faith and it's adherents even more reason not to give women equality (or even to move towards a more liberal society), as they may see the protest as an example of what happens when they do.
Well, the fact that it's also a problem of inequality in many Western nations does not alleviate the fact that it is a problem in the Islamic world. While you do bring up several good point, of which I agree with most, if not all, I think that this particular protest action is more effective because it does not detract from awareness of problems like genital mutilation, and I fail to see how you think otherwise, beyond the fallacy of believing that Femen is harming awareness of a more serious issue by focusing on a less serious one. That would be like saying we are hindering our ability to find a cure for AIDS by also trying to find a cure for Diabetes.
With regards to the disrespect of the local customs, that is also the point: the local customers should be disrespected because they endorse inequality. Respecting the local customs is to maintain the status quo. Would you have insisted that Europeans visiting in the US in the 19th century buy some slaves in order to respect the local customs? Or would you consider that to be an unjust practice that is not worthy of being respected by foreigners? I do understand the point you make about giving the hardline conservative fundamentalists fuel for their fire; I just happen to think that placating douchebags is not the right course of action.
I'm not claiming that the inequality in Western nations prevents action in other cultures.
The problem is that this form of protest makes it difficult for reformers generally. When you try and change cultural values you cannot do it just by turning up, baring your chest and spitting on local customs and traditions. Especially in a part of the world which places a large emphasis on these, and does not have the same standard of education for much of the population. This should be obvious from the failures to set up democratic states in Afghanistan and Iraq by tearing down the existing power structures and replacing them with something new. It is very difficult to force a cultural change unless the culture itself embraces it. The phrase "You catch more bees with honey than vinegar" is apt here.
To a Western Liberal perspective are the attitudes towards women enshrined in Sharia appalling? Absolutely. But our view is shaped by our culture, our history, our education, our laws, and our traditions. You cannot just export that and change a country overnight. Change is gradual, and sometimes frustratingly slowly. But you need the buy in of people in power. And that means religious and cultural leader. That hugely important in the region, otherwise it looks like plain old cultural imperialism. Once you start getting religious and cultural leaders on board and agreeing with your message then you can start sidelining and marginalising those with more repressive views.
This sort of long term engagement in the region, and understanding that it is a long term project with many nuances and many bridges that need built is exactly what is needed. Doing something inflammatory and alienating the people you need (one of the pictures appears to show a FEMEN protestor being assaulted by a lady in strict Islamic clothing) is not constructive.
I think there's room for multiple approaches. If a small minority of people acting against misogynistic practices and attitudes are confrontational and offensive, maybe the more reasonable and moderate folks will be welcomed a bit more easily.
They also will not do their research if they indulge in tactics that alienate the general public, or those that they seek to aid.
Most demonstrations will alienate most people most of the time as, in general, people prefer to act as they always have. Demonstrations like the Femen protest in question aren't necessarily meant to communicate a particular issue in detail, but to arouse curiosity that is sufficient to cause investigation by an arbitrary number of people.
This is an especially effective method of demonstration when the issue is not, as you say, easily communicable.
It's hard to change the minds of people to your perspective if they are of the opinion that you are insulting them and their culture (which can be very important in some countries). Never mind that conservative elements can now point to the decadent West and it's values as a warning against what will happen if un-Islamic values flourish.
Any public action involving women's rights in the Middle East, North Africa, or Central Asia is almost certain to involve de facto insults to the relevant culture. There's simply no way around it.
Well, unless its Turkey or Israel.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Are you still of the opinion that this was a successful demonstration? How about the one in Paris? Again, there was more coverage of the group that the issue being demonstrated there.
One, rather effective, method of protest is to attract attention to your organization and then, by proxy, the issue* you intend to highlight.
dogma wrote: Most demonstrations will alienate most people most of the time as, in general, people prefer to act as they always have. Demonstrations like the Femen protest in question aren't necessarily meant to communicate a particular issue in detail, but to arouse curiosity that is sufficient to cause investigation by an arbitrary number of people.
This is an especially effective method of demonstration when the issue is not, as you say, easily communicable.
The problem is that they did not communicate the issue in any detail. They exposed their breasts and showed body paint that said "F**k Your Morals". That's not communicating an issue, that's not highlighting inequality. It's real life trolling. They got a little publicity for their actions (not not the issue) but will likely not help further discussion in the country. Any moderate trying to push for equality now has to distance themselves from that or risk guilt by association. That benefits no one except those who favour the status quo
And what part of equality is difficult to communicate? Is there nothing in the Koran to support it? What about the hadatitha? Have no religious leaders issued fatwas in favour of women?
