Waiting for a Girl Like You, by Martha Thomases – Brilliant Disguise | @MDWorld
October 13, 2012 Martha Thomases 7 Comments
On Tuesday morning, I read that Malala Yousafza I had been shot. I didn’t know who she was.
In short order, I learned that she is a 14 year old girl, living in Pakistan, who not only went to school, but also said that she enjoyed it, she thought other girls should go to school, and that she was vocal about it. As a result, she was targeted by the Taliban. The gunman stopped her school bus, asked for her by name, and shot her in the head.
The Taliban said that her crimes were many. To quote the New York Times story in the link above:
“Ehsanullah Ehsan, a spokesman for Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, commonly known as the Pakistani Taliban, told my colleague Declan Walsh in a telephone interview that Malala ‘has become a symbol of Western culture in the area’ and had expressed admiration for President Obama. Speaking to Reuters, the militant acknowledged that the victim was young but insisted the attack was justified because ‘she was promoting Western culture in Pashtun areas,’ referring to the ethnic group in northwest Pakistan and eastern Afghanistan whose conservative values the Taliban claims to defend.”
In other words, religious fundamentalists decided to impose their beliefs on a person who doesn’t share them, a person who is only 14 years old. Malala Yousafza had the unmitigated gall to imagine that she was in charge of her own life, and could make her own choices. She did not expect to be defined by her reproductive organs, nor the effect they might have on the men who have appointed themselves to be the ultimate moral authority.
As I write this, she is still alive and a in the hospital. The Taliban promise they will finish the job.
This attitude is hardly limited to Muslims. Most fundamentalists – certainly the Christian, Catholic andJewish ones – subscribe to it. A woman exists to bear children, raise them, and keep a man satisfied. Her own desires and ambitions don’t matter. She can’t even decide how to dress herself, but must instead cover her body, her head, and any other aspect of her self that men demand.
It would be wonderful to be able to say, “It can’t happen here,” but, unfortunately, it does all the time. We have plenty of our own fundamentalists here. There are even those I define as “secular fundamentalists,” who may not invoke a deity, but who believe that women are only worthwhile when they are young and sexy, not when they are happy, healthy individuals (which can include being young and sexy, but is not limited to only those things).
Curiosity, intelligence, competence, a sense of humor, compassion – none of these qualities are important to fundamentalists. Don’t believe me? Look up the kinds of things said about Roseanne, Hillary Clinton (see this and notice the comments), or Michelle Obama. A woman who relies on her brains or her accomplishments must be fat, a lesbian, or both. How dare she!
Also, what’s so bad about being fat and/or lesbian? If it drives the mullah’s crazy, it must be a good thing. And if it also bothers Mel Gibson, Bill O’Reilly and Donald Trump, that’s just the icing on the cake.
—
Martha Thomases, Media Goddess, especially likes cream cheese frosting on carrot cake.
Elizabeth
October 13, 2012 - 10:40 am
Martha,
You described my outrage exactly. I am so deeply saddened, angry and in awe of Malala. She has amazing courage in the face of horrendous discrimination, repression and hostility. May she survive and live a long life in spite of the Taliban.
Doug Abramson
October 13, 2012 - 11:51 am
Hopefully the outrage and protests this has spawned in Pakistan will be the beginning of the end for the Taliban and their ilk in the region. The sane people seem to be fed up with living in terror.
You’re wrong about one thing though Martha. Only the Muslims are violent and barbaric and want to impose their worldview on everyone else. Just ask the Christian and Jewish fundamentalists.
Martha Thomases
October 13, 2012 - 1:48 pm
Doug, while I can’t defend them politically, it has been my experience that, at the very least, Jewish fundamentalists don’t proselytize. If you are Jewish, they want to make you more Jewish, but if you’re gentile, they will leave you alone.
Unless you are a woman and want to control your own body, or to wear short sleeves, or something like that. Then, they let their feelings known.
Pennie
October 13, 2012 - 3:19 pm
Malala is a hero to millions. Let’s hope she does become a martyr.
Pennie
October 13, 2012 - 3:20 pm
So sorry. My real bad. The word “not” is clearly missing.
