Blog


About


Books

 Latest Post: Flash!

Agnostic
A Spirited Manifesto
Available April 4, 2016

   Who is the AT?   Books by LH
  • Agnostic

  • The First Muslim

  • After The Prophet

  • Jezebel

  • Mary

  • More from LH

     

Flash!

Posted September 1st, 2019 by Lesley Hazleton

Looks like the accidental theologist is on her way to becoming the accidental ontologist.   Story of what I’ve been up to this past year or two to come, but meanwhile, here’s a hint of where I’m going, just published in The Stranger (yes, The Stranger!) with this great illustration:

menopause

https://www.thestranger.com/features/2019/08/14/41072753/mysteries-of-menopause?fbclid=IwAR21z8SL0-ysaSmT9QaCPJO7Ms0UqUZfPgTUfUJU8fZlPqLKAXUldfl8k9o

(Note to self:  got to get a pair of glasses like those.)

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: existence, feminism, women | Tagged: Tags: 'loss of libido', Addyi, age, andropause, estrogen, fear and trembling, hot flashes, menopause, post-sexual, sex, testosterone, Viagra, Vyleesi | Be the First to leave a comment

Strong Words For Strong Women

Posted October 9th, 2015 by Lesley Hazleton

A couple of years back, I started referring to my friend Rebecca Brown as “the divine Ms Brown” (as in “the latest piece by the divine Ms Brown…”). Not that I have any desire to worship her – or anyone or anything else for that matter – but her writing definitely touches on the transcendent. The word fit.

robin_seattlemetThen I realized that another friend, contemporary-art curator Robin Held, deserved a better adjective than all the “amazings” and “wonderfuls” constantly used for her. I started thinking of her as “the iconic Ms Held.” That fit too.

I could always stick with the usual words, of course. But when “awesome” is used for everything from the latest video game to a new flavor of ice-cream, it becomes meaningless. There’s no real awe there, just as there’s no real wonder in “wonderful.”

“Amazing” is popular, but seems to indicate surprise that any woman could be strong and intelligent and outspoken.

“Incredible” begs the question.

And as for “courageous” – if it takes courage for a woman to speak her mind and be active in the world (at least in the West), then we’re in worse trouble than I thought.

There’s a whole range of monikers we could use instead of the standard wonderfuls and awesomes and amazings.  I began jotting them down, and found that I could put names of women I know to every one of them. I’m pretty sure you can do the same:

— the badass Ms X

— the incomparable Ms Y

— the unstoppable Ms Z

— the outrageous Ms A

— the formidable Ms B

— the dynamite Ms C

— the fearless Ms D

— the fearsome Ms E

— the notorious Ms F

— the path-breaking Ms G

— the ferocious Ms H

— the inimitable Ms I

— the indomitable Ms J

— the brilliant Ms K

— the magnificent Ms L

— the dynamic Ms M

— the genius known as Ms N

— the epic Ms O

— the mind-blowing Ms P

and this isn’t even the whole of the alphabet.

Some of these tags are stronger, some less so, but you get the idea: We need better accolades for strong, intelligent women. And quit with the weak female-only ones.

Words like “gutsy” don’t cut it — who ever describes a man they admire as gutsy?  “Ballsy?” — oh puh-lease…  “Incredible”? — really, you find it hard to credit?  “Innovative?” — aren’t we all?

So let’s innovate.  No matter what gender you are, feel free to pitch in and share better suggestions in the comments.  And start using them. Liberally.

Think big, think strong, and celebrate strong women with strong language!

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: existence, feminism, women | Tagged: Tags: amazing, awesome, courageous, Rebecca Brown, Robin Held | 7 Comments
  1. Francoise Simon says:
    October 9, 2015 at 3:18 pm

    How about the intrepid Ms. F?

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      October 10, 2015 at 9:07 am

      or the intrepid Ms Simon!

  2. Darlene Mitchell says:
    October 9, 2015 at 4:33 pm

    I will use this new approach, Lesley, for the epic women in my life . Brilliant! And in case you hadn’t heard, “There is a New Message from God in the world, and one of the things that it calls for is the emergence of women leaders, particularly in the area of spirituality and religion. It is time now for certain women to be called into these greater roles and responsibilities, and it is important around the world in different quarters and in different religious traditions that this be allowed.”

    http://www.newmessage.org/nm/the-age-of-women/

    It’s been 1400 years, so God is speaking again. It’s about time, isn’t it? I thought you’d like to know. If you read just a few of the revelations, you will find the Mystery and the Gnostic that you are yearning for but haven’t found. Best to you.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      October 10, 2015 at 9:06 am

      Yes, we need women to step up to being bishops and archbishops and ayatollahs and chief rabbis and all. But really, no mystic yearning going on in my head (or my body either). Being agnostic means that I’m not seeking or searching for anything. I simply explore, with both delight and bemusement. More in Agnostic: A Spirited Manifesto, due out in April. — L.

  3. Catherine Hiller says:
    October 10, 2015 at 10:22 am

    The indomitable Lesley Hazleton!

  4. lynnrosengiordano says:
    October 10, 2015 at 5:59 pm

    The irreplaceable Ms H. Stay strong, as is your wont.

  5. Huw Price says:
    October 12, 2015 at 9:12 am

    the forthright Ms Hazleton perhaps?

A Hard Choice? Really?

Posted October 1st, 2015 by Lesley Hazleton

The right-wing is trying like hell to do a number on the minds of American women. You know that thing about abortion being the hardest choice a woman will ever have to make, or the one she most regrets? Bullshit.

90_percentIn fact 90% of all American women who’ve had an abortion are either glad or simply relieved they did (click here for the research.)  And for every woman I know who’s had an abortion (that’s half the women I know, and quite possibly half the women you know too), a safe, routine, minimally invasive procedure was far from the hardest decision of their lives. For many, like me, it was the simple, sane choice. The only hard part was finding the money to pay for it.

You want a hard decision? What about marriage? Or divorce? Taking on a mortgage? Choosing a cancer treatment? Allowing a terminally ill spouse to die with dignity? What about the multitude of hard decisions we all have to make in the course of our lives, men and women?

But right-wingers don’t think women capable of rational decision-making at all.  It’s apparently especially hard for us delicate souls, which is presumably why they think we agonize over it and decide wrong.  How very Victorian of them. They’re apparently white knights in shining armor, out to save every woman from her own distressingly poor judgment.  In their ideal world, no woman would be “allowed” to make a decision without prior permission from the Republican caucus.  Certainly not any woman with an income under a million a year.

But it’s not our decision-making that stinks, it’s theirs.  Because not only is it morally and ethically bankrupt, it’s full of lies — deliberate lies.

— Like Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina pretending to be near tears as she talked about watching a video that didn’t exist and never had.

— Or the head of the House Oversight Committee trying to play gotcha with the head of Planned Parenthood by using a bogus chart created by an anti-abortion group.

— Or abortion opponents pretending there’s no such thing as an embryo.  They’d have us think that every abortion is that of a full-term viable fetus, when none are.  The vast majority of abortions are embryonic, medically defined as up to eight weeks from conception.  But hey, you can’t see an embryo on a sonogram, let alone wave photographs of it in an attempt to guilt-trip women.  So lie, baby, lie — and screw the lives you mess up in the process.

It’s clear by now that nobody cares about facts in the fantasy world of today’s Republicans.  Real facts, that is, as opposed to imaginary ones.

Those of us who live in the real world know for a fact that imaginary facts are dangerous.  Remember those non-existent weapons of mass destruction used as the reason to invade Iraq?  Or those non-existent scientists asserting with great authority that there was no such thing as climate change?