-"The best among you is the one who is the best towards his wife" - Qur'an 4:127
-'He who believes in Allah and the Hereafter, if he witnesses any matter he should talk in good terms about it or keep quiet. Act kindly towards woman, for woman is created from a rib, and the most crooked part of the rib is its top. If you attempt to straighten it, you will break it, and if you leave it, its crookedness will remain there. So act kindly towards women" - Hadith - Muslim, #3468
-"A woman acts for the people" - Hadith - Al-Tirmidhi #3978
-"A man came to Allah's Apostle and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Who is more entitled to be treated with the best companionship by me?" The Prophet said, "Your mother." The man said. "Who is next?" The Prophet said, "Your mother." The man further said, "Who is next?" The Prophet said, "Your mother." The man asked for the fourth time, "Who is next?" The Prophet said, "Your father."" - Hadith - Bukhari 8.2
It seems to me that these are so much easier to communicate and get attention for driving equality than what FEMEN actually did. Again, its difficult to change a culture if you alienate the people who adhere to it.
dogma wrote: Any public action involving women's rights in the Middle East, North Africa, or Central Asia is almost certain to involve de facto insults to the relevant culture. There's simply no way around it.
Well, unless its Turkey or Israel.
There is a difference between unintentional insults, which can be forgiven much easier, and a situation were someone sets out to deliberately offend. For every action there is a reaction. If someone insults a culture without offering a constructive alternative (and also demonstrating for hardline elements why they do not favour equality) then they are not giving people a reason to engage with them or take them seriously.
dogma wrote: One, rather effective, method of protest is to attract attention to your organization and then, by proxy, the issue* you intend to highlight.
So, yes.
So they got short term publicity for their group, and progressed the debate not one iota. Again showing that they value self publicity over the meaningful progression of the issues they claim to raise
dogma wrote: They still take in quite a few donations.
It is important to remember that, when you operate as an NPO, you need to consider what your demonstrations will do for your bottom line.
You didn't answer the question unless you are measuring a protest group's success by the fact that they can raise money. There are many groups that can do that. PETA have not advanced the cause of animal rights in any meaningful way. In fact the general reaction to PETA now is to see what stunt they are pulling, chuckle/face palm as appropriate and go back to ignoring them as anything other than a source of occasional cheap laughs and wonder how anyone can support them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote: I think there's room for multiple approaches. If a small minority of people acting against misogynistic practices and attitudes are confrontational and offensive, maybe the more reasonable and moderate folks will be welcomed a bit more easily.
I agree that there is room for multiple approaches, provided that they are constructive and advance the cause. I can't help but think that what FEMEN has done will only give the conservatives ammunition and more reason not to permit equality.
I think the issue for Femen is that doing this in the Middle East may be pointless at the moment. People outside of Tunisia know exactly what they're protesting and should be able to identify the inequality. But people outside Tunisia generally don't have the power to do much more than boo. The people within Tunisia, are unlikely to be swayed imo by their protest making it ineffective at achieving actual change. Governments of the western world already voice occasional disapproval of the treatment of women in many Middle Eastern and North African countries, but they're not gonna invade over the issue or put much pressure on the Tunisian government I don't think just cause some girls went topless.
JWhex wrote: Those women were actually quite brave pulling that stunt in Arab country.
They have bigger balls than the people making light of them in this thread.
U even heresy bro?
I honestly cannot figure out what your reply means? Can you please clarify.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Dreadclaw69.
You pulled some quotations from the Koran but the fact is I can quote many passages from the Koran that are used to keep women oppressed and chattel as well. The important fact that you are either oblivious to or being disengenuous about is that in the repressive Muslim societies it is the passages that are hateful against women that are selectively emphasized and enable women to be treated as chattel.
Your incredibly naive argument may sound credible on a forum because a lot of Americans are of course not well read about the Koran. The Koran is organized by chapter length but as the Prophet became older his writings reflected more and more intolerance. He was an admirable husband to his first wife and even a business partner to her but later on he became extremely intolerant of other religions and hateful toward women.
You bring up the Hadiths which really shows how little you know about things. It is the hadiths, the Koran and to a lesser extent fatwas that form the basis of the repressive system of Shariah law. If you are going to start quoting Hadiths then we also need to be informed of not only the narrative, but the chain of narrators, which collection that the hadith came from and whether or not it is a Sunni or Shia hadith.