R. Maheras
October 13, 2012 - 4:13 pm
Martha wrote: “Curiosity, intelligence, competence, a sense of humor, compassion – none of these qualities are important to fundamentalists. Don’t believe me? Look up the kinds of things said about Roseanne, Hillary Clinton (see this and notice the comments), or Michelle Obama. A woman who relies on her brains or her accomplishments must be fat, a lesbian, or both. How dare she!”
I hope your personal indignation extends to similar offensive comments against strong, accomplished non-liberal women like Condolezza Rice, Laura Ingraham, Alveda King, and yes, even Sarah Palin.
Frankly, I find it appalling how allegedly staunch women’s rights supporters fall silent (or are uncharacteristically muted) when the women degraded, sexually mocked, and disrespected are not liberals.
Not only is such a double standard incredibly hypocritical, it actually greatly WEAKENS the whole women’s rights movement.
Why? Because the abhorrent behavior invariably comes from liberals who, according to the liberal narrative, are supposed to know better and be respectful of women.
As an adult, I’ve always tried to treat women equally, regardless of their race, creed, politics, sexual preference, religion (or lack thereof), or national origin. I would hope that any other women’s rights advocate would do the same.
Cyndi
October 13, 2012 - 5:09 pm
R Maheras. As a progressive feminist I’m rather bored with the canard that supporters of women’s rights “fall silent” in the face of sexist attacks on women who don’t share their political/religious views. Or that we fall short in our support of women in developing countries. If you’re so appalled by your perceived double standard, provide some evidence.
Better still, ask Sarah Palin and Laura Ingraham about their views on US aid to Third World women or their support for women in the US who are watching the rollback of reproductive health programs because fundamentalists believe that only white men should be the gatekeepers of women’s bodies.
Martha Thomses
October 13, 2012 - 5:41 pm
Russ, the feminists I admire criticize the women you mention for their ideas, not their appearances. Comedians mock everyone, but you mentioned feminists.
Doug Abramson
October 13, 2012 - 10:30 pm
Martha,
Funny, any of the groups actively seeking converts (willing or not) didn’t even cross my mind when I wrote my comment. I was commenting on their treatment of women and any people or groups that they perceive as being “other”. Interesting distinction though.
Rene
October 14, 2012 - 9:48 am
Calling Sarah Palin a dumb hick isn’t sexist. Not when one also calls George W. Bush a dumb hick. I don’t see a lot of difference between them, even though one has an innie and the other has an outie.
Now, calling Sarah Palin a dumb “bitch” or “whore” or something like that, yes, that is sexist. Liberals aren’t immune to being sexist and hypocritical. But at least that is recognized as a flaw by Liberals, not as “family values”.
But as far as Liberal self-criticism go, I’m less worried about barbs thrown at Conservative women, and more worried about what I see as cowardice by part of the Liberal establishment when tackling Fundamentalist Islam.
I congratulate Martha on the post above, but I have to point out that, as bad as Fundamentalist Christians and Jews are (and I have no love for them, seeing them as a social disease), I don’t see lots of them shooting girls that go to school. When it comes to women’s rights, Muslims are the worst offenders.
Mike Gold
October 14, 2012 - 12:55 pm
Laura Ingraham is a pig and Sarah Palin is a dolt. These are not people of accomplishment, they are raving fools who howl at those who are lucky enough to be more intelligent and more clever. They stew in the juices of their own jealousy and hatred, two contemptible fools braying for attention they do not deserve. Saying so is not anti-woman. Saying these women are above criticism is anti-woman.
However, to be fair, they are Madame Curie next to Michelle Malkin.
George Haberberger
October 14, 2012 - 2:02 pm
The shooting of Malala Yousafza is a heinous and cowardly act. Hopefully the publicity that the shooting has generated will expose the Taliban as the monsters they are. And as Rene points out above, far removed from fundamentalists of any other stripe. Attempting to tie actions of the Taliban to Christian and Jewish fundamentalists is a stretch of Brobdingnagian proportions.
And since I called out my agreement with Rene on one point it seems almost mandatory that I disagree with him on another. I know of no conservative who considers hypocrisy or sexism to be family values.