Forget hard decisions for the moment.  Here’s an easy one:  A year from now, do all you can to make sure we send this gang of women-hating, war-mongering, planet-polluting liars back to whatever slime pit they crawled out of.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: feminism, US politics, war, women | Tagged: Tags: abortion, Carly Fiorina, embryo, imaginary facts, Planned Parenthood, Republicans | 7 Comments
  1. Amna says:
    October 1, 2015 at 11:36 am

    Right on Lesley!
    But I am afraid that this whole country is blinded with madness and hatred and stepping away from humanity, humility and humanitarianism …The way things are going we could have the republican president representing this country next year and that will be the beginning of dark ages,once again… All my reasons for coming to this country in hope of finding equality, prosperity and freedom will be wiped away… there is less and less concern in this country for minorities, women and suffering of people in other parts of the world. America will turn the corner for worse and will never be the same….

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      October 1, 2015 at 12:00 pm

      Not the whole country, Amna. Nowhere near. But a warning that we can never take sanity and progress for granted. We always need to stand up and be counted, speak out, and call the bluff of ignorance and bigotry. Each in our own small way.
      Here’s Margaret Mead: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed it’s the only thing that ever has.”

  2. jveeds says:
    October 1, 2015 at 5:42 pm

    Not to change the subject…well, OK, to change the subject…do you have any thoughts on the Pope’s personal audience with the Kentucky county clerk, Kim Davis? I read Andy Borowitz’s satire on it and thought he was making that part up. But it really happened. But the weird thing is, no one from the Pontiff’s team seems to be willing to say why the abominable Davis was invited, what they talked about and there’s even some speculation that the Heir to the Chair wasn’t entirely aware that the meeting was being set up. That’s pretty hard to believe and maybe by the time you get to pontificalizing on this yourself we’ll have more info.

    But in the meantime, I’d love to get your take on this. Maybe His Petership was calling her in to say “STFU,” albeit in more popely terms.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      October 2, 2015 at 9:40 am

      Oh yes, it’s a weird kind of fun to watch Vatican spokesmen trying to spin this! The rationalizations are fascinatingly torturous. Yesterday: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/us/pope-francis-kim-davis-kentucky-clerk-washington-same-sex-marriage.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 and then today: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/03/world/europe/pope-francis-kim-davis-meeting.html
      Me? No pontif(f)icating for now. I’m just continually amazed at the screwed-up stance of orthodox religion on anything to do with sex (viz abortion, women clergy, gay marriage, contraception, priestly celibacy, pederasty).

  3. jveeds says:
    October 2, 2015 at 10:41 am

    Either way, I’d say this was a monumental failure of the Pope and his handlers, an epic miscue whereby either the Pope was under-informed, or misled, or simply had no conception of the political implications of having this notorious and divisive evangelical yahoo anywhere near his midst.

    It’s hard to believe that the papal PR machine allowed this to happen. In my view, it spoils much of the goodwill that the entire visit to America had gathered. So so sooooo stupid to let something this obviously misguided to happen.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      October 2, 2015 at 11:10 am

      Agreed. A ton of secular goodwill went out the door the moment Kim Davis entered it. Or maybe it was just a sudden jolt of reality.

  4. chakaoc says:
    October 9, 2015 at 5:34 pm

    Go, Lesley – morons and liars all. Their investigation into PP found nothing but there will be no exoneration because….well, it served their purpose. The slime pit beckons – hope they heed the call.

Who’s Really Pro-Life?

Posted September 10th, 2015 by Lesley Hazleton

How have we allowed this to happen? How have we allowed anti-abortion activists to call themselves pro-life? How have we not called them out, loud and clear, on this Orwellian double-speak?

Many of those against abortion are the same right-wingers who want to nuke the hell out of Iran or any other designated enemy of the day; who support the death penalty no matter how many death-row inmates have been proven innocent; who obstruct all attempts at gun control even when kindergarten kids are massacred; who see nothing wrong about cops shooting unarmed black men in the back. But a single fertilized egg inside a woman’s uterus? Suddenly, that’s sacred.

They’re not pro-life. I am. And Planned Parenthood is. And NARAL, the National Abortion Rights Action League, is. Because nobody here is advocating for abortion per se; what we’re for is the right to have one. For motherhood to be a matter of choice, not compulsion. And for a child’s right to come into the world wanted and welcomed. What we’re for, in short, is life. Not life in the abstract, but real life, as it is lived.

What we’re for is not more but fewer abortions. And the way to achieve that is clear: sex education in schools, and freely available contraception for women. Yet the anti-abortion crowd is against both. Which means that all they ensure is that there’ll be more abortions.

no-more-coat-hangersThe historical record is clear: women have always aborted pregnancies, whether with herbs, with knitting needles, or with wire coat-hangers in back-street abortions such as the one that nearly killed a close friend when I was a student. So now that abortion is safe – a minor medical procedure – the anti-abortion crowd are doing everything they can to make it dangerous again: to make the woman pay for having the gall to be sexual, and to make the unwanted child pay too.

If a woman chooses to carry a pregnancy to term and then give the child up for adoption, I totally support her choice. But it is cruel and punitive to force her to do so. It is downright obscene to insist that a rape victim carry her rapist’s child. And to make a woman give birth to a severely disabled child doomed to die in pain within hours, weeks, or months is nothing less than torture, of both mother and child.

This isn’t about the Bible or the Quran. It’s about punishment, about a basic attitude of life negation, of harshness and joylessness. It isn’t pro-life; it’s anti-life.

If its advocates weren’t causing so much misery and suffering, I might even find it in myself to feel sorry for them.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: existence, feminism, US politics, women | Tagged: Tags: abortion, contraception, double-speak, Naral, Planned Parenthood, pro-life, sex education | 11 Comments
  1. iobserveall says:
    September 10, 2015 at 12:25 pm

    I agree with every word you wrote.

  2. avasterlingauthor says:
    September 10, 2015 at 12:50 pm

    I agree with some things you say, but you do use a pretty broad brush toward your opposition to further your point. ; )

  3. Mary Waechter says:
    September 10, 2015 at 11:31 pm

    Very well put. I agree 100%!

  4. Fran Love says:
    September 11, 2015 at 8:29 am

    Lesley, you’ve covered all the issues perfectly. I wish I could have said it as well as you did. Other than posting here at your blog, have you published this article anywhere else?

    I know I could send this to a few of my friends via Facebook, but it wouldn’t get the coverage it deserves. I also realize there will be plenty of opposition to your statements, but they have to be said. We have to keep speaking out, especially because of the opposition. Thank you.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      September 11, 2015 at 8:38 am

      Thanks, Fran — and of course share on FB, and urge others to share. That can be enormously effective in spreading ideas. — L.

  5. Amin Tan says:
    September 11, 2015 at 10:13 am

    Dear Lesley Hazleton,
    You have said it all. I concur absolutely. Some people are so dogmatic about opposing abortion regardless of undesirable circumstances like rape, poverty, young and immature age, broken or mistaken relationship and so on. One must have basic common sense in life.

  6. Justine says:
    September 13, 2015 at 3:41 pm

    Would you mind if I linked to this from an opposing viewpoint?

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      September 16, 2015 at 10:39 am

      The blog is in the public domain, Justine, so of course feel free to do so. I will read with interest.– L.

  7. Tea-mahm says:
    September 14, 2015 at 9:02 am

    Lesley, this is it. Lets get every news agency to carry your message.
    I’m cheering for your words. Thank you, Tamam

  8. Joan says:
    September 14, 2015 at 9:18 am

    Agreed on all points. And I’d like to add another. The same people who are anti-abortion want to drastically reduce the social support system that helps care for the children (and parents) they insist should follow through with unwanted pregnancies, including the organizations that help prevent those pregnancies in the first place (e.g., Planned Parenthood).

  9. Denise Kaufman says:
    September 15, 2015 at 12:12 am

    I’ve said for a long time that we’ve let the other side define the terms. How did we let them co-opt the term “pro-life”? At the very least, we are all pro-life. I personally think that proof of “pro-life” includes supporting universal health care and early childhood education for all children. Many people are pro-birth but anti-childhood? We are pro-choice and they are anti-choice. Some new terms are needed!!