It would be quite rude for you to quote a mostly discredited or tertiary hadith from a shia collection and pass it off as some important Suni hadith to support your arguments. I believe you would try this because of your previous Koran verse cherry picking. Of course I acknowledge you could do it out of ignorance rather than on purpose.
Now if someone who really knows wtf they are talking about logs on here, they are going to eat you alive.
You pulled some quotations from the Koran but the fact is I can quote many passages from the Koran that are used to keep women oppressed and chattel as well. The important fact that you are either oblivious to or being disengenuous about is that in the repressive Muslim societies it is the passages that are hateful against women that are selectively emphasized and enable women to be treated as chattel.
Your incredibly naive argument may sound credible on a forum because a lot of Americans are of course not well read about the Koran. The Koran is organized by chapter length but as the Prophet became older his writings reflected more and more intolerance. He was an admirable husband to his first wife and even a business partner to her but later on he became extremely intolerant of other religions and hateful toward women.
You bring up the Hadiths which really shows how little you know about things. It is the hadiths, the Koran and to a lesser extent fatwas that form the basis of the repressive system of Shariah law. If you are going to start quoting Hadiths then we also need to be informed of not only the narrative, but the chain of narrators, which collection that the hadith came from and whether or not it is a Sunni or Shia hadith.
It would be quite rude for you to quote a mostly discredited or tertiary hadith from a shia collection and pass it off as some important Suni hadith to support your arguments. I believe you would try this because of your previous Koran verse cherry picking. Of course I acknowledge you could do it out of ignorance rather than on purpose.
Now if someone who really knows wtf they are talking about logs on here, they are going to eat you alive.
That would be a gross mis-characterisation of the point I was making and would depend on significant bad faith on your part to infer that.
What I said was;
And what part of equality is difficult to communicate? Is there nothing in the Koran to support it? What about the hadatitha? Have no religious leaders issued fatwas in favour of women?
I asked if there was anything in the Koran itself that would justify better treatment for women. I then gave examples as to parts of the Koran, and the hadatithas, that the protesters could have used to better make their point, rather than flash their chests and show body paint with "F**k your morals". The best way to reform religious based societies and cultures is to change how they interpret their holy and revered texts. Every religious text has internal inconsistencies and contradictions. By putting more emphasis on the parts of these texts that value women and affords them higher status then that helps change cultural attitudes and better shape change. It also shows that more equitable treatment for women is part of their religion, and not just some imported Western idea forced on them. That way the adherents to the religion can still be faithful to their religious beliefs while affording women in their society better standing, and it helps sideline the less tolerant.
They exposed their breasts and showed body paint that said "F**k Your Morals". That's not communicating an issue, that's not highlighting inequality. It's real life trolling.
Their body paint did not say "Feth Your Morals!"
But yes, you're right, it is real life trolling. That is an effective method of protest.
Is there nothing in the Koran to support it? What about the hadatitha? Have no religious leaders issued fatwas in favour of women?
Sure, and those arguments have been made before. The issue isn't one of Islam, but national culture. So throwing around suwar, fatāwā, and aḥādīth won't necessarily do any good.
If someone insults a culture without offering a constructive alternative (and also demonstrating for hardline elements why they do not favour equality) then they are not giving people a reason to engage with them or take them seriously.
Nor is that usually the point, though I don't credit FEMEN with that level of awareness.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:I asked if there was anything in the Koran itself that would justify better treatment for women. I then gave examples as to parts of the Koran, and the hadatithas, that the protesters could have used to better make their point, rather than flash their chests and show body paint with "F**k your morals". The best way to reform religious based societies and cultures is to change how they interpret their holy and revered texts. Every religious text has internal inconsistencies and contradictions. By putting more emphasis on the parts of these texts that value women and affords them higher status then that helps change cultural attitudes and better shape change. It also shows that more equitable treatment for women is part of their religion, and not just some imported Western idea forced on them. That way the adherents to the religion can still be faithful to their religious beliefs while affording women in their society better standing, and it helps sideline the less tolerant.
It's been my belief that the best way to reform religious-based societies is with fire. But then, maybe that's just me.