Cyndi said: “If you’re so appalled by your perceived double standard, provide some evidence.”
I have no expectation that anyone here, with the possible exception of Russ, saw the Sarah Palin biography, “The Undefeated.” It begins with a number of cuts of various liberal celebrities giving their even-handed and thoughtful opinion of Sarah Palin. There are two versions of movie. One is bleeped for language. The director had to do that or else he would have gotten an X rating. I haven’t seen the X-rated version but I can only assume the C word must have been used profusely by these paragons of liberal principles.
The examples Cyndi asks for are: Bernard Koch, Matt Damon, Bill Maher, Sharon Osborne, John Cleese, David Letterman, Joan Rivers, Joy Behar, Madonna, Howard Stern, Pam Anderson, Louis CK, Tracy Morgan, and Sandra Bernhard.
Other scenes contain screen captures of websites and Facebook pages calling for her execution. There is a scene of her being hung in effigy. All this because… why exactly? And this doesn’t even address the things said about her children.
Palin is the most visible target of liberal hatred but she is not alone. Mia Love, a black female who spoke at the Republican Convention had her Wikipedia entry vandalized to read “dirty, worthless whore,” “sell-out” to the “right wing hate machine” and “House N—–.”
Writer and pundit Bill Whittle explains the Paiin Derangement Syndrome much better that I could hope to, so here is a portion of one of his essays.
“The example of Sarah Palin, you see, is fatal to the liberal worldview. For forty years now Liberals have defined feminism in a binary way. You simply could not be a feminist – and by implication you could not really demand the opportunities that modern feminism promised – unless you categorically came down on the side of “choice.” You could go out into a man’s world, dress like a man, act like a man, achieve all the wealth and power of a man, perhaps even have a boutique single child — or two, if you could afford a decent nanny.
But Sarah Palin’s decision to see her Down’s Syndrome child to term was an act of such blinding moral clarity that it tore down the drapes and flung open the windows of Miss Havisham’s fetid little parlor. To see Trig Palin being held in his sister’s arms reminded the entire country that this choice has consequences. And furthermore, it showed that you could be Mayor, or Governor, or potentially President of the United States, and still have a big family, dress and talk like a woman, and get there with a mate who was nothing more or less than a good man and loving husband and commercial fisherman, and not ride to power on the coattails of a billionaire businessman, or media mogul, or political superstar.
By choosing life – a flawed life, some would say – Sarah Palin effortlessly displayed what once was the universal maternal instinct… and that put her way, way off the reservation. To present such a clear example of competence, achievement and respect while at the same time running full in the face of the liberal feminist first (and only) commandment, Sarah Palin earned the kind of hatred from the left that is only well and truly reserved for those people who so effortlessly put the lie to their entire philosophy. This is the kind of hate reserved for black Americans like Thomas Sowell or my own friend Alfonzo Rachel, who become traitors to their race as Palin became a traitor to her sex, for having the audacity – the gall, the unmitigated nerve – to have their own thoughts, and make up their own minds, and free themselves from the rigid – and racist and sexist – roles that have been cut out for them by the liberal establishment that perpetually shrieks that it is only working in their best interest out of a rarefied moral superiority.”
So, is he right? Is this why Palin deserves the vitriol leveled at her? If so, that doesn’t explain Mia Love’s critics. Unless, liberals simply cannot conceive conservatives being anything other than white men.
Rene
October 15, 2012 - 4:57 am
Your post about Sarah Palin only makes my point for me. What I was saying about the inherent sexism and prejudice in “family values.” After all, it seems Palin is so “amazing” because she has a “big family”, “dress” and “talk” like a woman, etc.
Conservatives think there is a proper way for women to act and a proper way for a family to be. If a woman strays from these standards, then it’s not a “real family” (or, at best, it’s lower in some supposed hierarchy of families).
Single parents. Divorced parents. Married gay couples. Married straight couples that do not want children. Married straight couples where the man stays at home. All of those are families. As real and valuable as any other family. Yet, the only families Conservatives gush about are the ones that conform to some traditional 1950s paradigm – man, woman, lots of kids, dogs – perhaps updated a little because now the woman can also work, as long as she still “talks and dresses” like a woman.