My Abortion

Posted August 27th, 2015 by Lesley Hazleton

Planned_Parenthood_busNearly every woman I know has either had an abortion or helped another woman get one. I know this because as the Republican attack on Planned Parenthood ramps up, I’ve been asking. Old and young, black and white and brown, married and single, straight and gay, religious and irreligious – women have been telling me their abortion stories.

But I think we need to tell them publicly too. To break the weird veil of shame and secrecy that still hangs over the decision, even when abortion is legal. To stand up and say “Yes, sure, I had one.”

So here’s the story of mine.

I was 20 years old – young and dumb, as every 20-year-old has every right to be. Not that dumb, though, since I was using a diaphragm thanks to the Marie Stopes clinic, the one place in the whole of England at the time that would provide contraception to an unmarried 17-year-old.  And the diaphragm worked fine until my first summer in Jerusalem, when it didn’t. Not because of any fault in the device, but because I hadn’t put it in. Carried away, late in my menstrual cycle, I’d said “Come on, it’s okay.” And three weeks later, realized it wasn’t.

There was no doubt in my mind what I needed to do. The guy I was with was a no-goodnik, the result of a bad case of delayed teenage rebellion on my part. I had an undergraduate degree in psychology but no idea what I wanted to do next, only that since I could barely handle myself, no way could I handle a baby. But abortion was still illegal in Israel. And I was dead broke.

I found my way to the Jerusalem branch of an aid organization for Brits – a single room with a single occupant, who took one look at me as I stood miserably in the doorway and before I could open my mouth said “You’re pregnant, aren’t you?”

I nodded yes.

“And you need an abortion.”

Another nod.

“And you don‘t know where to go.”

Again, a nod.

“And you don’t have any money.”

At the final nod, she said “Sit down,” and made three phone calls: one for an appointment with a leading gynecologist who didn’t believe in forcing women to have children; one to her HQ to get approval for a loan to pay his fee; and one to a publishing house to get me a job as a copy-editor so that I could pay back the loan.

We have been firm friends ever since.

The procedure itself was a non-event. (The doctor gave me a prescription for the pill and said he hoped to never see me again, though in fact he did, but not with me as the patient – he ran a maternity clinic, and was the obstetrician for three of my friends as I helped with their labor.) I parted ways with the no-goodnik, and set about the never-ending process of growing up.

And now, almost half a century later? No regrets. Quite the contrary, since I suspect this was the one rational decision I made the whole of that year. In short: thank god I had an abortion.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: feminism, US politics, women | Tagged: Tags: abortion rights, contraception, Marie Stopes, Planned Parenthood | 31 Comments
  1. rachel Cowan says:
    August 27, 2015 at 12:52 pm

    I agree Lesley that we should be telling these stories. AS you say, we all, myself included, have had one or have helped a friend, or both. But where to tell them? How to publicize them in some impactful way? The impact of undocumented young people telling there stories was important in opening up the immigration debate. Does anybody know somebody who is organizing this?

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      August 27, 2015 at 1:10 pm

      Looks like I’m organizing an event at Town Hall in Seattle, with thirty women speaking two minutes each, telling their own stories. Alas not until January.
      Wouldn’t it be great if there was a “speak-out day” nationwide with women doing the same?!

      • rachel Cowan says:
        August 27, 2015 at 1:17 pm

        That is great Lesley. Have you posted this on FB? Want me to as well?

        • Lesley Hazleton says:
          August 27, 2015 at 1:46 pm

          Want to get a firm date first, but after that — surely!

          • Lesley Hazleton says:
            August 27, 2015 at 1:47 pm

            But re a “speak-out day” — go right ahead! Thanks.

      • Athena Nation says:
        September 2, 2015 at 3:09 am

        Count me in.
        I’ll tell my story.
        And, well, I’m already in Seattle.

        athenanation1308@gmail.com

  2. Nancy McClelland says:
    August 27, 2015 at 1:23 pm

    Incredibly touching story, and thank goodness those adults were there to provide help in your otherwise isolating situation. I also love that they got you a job to pay back the loan. And how wonderful to hear that you’re still friends with the counselor, and that you had continued interaction with the OB after that. Thank you so much for sharing.

  3. Justine says:
    August 27, 2015 at 1:29 pm

    I’m sorry to hear your stories, I am a different kind of person, I urged someone very close to me not to get an abortion, to instead consider adoption. Thank goodness she didn’t go through with it. I can’t imagine the emotional turmoil that would take place if you were truly honest about what sort of ‘procedure’ you and your friends are so nonchalantly discussing.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      August 27, 2015 at 1:51 pm

      Nothing at all nonchalant about it, Justine. And you’re making unwarranted assumptions. Some women do go through emotional turmoil; some, like me, don’t.
      Further, I don’t know how many adoptees you know, but those I know are haunted by the idea that they were “given up” at birth. Maybe it’s you who are being nonchalant.

      • Justine says:
        August 27, 2015 at 8:24 pm

        I didn’t mean to misread your tone. I do realize that many people have been adopted have questions throughout their life, but I would ask you if you feel that the possibility that a child or grown adult may feel ‘abandoned’ at times is reason enough to not give them a chance at life.

        • Lesley Hazleton says:
          August 28, 2015 at 9:24 am

          I hear you, Justine, but would ask you to consider what it’s like to come into the world unwanted. And what it’s like to carry a child to term and then let it go. The emotional damage I have seen done to both mother and child is enormous.
          I truly cannot imagine the pain of knowing that if I had not had that abortion and had opted instead for adoption, my child would have been a stranger among strangers, and would have asked all his or her life why I had abandoned him or her. Or to live my own life with no idea whether the child had been delivered to a good home or, as too often happens, a bad one.
          We’re talking here about a very private decision that has been cynically politicized for electoral purposes, and because making your private life public is a hard thing to do for those unused to being in the public eye, I have enormous respect for those women willing to do it.

          • Justine says:
            August 29, 2015 at 10:10 pm

            I guess I just don’t understand why the best alternative to any of the POSSIBLE outcomes that you might perceive as being negative to the child is the death of the child before it has a chance to experience life. I think the most innocent beings in our society need to be protected. And there are great options, like open adoption, where the baby wouldn’t have to be a stranger. Thanks for hearing me out!

          • Lesley Hazleton says:
            August 30, 2015 at 5:56 pm

            I know I can’t convince you, Justine; you are deeply committed to your stance. But your comments do make me think further on this subject, to the effect that this divide between pro-choice and pro-life is an entirely artificial one — a meme dreamed up by dogmatists. I am pro-choice precisely because I am pro-life. That is, pro-choice IS pro-life. I’ll write a post on this in the coming week, and thank you for prompting me to do so. — L.

  4. caitlin says:
    August 27, 2015 at 6:30 pm

    Thank you for sharing your story. We need a world where people feel comfortable sharing such stories, rather than shamed for making the best decision for themselves.

  5. nasir khanzada says:
    August 27, 2015 at 9:23 pm

    The Torah and the Quran strictly forbids this. We shud discourage rather than encourage and publisize this!

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      August 28, 2015 at 9:06 am

      “We”? Speak for yourself, please, not for everyone else.

    • Jafar Siddiqui says:
      September 2, 2015 at 1:51 pm

      Would you please cite the actual verses where abortion is strictly forbidden in the Quran? I need some enlightenment.

      • Lesley Hazleton says:
        September 2, 2015 at 2:03 pm

        I’m curious as to where it could possibly be in the Torah, also.