I suspect we have some base differences in our own paradigms. While I recognize your desire for incremental and moderate steps towards change, I don't see that ever achieving equality; but rather just placating the status quo. If someone reads what they feel is god's word, what hope do you have to rationally discuss and compromise with them? Any deviation from that word, and you are asking them to turn against the will of their god. That is a pointless endeavour. However, as all writings on religion as based upon the idea of social control, then the only true way to strip them of their power is to educate, so that people can learn on their own that there are other, better ways to live. However, the very nature of social control through religion dictates that you cannot do this, because it is a circular violation of those controls. Thus, it is necessary to outright defy those religious social controls in order to demonstrate that they are not all-powerful, impenetrable walls; such actions can then lead to the opening for education to take hold.
When it comes to human rights violations, I personally see the desire to placate an unjust status quo as being a distasteful act of cowardice, and compromise with the oppressors as being akin to suggesting the oppressed conduct themselves as Uncle Toms.
In other words: when it is morality that keeps women down, then "feth your morals" is exactly the right stance to be taken. Asking Rosa Parks to maybe sit just one or two seats from the back of the bus is not.
dogma, you've said your piece and I've said mine. You seem content to ignore many of the arguments that I advance in the hope of picking some loose threads as you are often wont to do. We're spinning our wheels and getting nowhere so for now I don't see the point in continuing this discussion with you. Concerning the body paint I was quoting another user who posted that phrase initially, perhaps you would like to take the issue up with him.
azazel the cat wrote: It's been my belief that the best way to reform religious-based societies is with fire. But then, maybe that's just me.
So the best way to combat intolerance in society is to be intolerant in return, and force massive cultural change on a society that has no history of the behaviour that you want to bring about, but instead hope that it somehow takes root and flourishes. That's akin to trying to grow an orchard in the middle of the Sahara with no fertile soil, and no water supply.
Again I would direct you to Iraq and Afghanistan and ask you how well treating those societies with fire worked, and ask how well they reacted to Western liberal ideas and whether they adopted them.
azazel the cat wrote: While I recognize your desire for incremental and moderate steps towards change, I don't see that ever achieving equality; but rather just placating the status quo. However, the very nature of social control through religion dictates that you cannot do this, because it is a circular violation of those controls. Thus, it is necessary to outright defy those religious social controls in order to demonstrate that they are not all-powerful, impenetrable walls; such actions can then lead to the opening for education to take hold.If someone reads what they feel is god's word, what hope do you have to rationally discuss and compromise with them? Any deviation from that word, and you are asking them to turn against the will of their god. That is a pointless endeavour. However, as all writings on religion as based upon the idea of social control, then the only true way to strip them of their power is to educate, so that people can learn on their own that there are other, better ways to live.
I am not arguing for the status quo. I have made that abundantly clear, to insist otherwise (and then develop it further in the next section quoted below) is dishonest in the extreme, and verging on an attempt to smear me.
You're right. Changing the focus of a religion to bring about social change is so unlikely that we in the West still put people to death who are not virgins when they marry, who cut their hair and beards, work the Sabbath etc. as laid out in the Bible. Or did we move away from those concepts and instead put our focus on other parts of the Bible? This change in focus and interpretation of their religious texts is what I am suggesting. That is using God's word and not asking them to turn against their religious beliefs. It is already there, we just need to nurture it and put more emphasis on it. This approach has been shown to work. Importing an idea and forcing it on a population does not work, that's been shown plenty of times before too. That we educate them that their religion does place value on women, that they are not simply chattel. That will work rather than taking a concept that is wholly alien to them and forcing it on them.
You seem to think that nothing good can come of religion and that salvation lies in just adopting Western ideals for their own good - which has been shown to be unsuccessful. Your own opinions on how to address this problem are being skewed because your opinion on religion is acting as a blinker to a workable solution, you are approaching this from a Western liberal academic perspective and are not considering the facts on the ground and what will work for the population there.
azazel the cat wrote: When it comes to human rights violations, I personally see the desire to placate an unjust status quo as being a distasteful act of cowardice, and compromise with the oppressors as being akin to suggesting the oppressed conduct themselves as Uncle Toms.
In other words: when it is morality that keeps women down, then "feth your morals" is exactly the right stance to be taken. Asking Rosa Parks to maybe sit just one or two seats from the back of the bus is not.
So your fall back position is the 'you're either with us, or you're against us'. No such thing as working through a problem to reach an equitable solution for the oppressed because anyone who does so is an Uncle Tom. That comes across as hugely extremist. Thankfully we managed to get past that in Northern Ireland, or else we'd still be in the middle of The Troubles.