I am a family man. I love my wife more than anything and we take care of each other. Neither of us wants children. Perhaps that will change in the future, but right now, children aren’t the reason we married. Whenever Conservatives talk about family values, I don’t feel included. My family is “second class” at best.
I know that you’re not like this personally, George. You said before that you support gay marriage, for instance. But when most Conservatives talk about family values, I can’t stop feeling it. And somehow women are the ones most pressured into having a “correct” family.
And yes, it’s a lot more benign than what the madmen of the Taliban do on a routine basis. Christ, it’s like comparing The Penguin to Darkseid in terms of supervillainy. But it’s still imposing social restrictions in how women “should” act to be considered proper.
(And I think Libs that believe women can’t be feminine and housewives and have lots of kids are also full of shit. My point, as a social libertarian, is that women – and men – should be free to act in any way they want, as long as they don’t harm anybody else directly)
Martha Thomases
October 15, 2012 - 5:33 am
Russ said: “The examples Cyndi asks for are: Bernard Koch, Matt Damon, Bill Maher, Sharon Osborne, John Cleese, David Letterman, Joan Rivers, Joy Behar, Madonna, Howard Stern, Pam Anderson, Louis CK, Tracy Morgan, and Sandra Bernhard.”
Not wishing to speak for Cyndi, but I said that “the feminists I admire criticize the women you mention for their ideas, not their appearances. Comedians mock everyone, but you mentioned feminists.”.
Almost all those you mention are comedians. Sharon Osborne, Madonna, Howard Stern, Pam Anderson and Bernard Koch are not comedians, but they are scarcely feminists.
Stop changing the subject.
Peggy
October 15, 2012 - 6:39 am
Wow! So if you are seen as a comedian you can slander and denigrate all you want and it is okay? It is okay to use the C word and attack the childern of the person you are vullifing in the name of comedy. (would the same apply if it was Michelle Obama the comedians where making fun of?) Why is a woman criticized for having prolife beliefs by feminists?
I don’t agree with all of Pallin’s, Love’s or Ingraham’s view points however I do object to the degration of them by ANYONE who calls them C****, B****** or place pictures of them with a penis in their mouth or attack their children because they do not agree with their politics. I find it offensive when so called feminist overlook and ignore this type of female abuse. If you are a true feminist then you should object just as LOUDLY for all women not just the ones whose policies you agree with.
The press and entertainment communities should not be allowed to commit this type of verbal or visual abuse of any woman!!
Rene
October 15, 2012 - 6:56 am
Attacking their children is bad form, but I would really like politicians to stop using their own kids to gain votes and showcase how wonderful they are just because they have these kids. All politicians do this, but Conservatives are the ones who also go for “family values”.
I really would like it if personal lives were kept out of politics as much as possible. We can’t have single people running for office, or divorced people who never remarried. No, they all get to have these smiling Stepford families to parade around.
I’m not saying they deserve it, but if you use your family for political gain, then it’s to be expected that opponents will attack your family. You’re the one exposing them.
Martha Thomases
October 15, 2012 - 7:22 am
Peggy, I don’t condone slander or baseless denigration. However, I do adore edgy comedians, and sometimes, in trying to find the perfect truth/laugh, they go to far. Yes, they should be called on it, but calling them on it (or, simply not laughing) is part of the process.
And the point of this column is that the anti-woman attitudes in this country and around the world are a threat, a menace, and something I take personally. Feminists in this country are not being shot in the head (unless, perhaps, they are abortion doctors), but we have an obligation to stand with Malala and claim her struggles as our own.
George Haberberger
October 15, 2012 - 8:03 am
Two things: I don’t know if you are supposed to get a card or certificate that qualifies you as a feminist but I suspect all the people on that list would consider themselves feminists. Hell I consider myself a feminist. Yes, there are Pro-Life feminists.
The comments about Palin and Love and other conservative women are not “mocking”. They are vicious, slanderous, insulting diatribes that are no way equal to criticisms aimed at Pelosi Hillary, Maxine Waters or any liberal politician you may name.