  6. amin tan says:
    August 28, 2015 at 3:41 am

    Dear Lesley Hazleton,
    Your story is a lesson that must be broadcasted world wide for the benefits of unwed mothers and those in similar predicament. This is the universal problem encountered by young people in a relationship. We need sensible solution to a potentially devastating turmoil in the life of a young person. Thank you for sharing your life experience with us, even though it was very personal and a long time ago involving ‘nogoodnik’.

    amin tan

  7. lynnrosengiordano says:
    August 29, 2015 at 1:25 am

    Leslie,
    Anything against sharing this with my local Planned Parenthood Director, Linda McCarthy? She’s a mensch who would be so behind a “speak out” date and there are many others I know of who feel that this would make a dent. We’ve often spoken of it in exactly these terms. It would be smart to co-ordinate events.
    I know I’m being a political engineer here, but your story is so many’s and they all need to be “packaged” for the greater good. This nonsense has to stop.
    Love you – really.
    Lynn

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      August 29, 2015 at 11:10 am

      Of course share, Lynn! Thank you. Happy to pool efforts. — L.

  8. jveeds says:
    August 31, 2015 at 11:04 am

    I’m becoming more and more inclined to get rid of the loaded terms “pro-choice” (or “choice”) and “pro-life”(as Lesley perhaps begins to hint at). I understand that there is a cultural context in which the terms arose but I believe they are ready to be retired as being no longer of any descriptive or argumentative value — they’re simply dog-whistle terms for staking out a position. “Pro-life” is particularly galling since it would seem to be all-inclusive. If you’re really pro-life you should be against all wars and all guns as well as capital punishment…and not just against “some” wars or instances of what some would call justifiable homicide like an armed home intrusion. If you’re really “pro-life” then all life should be sanctified beyond quibbling about exceptions. Unfortunately, that leaves us with the somewhat distasteful (to some) but accurate term: “abortion.” Of course, “pro-choice” does not exactly equate to “pro-abortion” so there’s at least a semblance of rationality to that term. No one’s across-the-board in favor of abortion in all situations; it’s really a question of having the choice. But presumably we couldn’t leave pro-choice alone and ban pro-life…so both have to go.

  9. Lesley Hazleton says:
    September 2, 2015 at 11:44 am

    Great, Athena! Plans are afoot. Will keep you in the loop. — L.
    (and congrats on your return to writing — gutsy and good.)

  10. jafar siddiqui says:
    September 2, 2015 at 2:01 pm

    Nobody has the right to dictate what a person (man or woman) may do with their body, especially not in forcing a woman to have child she does not want. “Adoption not Abortion” has a good marketing ring to it but it ignores the fact that the woman is being forced to nine months of unwanted pregnancy, limiting or destroying her career and a lifelong guilt of having and then giving up a baby that is now “out there”.
    To be sure, there are many people who were adopted and who turned out to be wonderful people, but that argument is tangantial and irrelevant; it is STILL the woman’s choice to make and only hers. — Penjihad.wordpress.com

  11. Marissa says:
    September 21, 2015 at 3:32 pm

    I’m in Seattle, and will gladly tell my story of both of my abortions.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      September 28, 2015 at 10:30 am

      Thanks Marissa — we’ll be moving ahead in October, and will let you know when and where as soon as we have it finalized. — L.

  12. Shelly says:
    September 21, 2015 at 5:57 pm

    My story is probably not the “type” of story you are looking for, but I still feel it is an important story to tell. I was pressured into an abortion by my partner and it was a very traumatic experience. I still haven’t gotten over the anger I feel for not standing up for myself and my feelings. That being said, I still support all women making the choice for themselves. This is a deeply personal choice that can’t be made by anyone other than the pregnant women.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      September 28, 2015 at 10:28 am

      Thank you Shelly — and I totally agree that yours is as important a story to tell as all the others. This is what we need: women refusing to be cowed and intimidated, and making their own choices. I deeply regret your regret, and as deeply appreciate your support of all women having the freedom and the self-respect to choose for themselves.

  13. Carolyne Wright says:
    October 11, 2015 at 3:53 am

    Please let me know about the Seattle event for this. Thanks so much!

  14. npear says:
    January 18, 2016 at 2:25 am

    Thankyou for writing about this. Although I admit I was disheartened the way your story ended. Not at all because I disapprove, but why is it that of all the (few) stories that women share about their abortion experience it typically ends with a “yes it was the right decision and I’m glad I did it”. Well what if its not the right decision? What if, you thought you were ready for a family but you’re marriage imploded at the same time that you found out you were pregnant, like I did three years ago?
    And while there was a such a strong and powerful feeling that you could do this on your own and you loved this child enough to see it through, you were overcome by the sudden, terrifying notion you were going to be a single mum and you couldn’t bear that the man that helped you conceive would be the father. For many, many reasons I didn’t / couldn’t live with this. So I had an abortion and I regret it. There I said it. One year of therapy and I still regret, feel tremendous guilt and sadness over my decision. Maybe one year was not enough or maybe its just something that I just have to learn to live with and accept.

    So can we please open up the conversation to all women and all experiences? I’ve considered whether the weight of my guilt is in part because of how I might be perceived for having done what I did and for feeling what I feel. Surely I am not the only women in the entirety of human history that has been through this and feels this same way? It would be nice to know that I’m not! And perhaps through sharing stories if will take some of the fear and loneliness out of such experiences.

    Thankyou again for sharing your story Lesley. People like you and the books you write restore my faith and love for humanity.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      January 18, 2016 at 11:33 am

      And thank you for your story too, which must have been very difficult to write. The sadness I totally understand, even if I experienced none myself; but as I see it, you have nothing to be guilty about. You sound as though as you are still grieving, and if this is so, then it seems to me that you are grieving less for the child that might have been than for the marriage that broke up — the marriage that you hoped for, that might and should have been, and that was not. Here’s what I wish for you, then: to begin looking forward instead of back, towards a good, committed, loving partner with whom you will become pregnant again, and fully share in parenthood. In hope — Lesley

Flashback (Speed and Transgression)

Posted March 30th, 2014 by Lesley Hazleton

I’ve just experienced a strange sense of time travel — seeing myself twenty-odd years ago and finding her familiar and yet unfamiliar.

A reader found this video online and sent me the link.  I had no idea it even existed.  I only vaguely remember doing the interview, so had no idea what I was going to say next.  Sometimes I laughed as I watched, sometimes I cringed, but for the most part, I looked at this self-possessed 1992 self in amazement, as though asking, Who is this woman?

So for the record, and because it is part of my past, of the decade I spent writing about matters automotive (and earning far more money doing it that I ever have by writing about politics or religion), here it is:

[youtube=http://youtu.be/Cf62K7PypPg]

A footnote, also for the record:  it took a few years, but I drove all the speed out of me, and now take an almost perverse delight in slowness.

And, um, I no longer wear leopard print shirts.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: absurd, ecology, existence, feminism, technology | Tagged: Tags: cars, Confessions of a Fast Woman, speed, University of Washington, Upon Reflection | 5 Comments
  1. Tea-mahm says:
    March 31, 2014 at 3:25 pm

    Wonderful interview, especially the tie between Icarus and the need to go just a bit higher. and love the leopard print – perfect for speed…..

  2. Lux Ferous says:
    April 1, 2014 at 8:31 am

    What! Why aren’t you a psychologian 🙂

    Lux

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      April 1, 2014 at 12:09 pm

      Now that you put it like that, I like it!

  3. pah says:
    April 2, 2014 at 10:37 am

    gosh, we all get shocks/surprises when we see our old selves.
    where are you, Lesley? missing your blogs

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      April 2, 2014 at 9:50 pm

      right here. just a bit preoccupied…

“Do Arab Men Hate Women?”

Posted February 27th, 2014 by Lesley Hazleton

Two excellent minds — liberal activist and journalist Mona Eltahawy and Huffington Post UK political editor Mehdi Hasan — went head to head at the Oxford Union on whether, per the provocative headline of Eltahawy’s article in Foreign Policy Magazine, Arab men hate women.