No one is asking that women under Sharia be "slavish and excessively subservient to perceived authority figures' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom). I don't think that you can honestly say that working to reform the status of women in Islam and challenging the status quo is somehow being subservient
When dealing with a society with relatively little education, and were most of the education is provided in religious schools (not a Western based system that already had the basis for equality established) how well do you think that your sentiments will be received by the local population?
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So your fall back position is the 'you're either with us, or you're against us'. No such thing as working through a problem to reach an equitable solution for the oppressed because anyone who does so is an Uncle Tom.
Yes.
When it comes to basic equality rights, there is no such thing as "an equitable solution" between the oppressive status quo and forward progress. It's one of those rare times when I see things as a binary. Like I said; you can't ask a black person to get half-way-to-the-back of the bus.
azazel the cat wrote: Yes.
When it comes to basic equality rights, there is no such thing as "an equitable solution" between the oppressive status quo and forward progress. It's one of those rare times when I see things as a binary. Like I said; you can't ask a black person to get half-way-to-the-back of the bus.
Yes there is. An equitable solution is getting rights for the oppressed without p*ssing off the entire country and alienating the people you want to help, and making sure the rights are well established and not a foreign concept that won't last.
azazel the cat wrote: Yes.
When it comes to basic equality rights, there is no such thing as "an equitable solution" between the oppressive status quo and forward progress. It's one of those rare times when I see things as a binary. Like I said; you can't ask a black person to get half-way-to-the-back of the bus.
Yes there is. An equitable solution is getting rights for the oppressed without p*ssing off the entire country and alienating the people you want to help, and making sure the rights are well established and not a foreign concept that won't last.
This might be the single most naive thing you've ever said.
I will use the Cheerios ad as an example. Please find me the equitable solution that does not piss off the bigots. Or the gay marriage example. Please find me the equitable solution that does not piss off the bigots.
I will use the Cheerios ad as an example. Please find me the equitable solution that does not piss off the bigots. Or the gay marriage example. Please find me the equitable solution that does not piss off the bigots.
Coming from the person who believes that you can force change upon people with fire? Or that if you aren't with us you're against us. Who seeks to reduce things to binary? Should I take that as a compliment? In case you missed it, I said "getting rights for the oppressed without p*ssing off the entire country", but if you're trying to compare the bigoted comments from a small minority on youtube of all places, with pressing for change and for recognition of women's rights in Tunisia then I don't see how further discussion with you is going to produce any meaningful result.
I will use the Cheerios ad as an example. Please find me the equitable solution that does not piss off the bigots. Or the gay marriage example. Please find me the equitable solution that does not piss off the bigots.
Coming from the person who believes that you can force change upon people with fire? Or that if you aren't with us you're against us. Who seeks to reduce things to binary? Should I take that as a compliment? In case you missed it, I said "getting rights for the oppressed without p*ssing off the entire country", but if you're trying to compare the bigoted comments from a small minority on youtube of all places, with pressing for change and for recognition of women's rights in Tunisia then I don't see how further discussion with you is going to produce any meaningful result.
You're moving goalposts very rapidly.
Either you want to "not piss off the whole country" or else you want to "not piss off anybody". Which is it? Because the kind of equality and social change that I'm advocating will only piss off bigots. So if you think it will piss off everybody, then you are making the claim that the whole country is full of bigots. It's kind of a litmus test like that:
Q: do you believe in equality for men and women under law?
Y= good.
N= you're a bigot.
I really want to rather stay neutral on this bare-breasted Middle East thingy.
On the one hand, personally, I appreciate any action like this as I am disgusted by the oppression of women in (most) Middle East countries on so many levels, be it culture or religion, even worse, I can't even stand the sight of women in Germany being forced to wear burkas.
On the other hand, to play devil's advocate, it seems weird to tell another nation how the West has superior morals and they need to acknowledge its superiority by applying the West's moral to their own country / countries.
Either you want to "not piss off the whole country" or else you want to "not piss off anybody". Which is it? Because the kind of equality and social change that I'm advocating will only piss off bigots. So if you think it will piss off everybody, then you are making the claim that the whole country is full of bigots. It's kind of a litmus test like that:
Q: do you believe in equality for men and women under law?
Y= good.
N= you're a bigot.
It's that easy.
No goalposts are being moved and I am making no such claim. You are taking your own personal perceptions and foisting them on me and my argument. I would appreciate it if you did not construct such strawman, especially given your distaste for them.
Q: do you believe in equality for men and women under law?
Y= good.
N= you're a bigot.