Martha Thomases
October 15, 2012 - 8:07 am
George, I was talking about people who define feminism — people like Gloria Steinem, Ellen Willis (RIP), Jessica Valenti — not people who may believe it. Just as there is a difference between, say, John Boehner and Dennis Miller as to who represents the Republican party, there is a difference between Steinem and Joy Behar.
And, in terms of who suffers for her beliefs, there is an Grand Canyon of difference between Malala and Sarah Palin.
George Haberberger
October 15, 2012 - 9:07 am
“And, in terms of who suffers for her beliefs, there is an Grand Canyon of difference between Malala and Sarah Palin.”
Absolutely true. But you brought up the comments aimed at Roseanne, Hillary and Michelle Obama and I would say there is also a Grand Canyon of difference between them and Malala also.
R. Maheras
October 15, 2012 - 10:55 am
Yeah — Cyndi immediately starts carping on “reproductive rights” for Third World” women, which, while important in her New York City liberal paradigm, is far down the priority list of basic rights women in those countries probably wish they had — things like freedom to be educated, vote, speak their mind, work, not be legally abused, mutilated or murdered, etc.
Talk about misplaced priorities.
R. Maheras
October 15, 2012 - 11:41 am
Martha wrote: “Russ said: “The examples Cyndi asks for are: Bernard Koch, Matt Damon, Bill Maher, Sharon Osborne, John Cleese, David Letterman, Joan Rivers, Joy Behar, Madonna, Howard Stern, Pam Anderson, Louis CK, Tracy Morgan, and Sandra Bernhard.”
Martha — Russ didn’t say any of that. George did.
But I’ll jump in anyway.
Anyone who REALLY cares about who attacked conservative and/or independent women has to do is do some simple Google searches. And they’d find that while Palin was attacked by liberal bloggers and traditional journalists for being “stupid,” she was also attacked in a myriad of sexist ways, including being labeled a “MILF” — a term which, I must confess, I was unfamiliar with until Palin was chosen as McCain’s running mate.
The other conservative women I mentioned have been attacked in a similar fashion, and not by “just” comedians — which is the most ridiculous cop-out an avowed feminist can make, in my opinion.
This feminist double standard is exactly why women, who make up approximately half of the electorate and have been voting for nearly 100 years,can’t get past the glass ceiling of the presidency.
Rene
October 15, 2012 - 11:55 am
Russ, take it from a Third World denizen. Women in poor countries are even more in need of reproductive rights than any New York liberal. The amount of poor women who die or get seriously injured in cheap, illegal abortion clinics is huge in many Third World countries.
In 2008, more than 15.000 women in Rio de Janeiro admited to hospitals due to complications derived from illegal abortion. Yeah, I know it’s a shock to those Conservatives who believe abortion to be idle entertainment of rich intellectual liberal women who enjoy killing fetuses for the hell of it, but the reality is, a LOT of poor women in poor countries have abortions.
Peggy
October 15, 2012 - 12:16 pm
Rene and Martha, I find it interesting that you did not address the main issue I was making. A true feminist will stand for all women’s rights whether they agree with their politics or definition of family. Hollywood and the media have specific lines they will not cross because the public will not allow it i.e. racist and ethnic based slurs or jokes. It should not matter whether the abuse was physical, verbal or mental. As a nation we are pushing anti-bullying policies with our children. The type of abuse some of the conservative women have taken is unconscionable and showing our children that it is okay to bully or overlook an abuse as long as you do not agree with the person who is being abused politics or policies. How does that make the person ignoring any different than the bully? Once a debate or discussion is brought to the level of vilification the vilifiers credibility is lost and all hopes of reason or acceptance is also lost.
If feminists had done a “collective gasp” when Pallin, Love or Ingraham were attacked then the media and comedians would have realized feminists were united (even if we did not always agree on politics or policy) in that all feminists agree in the rights of women to be independent, strong and forceful.
A great win was missed by feminist and a great win for bigots and bullies.
It is a shame that Martha wasn’t as vocal against the Fifty Shades trilogy as she is by conservative women. That trilogy set feminism back almost to square one. I feel sorry for young girls and boys growing up that could possibly think this book depicts want women want. Hollywood is glorifing this book and some motels are fashioning rooms after the Dom room in the book. But this is a subject for another day.