Go to it, accidental theologists!  But…

Please view the whole video before you comment.  Let’s get beyond knee-jerk reactions.  It’s true that it’s a long video, but if you don’t consider the whole issue important enough to merit 47 minutes of your time, I hereby suggest you forfeit the right to comment.

–

[youtube=http://youtu.be/T9UqlEmKhnk]

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: feminism, Islam, Middle East, women | Tagged: Tags: Egypt, Foreign Policy, Mehdi Hasan, Mona Eltahawy, Oxford Union, Saudi Arabia, sexism, Tunisia, Yemen | 15 Comments
  1. Stephen Victor says:
    February 27, 2014 at 2:27 pm

    I appreciate you for posting this video. Thank you!

    I am heartened with the fact that Mona Eltahawy is providing counterbalancing forces to the forces of misogyny in our world. And I applaud how she is doing this. Her provocative essay title landed her this interview. As a result, more of us have become informed. Well done!

    I see the issues of gender inequality as pandemic. Even though Ms Eltahawy spoke of this, her focus, in the context of this interview, was primarily the Muslim world. Good for her!

    To me misogyny is in our DNA whether we are women or men – girls or boys. Misogyny is in the atmosphere we breath. In the water we drink.

    Most compassionately intelligent aware and caring woman or girls, boy or men would be horrified to know that they behave, in subtle or not so subtle misogynist ways. If we are at all representative of our respective cultures, we cannot not do this. We perpetuate misogyny unwittingly and without intent. I see myself and Mehdi Hasan in this group as well.

    This is why your post, Mona’s work and Mehdi’s interview, and this video are so vitally important. We need to educate ourselves. We can no longer afford our ignorance. We need take on the disciplined personal responsibility and being wholly mindful – open-heartedly mindful:
    • in the reconstruction of our personal worldview – our personal cosmologies
    • of the states of being we embody
    • to consciously choose mental working models that genuinely work – that are just
    • in how and where we deploy our attention
    • of our thoughts, convictions and beliefs;
    • in our communicating and the actions we take.

    If we respect life…if we espouse justice…freedom…if we value gender-based relationships, whatever one’s orientation…if we purport to revere love, human dignity, beauty, and the innocence and lightness of being – we can no longer act in accord with a worldview that hates freedoms for any life-form, let alone girls or women. We must take a stand and change ourselves. This is not about others. This is about each of us individually.

    Those who subjugate others are themselves subjugated by this very act. Misogyny has colonized us all.

    Life cannot hate life. Yet we persist in acting as though we do. The great divide is between those with the capacity to intentionally and willfully injure another, and those who, though they can, and do injure others, do so as a consequence of unhealed injuries – never volitionally! We can change this. This is our responsibility.

    What possibly could be more important in our lives?

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      February 27, 2014 at 2:40 pm

      Thank you, Stephen — beautifully put.

      • Stephen Victor says:
        February 27, 2014 at 2:54 pm

        You are welcome… there is one more bit I believe relevant: Might it be worth considering that those who are reluctant to acknowledge the existence of witting and unwitting misogyny in our world are really reluctant to change themselves? If one allows oneself to see what is – one cannot help but be changed…and as such one must think and act differently…

  2. Lesley Hazleton says:
    February 27, 2014 at 2:37 pm

    And here’s another thoughtful — and more critical — response from my friend Tarek Dawoud here in Seattle.

    On my Facebook page, he suggested this video of a Deen Institute conference called “Can Muslims Escape Misogyny?”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leyJaLCf8ks
    and commented as follows:

    “Much more thoughtful and realistic, a lot less about “provoking” and “grabbing headlines” and a lot more about breaking down the areas where misogyny appears and offering solutions/alternatives.

    “As for this conversation, I watched the full video a few days ago. The main problem with it is of course that it’s completely unscientific and lacking in methodology. So, when one presents an argument “Arab Men hate women” one would need to present evidence based on some social studies that shows that Arab male attitudes towards women are particularly negative compared to others. Or perhaps even (God forbid) survey the women in question. Instead, she opts for the unscientific approaches of tokenization and over-generalization. She picks a bad act that happens in 1% of rural families to depict “an Arab male attitude towards women in this country” and then spreads that across to all other countries too, even those that do not have it. And then, without trying to understand the socio-economic reasons behind the bad act (say rural families marrying their daughters young to rich men from the gulf), she totally explains it away with hate/scorn for women. In addition, as the student cleverly asked her (and she dodged), she is committing the age-old colonialist crime of advocating for freedom, but only freedom she likes. She knows what is best for all Arab women, they don’t.

    “This is not scientific or helpful. She’ll neither get support from scientists, social workers or social leaders. In my opinion, this is 60s style feminist “controversial writing” only done in 2014 when not many like that style any more.

    “I assume she’s good intentioned and wants to bring about true reform, but I feel she copped out… She took the easy route of citing a few studies about the prevalence of female discrimination issues, made an outrageous claim out of it, published it in a high profile paper and thus has “sparked the debate.” I don’t see the solutions to the real issues she raises coming out of circus like debates and half-baked research.”

  3. Lesley Hazleton says:
    February 27, 2014 at 2:39 pm

    And here’s my Facebook reply to Tarek:
    “Thanks (I think — I posted a 47-minute video, and you responded with a five-and-half-hour one!). But the Deen Institute conference looks excellent, and I will watch it — just give me time.
    “Meanwhile, does Mona Eltahawy generalize? Yes. Is she angry? Of course — and she says so. Is she being deliberately provocative? Again, yes. Has she sparked the debate? As she herself acknowledges, citing the work of writers such as Leila Ahmed and Fatima Mernissi, the debate has been going on for some time and has still a long way to go. What then?
    “I think what Eltahawy has done is bring the debate far more into the open. By publishing in Foreign Policy magazine, she’s demanding that both men and women, liberal and conservative, pay attention. And by bringing her well-known energy and passion to bear, she’s helping reframe it not as a ‘Muslim issue,’ nor even (despite the title) as an Arab one, but as a human- and civil-rights issue.
    “My main criticism: that she didn’t widen her argument to what is happening with women in many countries in central Africa, where rape (most notoriously and viciously in Congo) has become a weapon of war.”

  4. Madhav says:
    March 2, 2014 at 12:22 pm

    I do believe that religion in misused by people who seek power and would do by any means to do so. Oppression is the key word.

    Women oppression :- 50 % of the population sorted out… Ticked off.

    Caste system: Another 75% (assuming 4 Castes) of the left over 50% done… Ticked off…

    That leaves just 12.5% of the population to sort out…..

    Then go on to Say above so and so age….. That would cuts say another 50% of the 12.5%… Ticked off……

    That now leaves only 6.5% of the original population to dominate…

    Financial Oppression: Eliminate about 5 numbers… That leaves only .5% against domination……

    It is a Legal system that is needed to prevent Oppression……

    I am indeed lucky to be in a part of the world that represents a much better future for mankind. The UAE.

  5. Hande Harmanci says:
    March 3, 2014 at 3:56 am

    Dear Leslie, thank you for introducing me to Mona. We need more women like her. I will be following her from now on.

  6. Ross says:
    March 5, 2014 at 8:06 am

    I do agree with those perceiving a generalised approach from Ms Eltawahy, but worry about her opening the door to dyed in the wool bigots. For instance I would hesitate to post a link to her lecture on Twitter for fear of the vitriol that I’m sure would ensue.

    Anecdotally, what I see of interpersonal relationships among Muslim men and women in Australia, where they are a minority, is that “generally” speaking they are loving and respectful, which I suspect to be the case in US.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      March 5, 2014 at 9:12 am

      Ross — Most of the response to this has come on my Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/lesley.hazleton), where I re-posted this on the same date. Maybe because people feel Facebook is more of a communal venture, instead of something ‘mine.’ If you go there, you’ll find not only a remarkable lack of vitriol, but an in-depth discussion both for and against. I realize this is partly a reflection of whose friend requests I respond to, but I also think that it’s possible to be overly cautious, anticipating negative feedback that doesn’t necessarily happen. Perhaps this is a conversation that the vast majority of Muslim men and women are ready to have.