It's that easy.
C: The person that asks the question gets a bullet in the head.
Where there's a will, there's a way.
You're gonna hafta extrapolate this, because I don't get your point here.
Just saying I reject your binary solution. It usually doesn't work.
here's some more alternatives.
1. Anyone saying "N you're a bigot" is exterminated. In many of the ME countries this is a valid third option.
2. Compromising is also a method of moving forward.
3. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are a bigot. Thinking in such a nonsensical manner hardens other viewpoints (see #1). Most issues involve a whole plethora of causes.
Just saying I reject your binary solution. It usually doesn't work.
here's some more alternatives.
1. Anyone saying "N you're a bigot" is exterminated. In many of the ME countries this is a valid third option.
2. Compromising is also a method of moving forward.
3. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are a bigot. Thinking in such a nonsensical manner hardens other viewpoints (see #1). Most issues involve a whole plethora of causes.
It is quite telling though that someone who vociferously object to other people using fallacies in their arguments would be so quick to base his argument in one himself;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You're_either_with_us,_or_against_us The statement generally is a descriptive statement identifying the beliefs of the speaker(s), and thus state a basic assumption, not a logical conclusion. It may also be interpreted as a speech act. It is sometimes interpreted as a splitting or a false dilemma, which is an informal fallacy.
Some see the statement as a way of persuading others to choose sides in a conflict which does not afford the luxury of neutrality.[1] Only when there is absolutely no middle ground or additional alternatives does the phrase hold validity as a logical conclusion. The phrases are a form of argumentation.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma A false dilemma (also called the fallacy of the false alternative, false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of the excluded middle, fallacy of false choice, black-and/or-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. The options may be a position that is between two extremes (such as when there are shades of grey) or may be completely different alternatives. The opposite of this fallacy is argument to moderation.
False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice (such as, in some contexts, the assertion that "if you are not with us, you are against us"). But the fallacy can also arise simply by accidental omission of additional options rather than by deliberate deception.
Frazzled wrote:
1. Anyone saying "N you're a bigot" is exterminated. In many of the ME countries this is a valid third option.
2. Compromising is also a method of moving forward.
3. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are a bigot. Thinking in such a nonsensical manner hardens other viewpoints (see #1). Most issues involve a whole plethora of causes.
1. Are you advocating for cowardice in the face of adversity?
2. As far as I'm concerned, there are no compromises when it comes to human rights.
3. When I'm suggesting equal rights for women, I'm pretty sure anyone that disagrees based upon scripture is a bigot. If you've got an example to suggest otherwise, I'm open to hear it. However, intolerance based upon religious conviction is the very definition of bigotry, harkening back to the word's Norman origins.
Just saying I reject your binary solution. It usually doesn't work.
here's some more alternatives.
1. Anyone saying "N you're a bigot" is exterminated. In many of the ME countries this is a valid third option.
2. Compromising is also a method of moving forward.
3. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are a bigot. Thinking in such a nonsensical manner hardens other viewpoints (see #1). Most issues involve a whole plethora of causes.
It is quite telling though that someone who vociferously object to other people using fallacies in their arguments would be so quick to base his argument in one himself;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You're_either_with_us,_or_against_us The statement generally is a descriptive statement identifying the beliefs of the speaker(s), and thus state a basic assumption, not a logical conclusion. It may also be interpreted as a speech act. It is sometimes interpreted as a splitting or a false dilemma, which is an informal fallacy.
Some see the statement as a way of persuading others to choose sides in a conflict which does not afford the luxury of neutrality.[1] Only when there is absolutely no middle ground or additional alternatives does the phrase hold validity as a logical conclusion. The phrases are a form of argumentation.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma A false dilemma (also called the fallacy of the false alternative, false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of the excluded middle, fallacy of false choice, black-and/or-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. The options may be a position that is between two extremes (such as when there are shades of grey) or may be completely different alternatives. The opposite of this fallacy is argument to moderation.
False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice (such as, in some contexts, the assertion that "if you are not with us, you are against us"). But the fallacy can also arise simply by accidental omission of additional options rather than by deliberate deception.
Let me be clear as day on this:
Where equality for men & women are concerned: THERE. IS. NO. MIDDLE. GROUND.
The dichotomy is not false. Either you believe in equal rights or you do not.
1. Are you advocating for cowardice in the face of adversity?
ER…what?