Martha Thomases
October 15, 2012 - 12:49 pm
Look, I used the three examples in my original article because those were the first three I thought of. Because I named those three, that doesn’t mean I condone sexist attacks on others.
(For the record, calling someone “stupid,” is not a sexist attack. Unless you believe stupidity to be limited to women. I don’t.)
Similarly, Peggy, I’m not writing about the 50 SHADES OF GRAY, TWILIGHT, or any other books that I might consider to be sexist. I’ve read neither, expect not to read them, and that’s my opinion. As someone who read THE STORY OF O when I was 11, I don’t expect they’ll tell me anything new.
Russ, there have been dozens (if not hundreds) of studies that show reproductive rights are necessary for women to have full social and economic equality. I know that Nick Kristof at the New York TiMES has written about this extensively, and I believe the recent documentary he made that was aired on PBS also touches on this subject.
I try to keep my columns reasonably simple because they are just that — columns. They are not books, nor are they doctoral dissertations.
Peggy
October 15, 2012 - 1:08 pm
Calling someone stupid or dolt is not sexist but calling them a C… And showing them with a penis in their mouth is and you were silent. That says it all. You use your column only when it suits you. That does not make you an activist just an opportunist. You have lost all credibility.
Martha Thomses
October 15, 2012 - 1:21 pm
Peggy, I have not claimed here to be an activist. I am a writer. And I use my full name when I express my opinion.
Martha Thomses
October 15, 2012 - 1:23 pm
I don’t know why that posted before I was ready. You don’t have to use your whole name (many commenters, including Rene, do not)’ but since this is the first time you are posting, I wonder where you are coming from.
Peggy Ragsdale
October 15, 2012 - 1:41 pm
I am a retired financial manager (who has worked in a man’s area for over 25 years), a mother of two daughters, a wife and a feminist who believes in the right to life.
Rene
October 15, 2012 - 2:13 pm
Peggy –
I dunno, I think I sort of addressed it in my first post in this thread. Sexism is not limited to the Right (even though they’re the ones trying to make policy out of it). It happens on the Left. One of the most depressing things about, say, 1960s social revolutionaries, was how lots of them were still women-beating manly men.
I don’t move in lockstep with everyone identifying as Liberal or leftist.
Now, 50 Shades of Grey, what of it? It’s some piece of horrible fiction with no literary merit, in my opinion. Does it represents accurately what women want? I don’t know. The only woman I’m intimate with is my wife, and it doesn’t seem like she’s into it.
I’m not sure anyone is equipped to say what women, generally, want. Seeing as women are individuals with all sorts of particularities.
I do know the book’s success indicate that there is a market for sexually explicit novels targeting women, written by women. Possibly the book would have been a hit even without the submissive S&M aspect.
Pennie
October 15, 2012 - 2:30 pm
Martha with no credibility? Seriously, who are you to question the woman with more cred, intelligence and integrity than anyone else I’ve ever known? If Martha doesn’t measure up for you Peggy, well that says more about you than Martha.
R. Maheras
October 15, 2012 - 2:58 pm
As an adult, I have always tried to keep the playing field level for everyone, regardless of their gender or anything else. We’re talking a stretch of about four decades, during which time I’ve probably had a half-dozen or more female supervisors, and countless female peers and subordinates. I have always tried my best to treat them all with the same respect, expectations and deference I would their male counterparts.
And that’s why I get so incensed when the side that is a self-proclaimed champion of women’s rights is politically selective about who it champions.
Isn’t it obvious that such a stance is cutting one’s nose off to spite one’s face?
R. Maheras
October 15, 2012 - 3:12 pm
Rene — Brazil may have issues with women’s rights, but it’s a far cry from the conditions women endure in Rwanda, Yemen, Sudan, Pakistan, Somalia, Myanmar, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Saudi Arabia, India and dozens of other Third World countries.