  7. Niloufer Gupta says:
    March 14, 2014 at 6:27 am

    I watched the debate ,mehdi hassan and mona elthawy- as i listened ,my mind went to the country that is mine- india.her anger is well placed and i feel that ,we in india ,need what she is aspiring for- a n equality in reality and not in abstract- that equality in reality needs grass roots education ,in every way.

  8. Lesley Hazleton says:
    April 17, 2014 at 2:43 pm

    A month later, here’s “Pro-Feminists and Metrosexuals: the New Arab Men of the Millennial Generation,” a counter-argument from Khaleb Diab:
    http://www.juancole.com/2014/04/metrosexuals-millennial-generation.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

  9. Lesley Hazleton says:
    April 18, 2014 at 8:32 am

    And also a month later, Ziad Asali on how men must play their part in the struggle for women’s rights in Arab countries: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ziad-j-asali-md/men-must-play-their-part_b_5172728.html
    Looks like Mona Eltahawy has done what she aimed to do: start a real conversation.

  10. Omer says:
    May 12, 2014 at 5:41 am

    I recommend readers see the website of Professor Asma Barlas.

    Of course much of the discrimination against the female gender has nothing to do with Islam but is of Middle Eastern culture and history.

    Afterall, during Prophet Muhammad’s time, there were some crazy contemporaries who would bury their baby girls alive! So evil to kill innocent babies and moreover in such a painfully cruel way.

    But there is still some discrimination against the female gender that is supported by clerics…usually the subset of clerics that is less educated clerics whose smarter older siblings were sent by their parents to be physicians and engineers but told them to be clerics since they did not do as well in their exams.

    Even with the issue of the clerics which is to some extent across most of the clerics, please see the excellent talks and papers by Professor Barlas…. she shows that it is paternalistic biased reading of Islamic texts that leads to such issues and not a correct reading of the Qur’an itself.

    http://www.asmabarlas.com/talks.html

  11. سالم says:
    July 22, 2014 at 10:56 pm

    “Do Americans Men Hate Women?”
    Every minute American women get murder and rape in the U.S..
    Most killer in the U.S. are choosing women.
    American women are treated like sex objects.

  12. sam says:
    May 20, 2015 at 11:24 pm

    Do arabs hate women ? no, and we don’t care what you think ? and if we do….be it, let’s see what are you gonna do about it

Doris Lessing, Uncovered

Posted November 18th, 2013 by Lesley Hazleton

doris_lessingThere was something unsatisfactory about the New York Times’ front-page obit for Nobel literature laureate Doris Lessing, at least for me.  So I went back to the archives to look for the magazine piece I wrote on her in 1982, and there I found the complex, ornery, fiercely intelligent writer I’d spent a whole day talking with.  It’s long (the NYT Magazine really ran magazine-length pieces back then), so if you want to read the whole piece, click here.  A few out-takes:

On Euro-centrism:

“I’m glad that I was not educated in literature and history and philosophy, which means that I did not have this Euro-centered thing driven into me, which I think is the single biggest hang-up Europe has got. It’s almost impossible for anyone in the West not to see the West as the God-given gift to the world.”

On marriage:

In retrospect, she says, ”I do not think that marriage is one of my talents. I’ve been much happier unmarried than married. I’m probably unmarriageable now. I just can’t imagine a marriage that would make sense to me. Once you’ve passed 30, I think, it becomes harder and harder for a woman to do. It’s easy when you’re a teenager; perhaps that’s the built-in mechanism for continuation of the species.”

On religion and politics:

”There are certain types of people who are political out of a kind of religious reason,” she says, digging dirt ferociously out of the kitchen table. ”I think it’s fairly common among socialists: They are, in fact, God-seekers, looking for the kingdom of God on earth. A lot of religious reformers have been like that, too. It’s the same psychological set, trying to abolish the present in favor of some better future — always taking it for granted that there is a better future. If you don’t believe in heaven, then you believe in socialism.

On Sufism:

”I’m not a Sufi, I’m studying it,” she says. ”It takes a very long time to become one, if ever, which distinguishes us from all these cults that create instant mystics. The Sufis see the whole guru phenomenon as a degeneration, and the people who pursue gurus as unfortunates.”

On the long view:

“We’re a species under extremely heavy stress. We emerged from the last ice age 12,000 years ago, and we are shortly — say, next week or in a thousand years’ time — going back into another ice age. Compared to that threat, nuclear war is a puppy. We have lived through many ice ages, through wars and famines. Look at Barbara Tuchman’s book on the 14th century, ‘A Distant Mirror’ – nobody thought they would survive that century, but they did. We can survive anything you care to mention. We are supremely equipped to survive, to adapt and even in the long run to start thinking.”

I wasn’t a “fan” of Lessing’s.  I admired her, but clearly with considerable reservations.  It wasn’t until a few weeks later, with the piece edited and ready for publication, and myself back in the United States, that admiration won out.   I got a panicked phone call from the New York Times:  “Can you call Doris Lessing and try to talk some sense into her?”

Um, come again?

Apparently they’d wanted to send a photographer, and she’d said no.  “There’s plenty of photos of me out there,” she’d said.  “You can use any of them.  No need to go taking another one.”

“But Mrs Lessing, we’re running this as the cover story,” they’d objected, with all the weighty consciousness of the magnitude of a New York Times Magazine cover.  “And we can only do that if we have our own photo of you.”

“So don’t run it as the cover story,” she’d said.  “What do I care?”  And hung up.

I loved it.  Most people would jump any number of hoops to be on the cover of the NYT Magazine.  But Doris Lessing truly didn’t care.  And even as I realized she’d done me out of a cover story as well as herself (they’d run the piece, of course, but with an old black-and-white photo and not as the lead), I started laughing out loud.  And could all but hear them down the line thinking, “Christ, she’s as crazy as Lessing.”

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: art, feminism | Tagged: Tags: Communism, cover story, Doris Lessing, Euro-centrism, marriage, sci-fi, Sufism, The New York Times Magazine | 7 Comments
  1. Niloufer Gupta says:
    November 18, 2013 at 9:24 am

    I read her work intermittently ,and i accept what she said ” its easier when youre a teenager” and ” always takin it for granted that there is a better future “trying to abolish the present .

  2. durgagi says:
    November 18, 2013 at 10:25 am

    I thought of you immediately when I heard of her passing. Great blog post!

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      November 18, 2013 at 11:20 am

      Thanks, Gigi!

  3. Nasir says:
    November 18, 2013 at 10:47 am

    I too wasn’t a fan of Doris Lessing untill what you said above. She looks so sage-like, thoughtful, sincere and full of compassion. A good lady and may she find happiness in heaven. Amen.

  4. twelvepalms says:
    November 18, 2013 at 1:45 pm

    We should all be that crazy 🙂

  5. V.Kugantharan says:
    November 18, 2013 at 7:42 pm

    Thank you for sharing. I especially loved her quote on Sufism. Beautiful!

  6. V.Kugantharan says:
    November 19, 2013 at 6:10 pm

    Reblogged this on Love of Conscience and commented:
    A lovely piece by Lesley Hazleton on Doris Lessing. If you view the New York Times video, you’ll see how humble Doris was when being notified of winning the Nobel Prize.

Hazleton on Hitchens

Posted February 3rd, 2012 by Lesley Hazleton

Last month, Town Hall Seattle ran a program called ‘Three Lives,’  originally touted as eulogies of three public figures — Christopher Hitchens, Kim Jong-Il, and Vaclav Havel — linked by the sole fact that they’d happened to die within four days of each other in December.  I was asked to speak about Hitchens.  “No way,” I said.  “Not unless you’re ready for an anti-eulogy.”