2. As far as I'm concerned, there are no compromises when it comes to human rights.
No what you argue to be human rights and what you argue to be compromises. Your standards do not apply outside of your opinion, whether or not I agree with the underlying “right.”.
3. When I'm suggesting equal rights for women, I'm pretty sure anyone that disagrees based upon scripture is a bigot.
-Sure is an opinion.
If you've got an example to suggest otherwise, I'm open to hear it. However, intolerance based upon religious conviction is the very definition of bigotry, harkening back to the word's Norman origins.
-define intolerance. Define why its intolerance? You have to define what the definition of is is before you can make, well opinions.
Let me be clear as day on this:
Where equality for men & women are concerned: THERE. IS. NO. MIDDLE. GROUND.
The dichotomy is not false. Either you believe in MY DEFINITION OF equal rights or you do not.
Corrected your typo.
After all, if everyone believed as you do, there would be no change. Everyone's view of, well everything, is based on their own perceptions and beliefs.
Where equality for men & women are concerned: THERE. IS. NO. MIDDLE. GROUND.
The dichotomy is not false. Either you believe in equal rights or you do not.
I was speaking of your post "Either you want to "not piss off the whole country" or else you want to "not piss off anybody". Which is it?". I have been clear as day throughout this that I'm in favour of women's rights, we just differ on the way to achieve it. I prefer a more long term solution to properly establish these rights in a country where they are an alien concept. You seem to be taking a lesson from GW Bush's playbook
1. Are you advocating for cowardice in the face of adversity?
ER…what?
Azrael's argument (with me at least) is that equality can be brought to religious societies through "fire" (because that worked out so well in Afghanistan...), that moderate steps and slow and steady progress to establish these rights are "placating the status quo", and that " the desire to placate an unjust status quo as being a distasteful act of cowardice, and compromise with the oppressors as being akin to suggesting the oppressed conduct themselves as Uncle Toms."
while I agree with the idea of spreading human rights to these more backwards places,
I dont think simply taking off shirts and making a commotion is very effective aside from gaining publicity.
Just like a muslim protesting in new york that women should be covered wont really change NY's veiwpoint, I doubt this will change the muslims viewpoint.
I cant help but think that until its the muslim women doing the protesting that nothing will change, maybe femen should be more involved with them somehow?
either way, at least they are trying to make a difference, kudos to them, I hope they dont get long sentences.
Where equality for men & women are concerned: THERE. IS. NO. MIDDLE. GROUND.
The dichotomy is not false. Either you believe in equal rights or you do not.
I was speaking of your post "Either you want to "not piss off the whole country" or else you want to "not piss off anybody". Which is it?". I have been clear as day throughout this that I'm in favour of women's rights, we just differ on the way to achieve it. I prefer a more long term solution to properly establish these rights in a country where they are an alien concept. You seem to be taking a lesson from GW Bush's playbook
Ah, I see. Let me be clear, as I suspect we have been attacking different points, then. I was not, presenting those two options as a dichotomy from which a person must take a side, I was trying to clarify which of the two statements you were implying, as it seemed previously as though you were conflating the two. My point in response was that the "whole country" will not be pissed off, only the bigots will be. However, I do see that I could have phrased it better so as to prevent the confusion. However, I have presented a with-us-or-against-us dichotomy regarding equality and I will stand by that.
1. Are you advocating for cowardice in the face of adversity?
ER…what?
Azrael's argument (with me at least) is that equality can be brought to religious societies through "fire" (because that worked out so well in Afghanistan...), that moderate steps and slow and steady progress to establish these rights are "placating the status quo", and that " the desire to placate an unjust status quo as being a distasteful act of cowardice, and compromise with the oppressors as being akin to suggesting the oppressed conduct themselves as Uncle Toms."
You basically have the right of it here; however my question put to Frazzled is in response to his apparent suggestion of shrikning away from adversity with his comment about "option C - bullet to the head to whoever asks the question". I'm not sure how to interpret that other than "yes the status quo is unjust, but you'll be harmed for speaking against it, so you shouldn't". I call that cowardice.
easysauce wrote: while I agree with the idea of spreading human rights to these more backwards places,
I dont think simply taking off shirts and making a commotion is very effective aside from gaining publicity.
Just like a muslim protesting in new york that women should be covered wont really change NY's veiwpoint, I doubt this will change the muslims viewpoint.
I cant help but think that until its the muslim women doing the protesting that nothing will change, maybe femen should be more involved with them somehow?
either way, at least they are trying to make a difference, kudos to them, I hope they dont get long sentences.