Pakistan, where young Malala is from, makes Brazil look positively progressive when it comes to women’s rights. Keep in mind that Malala wasn’t shot for advocating reproductive rights, she was shot for her other “crimes” — advocating basic education for women, admiring President Obama, and “promoting Western culture.” It’s the New York City liberal mindset that immediately switches the issue to one THEY think is important.
Doug Abramson
October 15, 2012 - 6:42 pm
Gee. I thought that the important issue was the Taliban tried to assassinate a 14 year old girl?
R. Maheras
October 15, 2012 - 7:11 pm
Yeah, exactly.
Martha Thomses
October 16, 2012 - 4:48 am
That is one side of my point. Another side is that a 14 year old girl with a mind of her own and the desire to live her own life on her own terms is a threat to patriarchal fundamentalists.
George Haberberger
October 16, 2012 - 5:22 am
But Christian and Jewish fundamentalists do not shoot girls in the head because the want to go to school and that is the parallel you made. As I said in my first post:”Attempting to tie actions of the Taliban to Christian and Jewish fundamentalists is a stretch of Brobdingnagian proportions.”
Martha Thomases
October 16, 2012 - 5:33 am
George, I’ve written about this (http://jezebel.com/5871293/orthodox-israelis-spit-on-whorish-8+year+old-girl-for-going-to-school) before.
Rene
October 16, 2012 - 7:54 am
These ultra-ortodox creeps are monsters that deserve a good beating and jail time for assaulting a 8-year old girl. It makes me sick that Israel, like the US, is hostage to a group of Fundamentalist religious nuts that have far too much political power and representation.
Still, we can only say they’re as bad as the Taliban when they start with the bullets, instead of the rocks, spit, and jeers. Doing otherwise is to diminish what the Taliban did.
Martha Thomases
October 16, 2012 - 7:57 am
I don’t disagree, Rene, except for the part of me that does. Sure, Hitler was a monster who killed millions and millions of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc. But that doesn’t mean that the person who kills “just” one person isn’t evil. These are all on a continuum of horrible things.
Rene
October 16, 2012 - 4:15 pm
Yes, they’re still evil. But like you said, it’s a continuum. The American Evangelical that wants to deny gays the right to marry isn’t really in the same league as the Islamic Fundamentalists that kill gays. Hitler isn’t the same as a garden variety murderer. There are degrees to everything.
What I don’t like about the Left’s need to always bring a Western counterexample when talking about Islam’s less savory aspects is that it smells like a nonsensical fear of appearing “racist” or “imperialist” if we single out Islam for criticism.
It’s actually a sort of inverse racism, or patronizing. As if non-white people were not completely accountable. If a white man shot a girl in the head to stop her from going to school, I bet the condemnation would be ubiquitious in the Left. But since it’s Islam, we resort to excuses: they’re opressed by the West, they’re going hungry, they lack education, etc. etc. etc.
As if those things excused acting like monsters.
Martha Thomses
October 16, 2012 - 4:40 pm
It is not my intention to make excuses for Muslim –or Jewish — fundamentalists.
George Haberberger
October 16, 2012 - 6:10 pm
Rene,
I have never agreed with you about anything more. Admittedly that is a pretty low number.
You are right about inverse racism and patronizing attitudes toward Muslims.
When a sculpture named Piss Christ, a crucifix in a jar of urine, won an award in visual arts and was in part sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts, people protested, wrote letters and picketed, but no one was killed.
Muslims believe no one has the right to insult them. Ask Salmon Rushie.
People cannot draw a picture of Mohammed lest they find themselves on a hit list. Molly Norris, the cartoonist behind “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” is in witness protection.
If Terry Jones wants to burn a Koran, so what?
If a filmmaker produces an bad, amateurish movie that insults Islam, too bad.
To succumb to Islamists demand that they be treated with a deference that no other religion expects is to treat them as something less than human. It is as if we should not expect rational behavior because they are not capable of it.
Is that what they want us to believe?
David Oakes
October 17, 2012 - 6:54 am
There is a difference between “Muslim” and “Islamist”, just as there is a difference between “Jew” and “Orthodox Jew”.
Martha Thomases
October 17, 2012 - 7:07 am
Exactly, David. And that’s why I talk about fundamentalists.