They were.

Here’s the video, in which I start at about the 4.45 time mark, running to 23.10.

[vodpod id=Video.16043815&w=425&h=350&fv=netstreambasepath%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.seattlechannel.org%252Fvideos%252Fvideo.asp%253FID%253D5201205%26amp%3Bid%3Dplaceholder1%26amp%3Bimage%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.seattlechannel.org%252Fimages%252FvideoImages%252Fampod_hitchensFULL.jpg%26amp%3Btitle%3DAmerican%2520Podium%253A%2520Hitchens%252C%2520Havel%2520and%2520Kim%2520Jong-il%2520Remembered%26amp%3Bplugins%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flp.longtailvideo.com%252F5%252Fsharing%252Fsharing.swf%26amp%3Bskin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.seattlechannel.org%252Fskins%252Fchannel%252Fchannel.xml%26amp%3Bprovider%3Drtmp%26amp%3Bstreamer%3Drtmp%253A%252F%252Fvideo.seattle.gov%252Fvod%252F%26amp%3Bfile%3Dnews%252Fampod_hitchensV.mp4%26amp%3Bcontrolbar.position%3Dbottom%26amp%3Bdock%3Dtrue%26amp%3Bduration%3D0%26amp%3Bstart%3D0%26amp%3Bsharing.code%3D%25253Ciframe%252520src%25253D%252522http%25253A%252F%252Fwww.seattlechannel.org%252Fvideos%252Fvideo.asp%25253Ffile%25253D1%252526ID%25253D5201205%252522%252520width%25253D%252522480%252522%252520height%25253D%252522380%252522%252520frameborder%25253D%2525220%252522%252520scrolling%25253D%252522no%252522%25253E%25253C%252Fiframe%25253E%26amp%3Bsharing.link%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.seattlechannel.org%252Fvideos%252Fvideo.asp%253FID%253D5201205%26amp%3Bsharing.pluginmode%3DHYBRID]

But if you want to see a really great presentation, go back to the video and start at the 57.35 mark, where ACT Theatre artistic director Kurt Beattie and actors Bob Wright and Tom Carrato deliver a stunning tribute to Vaclav Havel, inspiring me to go out and buy a copy of ‘Disturbing the Peace’ the next day, when I also read this moving assessment by his long-time translator, Paul Wilson.  I’m only sorry Havel had to die for me to pay closer attention.  But then that’s kind of Wilson’s point.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: agnosticism, atheism, feminism, fundamentalism, Islam, Judaism | Tagged: Tags: ACT Theatre, antisemitism, Christopher Hitchens, Iraq war, Islamophobia, journalism, Kim Jong-Il, Kurt Beattie, Margaret Thatcher, torture, Town Hall Seattle, Vaclav Havel | 5 Comments
  1. homophilosophicus says:
    February 3, 2012 at 7:56 pm

    Dear Leslie, sycophancy isn’t really what I do best, so I shall keep this brief. Your blog is marvellous. See, that was brief. I have been surfing for this brand of intelligent read for a while, and the reason for this is that I am stuck. Recently ‘homophilosophicus’ (an Irish theology blog) has begun an interfaith project at which I would dearly like you to take a peek. At present we are short on a Jewish voice, female voices in general and a Feminist opinion. You may not have the time, you may not even be interested, but please take a look:
    http://homophilosophicus.wordpress.com/introduction/
    and the contributors so far:
    http://homophilosophicus.wordpress.com/contributors/
    Yes, we run the risk of looking rather pale in your light (there’s that sycophant again!), but this is something we are willing to risk.

    The pay scale is rubbish (non-existent in fact), but if we could entice you in anyway whatsoever please mail me on:
    homophilosophicus.wordpress@gmail.com

    Jason Michael

  2. snow black says:
    February 13, 2012 at 10:12 am

    Bravo, and thanks for reading Hitchens so I don’t have to, as they say. I’ve always prided myself on having grown out of my taste for his brand of bullshit well before the Iraq war made plain his true nature.

  3. Imraan says:
    May 23, 2012 at 10:08 am

    Reblogged this on Heightened Senses and commented:
    Though I have not read her works (yet, and yes, it is on my to read list; I can’t wait for her biography of the Prophet to be published), Ms Hazelton is one of the most articulate (and astute at that) speakers I have heard, and if that is anything to go by, I cannot wait to get started on her books; this might sound sycophantic but I really love the way her mind seems to work, and how she appropriates words in a nuanced and colourful way, without ever distorting her topic.

    Do watch this eulogy

  4. Imraan says:
    May 23, 2012 at 2:27 pm

    What an excellent presentation; your case was cogent, and very sharply articulated! I’m glad that there are those ‘out there’ in the world who don’t drool over him or his work, or can’t help but fawn because of his ability to produce quotes; I couldn’t help but feel sorry for him whilst listening to him- his life appears to have been wasted, and I pray mine does not go the way of his. As George Galloway wrote, “He wrote like an angel but placed himself in the service of the devils.”

    I hope you don’t mind but I have reblogged this.

    Regards,

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      June 2, 2012 at 9:42 am

      I can just imagine him wincing at that Galloway quote!

What’s Right About the DSK Rape Case

Posted July 5th, 2011 by Lesley Hazleton

Since Joe Nocera in today’s NYT puts it better than I can right now, I’m running (below) part of his response to the egregious Bernard Henri-Levy‘s hysterical crowing about l’affaire DSK (Strauss-Kahn was dragged “lower than the gutter,” his treatment was “pornographic,” perfidious America etc).   Ironically, BHL’s screed was published the same day his dear, maligned, noble friend DSK was charged with another count of attempted rape in France, where his accuser, indisputably white and part of the same privileged upper-class elite, described his behavior as that of “a chimpanzee in rut.”

BHL is outraged — outraged! — that New York District Attorney Vance took the word of a mere hotel maid over that of an esteemed member of the French establishment.  He also blithely ignores the DNA evidence and the maid’s injuries, assuming that if she had lied in the past, on her asylum application, she must of necessity be lying now.

(Word of warning to all women:  never tell a lie in case you get raped, because we all know that it’s impossible for women who lie to be raped.)

Nocera rightly calls out BHL on his elitism.  And takes pride in the fact that the case is in jeopardy not because of DSK’s multi-millionaire lawyers, but because of  the hard work of DA Vance’s horribly underpaid team.

It’s just a pity Nocera’s piece didn’t run yesterday, Independence Day:

I can’t see what Vance did wrong. Quite the contrary. The woman alleged rape, for crying out loud, which was backed up by physical (and other) evidence. She had no criminal record. Her employer vouched for her. The quick decision to indict made a lot of sense, both for legal and practical reasons. Then, as the victim’s credibility crumbled, Vance didn’t try to pretend that he still had a slam dunk, something far too many prosecutors do. He acknowledged the problems.

Lévy, himself a member of the French elite, seems particularly incensed that Vance wouldn’t automatically give Strauss-Kahn a pass, given his extraordinary social status. Especially since his accuser had no status at all.

But that is exactly why Vance should be applauded: a woman with no power made a credible accusation against a man with enormous power. He acted without fear or favor. To have done otherwise would have been to violate everything we believe in this country about no one being above the law.

As for Strauss-Kahn’s humiliation, clearly something very bad happened in that hotel room. Quite possibly a crime was committed. Strauss-Kahn’s sordid sexual history makes it likely that he was the instigator. If the worst he suffers is a perp walk, a few days in Rikers Island and some nasty headlines, one’s heart ought not bleed. Ah, yes, and he had to resign as the chief of an institution where sexual harassment was allegedly rampant, thanks, in part, to a culture he helped perpetuate. Gee, isn’t that awful?