Agree. That also notes the dichotomy. While I agree with Azazel on intent (women's rights) I disagree on the my way or the highway route. After all, the other guy has his own interpretation of human rights and this leads down the path to "disagree with me and people are going to die." That solution is a time a honored solution in the area we're discussing, like it or not.
I'm not sure how to interpret that other than "yes the status quo is unjust, but you'll be harmed for speaking against it, so you shouldn't". I call that cowardice.
Its your exact argument, turned on its head. You want to destroy them with fire. They want to put you against a wall. You both end up dead.
When Frazzled is the mellow peacenik of the thread, YOU KNOW something has gone terribly wrong...
Note that the people in yellow seem to be security trying to calm it down. The two in black just jump on the stage and hit her. Nice. Seems these girls are taking a fair risk being attacked when they do a stunt. I still think it's interesting that when they flash their boobs and make a scene, it's so common that people think they have the right to assault them.
Frazzled wrote:Its your exact argument, turned on its head. You want to destroy them with fire. They want to put you against a wall. You both end up dead.
When Frazzled is the mellow peacenik of the thread, YOU KNOW something has gone terribly wrong...
I didn't say it wasn't an effective method, nor one that may be met with resistance. I just said that I think it's cowardly to shrink away from an issue for fear of reprisal.
azazel the cat wrote: Ah, I see. Let me be clear, as I suspect we have been attacking different points, then. I was not, presenting those two options as a dichotomy from which a person must take a side, I was trying to clarify which of the two statements you were implying, as it seemed previously as though you were conflating the two. My point in response was that the "whole country" will not be pissed off, only the bigots will be. However, I do see that I could have phrased it better so as to prevent the confusion. However, I have presented a with-us-or-against-us dichotomy regarding equality and I will stand by that.
You seem to be working off the assumption that the country will be p*ssed off because it interferes with them getting to discriminate against women, you aren't considering the fact that you are trying to make them comply with a Western liberal idea that is mostly alien to their culture. You keep looking at things in an over simplistic and binary fashion that may be driven more by ideology than reality. The fact is that countries lacking in education (as I have already said) will get most of their social norms from religious texts and be educated in religious schools, when those texts are interpreted as giving women less rights that becomes a social norm in that country (not condoning it, merely observing that fact). That is in no small part why Tunisia has the prevailing attitude that it does.
Your suggestion to force change on a culture by "fire" is just imperialism by another name. You are attempting to export a Western idea in complete disregard for the traditions and customs of that country. That is a recipe for disaster. The likely result of such a ham-fisted approach is not setting about the change that you want, but rather hardening attitudes and entrenching opinions against you, making the next attempt at reform even more difficult. You've seen how people in this thread object to your methods (but not the desired result) and your desire to force change. And that is dealing with a community that has Western standards of conduct and rights for women. The equivalent would be protesters trying to foist Sharia on Canada, a country that does not have Islamic values at it's core, and which does not have a hierarchy of rights based on gender.
By educating the people and showing them that their own religion gives more rights and prestige to women is the first step in achieving equality. That way you are not alienating the people that you want to convince. That is important to a culture that puts so much value on it's religion, tradition and culture. Then and you can start to marginalise the hardliners by using their own religious texts against them (I've already shown how the West has moved away from certain tracts in the Bible so there is precedent) and start to let the idea develop and flourish that women's rights are also an Islamic idea, that it's not just some imported concept from the West which will lead to immorality and anti-Islamic behaviours.
It's not seeing out to the status quo, it's not being an Uncle Tom or a coward. It is realising that there are things that cannot be forced and that must be nurtured and shepherded if they are to be successful.
You will catch more bees with honey than with vinegar. Do not let your distaste for religion blind you to the realities of life in other countries. You cannot make changes to a country based on what you want the country to look like, you have to work with what is there. Otherwise you're running the risk of embarking on a fool's errand
Frazzled wrote:Its your exact argument, turned on its head. You want to destroy them with fire. They want to put you against a wall. You both end up dead.
When Frazzled is the mellow peacenik of the thread, YOU KNOW something has gone terribly wrong...
I didn't say it wasn't an effective method, nor one that may be met with resistance. I just said that I think it's cowardly to shrink away from an issue for fear of reprisal.
You're stil thinking in a binary pattern. There's an amazing plethora of options between, "hide under a bed" and "burn it with fire." Again, if I am pointing this out, everyone better tighten their safety belts, its going to be a bumpy ride.