The point is this: We live in a country that professes to treat everyone equally under the law. So often we fall short. The poor may go unheard; the rich walk. Yet here is a case that actually lives up to our ideal of who we like to think we are. Even the way the case appears to be ending speaks to our more noble impulses. Vance didn’t dissemble or delay or hide the truth about the victim’s past. He did the right thing, painful though it surely must have been.

To judge by his recent writings, Bernard-Henri Lévy prefers to live in a country where the elites are rarely held to account, where crimes against women are routinely excused with a wink and a nod and where people without money or status are treated like the nonentities that the French moneyed class believe they are.

I’d rather live here.

————————

Making the same point:  Peter Beinart in today’s Daily Beast.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: feminism, sanity, US politics | Tagged: Tags: "chimpanzee in rut", Bernard Henri-Levy, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, elitism, France, Joe Nocera, rape, Vance | 7 Comments
  1. Kitty says:
    July 5, 2011 at 10:06 am

    Exactly. I liked this so much I posted it on my FB wall.

  2. Bruno HANQUIER says:
    July 6, 2011 at 2:37 am

    BHL as we like to call him is a shame to our country, a man whose position as an elite intellectual I have never been able to understand. Maybe his clownesque figure is entertaining enough that media attention is drawn to him… For me his only worthy performance was when he was “entarté” by Noël Godin.
    I totally back Nocera’s analysis and your reaction. Shame on us indeed.

  3. Anonymous says:
    July 7, 2011 at 1:44 pm

    Dear Lesley,

    Apologies if this is off-topic, but a certain youngster called Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi- an Iraqi, Islamophobic bigot- has written a piece critical of you and your work at http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/06/lesley-hazleton-karen-armstrong-ii.html.

    Could you please write a response to this boy?

    Regards,
    Anonymous.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      July 7, 2011 at 3:38 pm

      I must be doing something right: Now I can say I’ve been called an apologist for Islam as well as a Zionist spy. I reckon these two idiocies cancel each other out. On the other hand, a second Karen Armstrong? Those Jihadwatchis really know how to insult a girl…
      Meanwhile over at richarddawkins.net, I’m apparently a wishy-washy spiritual seeker (those orthodox atheists can turn an insulting phrase too), unable to appreciate the literary brilliance of Christopher Hitchens.
      Am so glad I’m agnostic.

      • AJ says:
        August 25, 2011 at 6:45 am

        I hardly know who is Tamimi and what this blog jihadis watch stands for.
        After reading the blog and comments there I learn this is Islamophobic blog and Tamimi with Muslim name is another sneaky Muslim haters.

        Theres something very immoral about this blog.
        If Tamimi has to write about Lesley then he must write here, where she can respond.
        He is sneaky and sneakiest are the commenters there.
        Most of the comments were not focused on what Tamimi wrote instead they were focused on Lesley bashing and her other work which was not discussed.

        At some time after Ramadhan I will try to respond to his exploitation of 72 virgin and other Quranic interpretations.

  4. Anonymous says:
    July 7, 2011 at 4:43 pm

    Dear Lesley,

    ‘On the other hand, a second Karen Armstrong? Those Jihadwatchis really know how to insult a girl’

    Forgive the fact that typing on a computer often obscures nuances in tone, but what is your opinion of Ms. Armstrong and her work?

    ‘Meanwhile over at richarddawkins.net, I’m apparently a wishy-washy spiritual seeker’

    Tamimi refers to you in the same terms, does he not?

    I appreciate your response, but what would be really nice is a separate post to answer the specific arguments he makes in his claim that you are misleading the audience concerning interpretations of the Qur’an. Ammunition is needed when it comes to debating Islamophobic bigots.

    Regards,
    Anonymous.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      July 8, 2011 at 11:21 am

      Obscured nuance deliberate. I appreciate what KA is doing, but can’t help getting this tone of pious diligence, so that her biography of Muhammad, for example, adds nothing to my understanding of the man himself. If it had, I wouldn’t be writing a new biography of him right now. Which brings me to your second point: debating closed minds is time-consuming and frustrating, since the response will always be to simply shift the focus rather than respond to what you are actually saying. Imagine trying to debate with Sarah Palin, and you’ll see what I mean. If I weren’t in the middle of writing this book, I’d probably take them on with gusto nevertheless, and with a certain delight in the fray. But at least for me, a book demands sustained focus, which I’ve been grappling for. This is why though I’ll be honoring prior commitments, I’ve been refusing all new invitations to speak until I finish it, and why I’m considering taking a break from blogging, which is huge fun but not good for sustained concentration. I’ll decide in the next few days (and post on the decision, of course…). If I do take a break, there’ll be lots of pent-up blogging energy when I start up again.

“Fuck-You” Feminism

Posted June 21st, 2011 by Lesley Hazleton

It’s a whole new generation of feminists.  They’re foul-mouthed (some of them), outrageously dressed (or undressed), with green and purple and orange hair (or just regular hair).  They’re straight and lesbian and both.  They’re young — in their early twenties mainly.  And dynamite — these are not women you want to mess with.

A cynical press was quick to label a “new wave” of feminists in the 1980s as “fuck-me feminists” (aka, with weird decorousness here in Wikipedia, “sex-positive feminists”).   Well, as the new generation of feminists would say, fuck that.

These are the fuck-you feminists.  The SlutWalk feminists.  There was lots of skin on display here in Seattle on Sunday, and great tattoos.  There were ripped fishnet stockings and day-glo pink platform boots and deliberately slutty thrift-store bras and teddies.  Five-year-olds with signs saying “Free to be me.”  A super-sexy Superwoman.  A woman in full Amish dress and bonnet carrying a sign saying “How I dress does not mean Yes.”  And lots of people with black teeshirts with “This is what a feminist looks like” in white lettering — many of them men.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“The radical notion that no-one deserves to be raped,” read one ironic banner.   “Fuck shame,” read another.  And “Jesus loves sluts” (directed at the nutters from Westboro Baptist Church — the ones who picket military funerals — who gave up and took their “Jesus hates fags” signs to a gay picnic instead).

Shameless?  You bet.  These new feminists are taking all the old insults — slut, bitch, whore, dyke — and running with them, turning them inside out.

Rocking and shocking their feminist forebears?  Definitely.  Too many older feminists have criticized the SlutWalk movement for feeding into the over-sexualization of women — which makes them  sound alarmingly like their own mothers criticizing them when they first took to the streets in protest (“I didn’t raise my daughter so’s she could go parading around like this in public…”)

Hey, the founding generation of feminists — my generation — don’t “own” feminism.  That’s the whole point of founding a movement.  You hand it on.  Younger women take the reins.  They reshape it, fight sexism in their own ways, redefine what it is to be free and female.  They make the movement their own.

So what if most of the SlutWalkers haven’t read ‘Against Our Will,’ Susan Brownmiller’s classic on rape?   They get it.  Stop blaming the victim;  blame the rapist.  Stop shaming the victim;  shame the rapist.  You don’t get raped because of what you wear;  you get raped because a rapist attacks you.  It’s not a sex crime;  it’s a crime of violence.

“I’m just sorry we still have to be out here saying this,” said one of the dozen or so women over forty in the crowd of over a thousand.   I knew what she meant.  In a perfect world, we’d be rid of rape.  But it takes more than one generation.  And this one’s going about it with an in-your-face directness that I totally admire.

So me, I just stood there beaming, aware of am alarming sense of absurdly maternal pride whelming up in me.  I was so damn proud of this new feminist generation.  Happy just to stand there and be part of their protest.  And as ready as they were to stand up to any police officer who asks what a woman was wearing when she was raped and say “Fuck that.”

——————

Later the same day, for those with ethical reservations:

Was just in Elliott Bay Bookstore and came across this:

And smiled.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: feminism | Tagged: Tags: "fuck-me" feminism, "fuck-you" feminism, Against Our Will, rape, Seattle, SlutWalk, The Ethical Slut | 23 Comments
  1. Kitty says:
    June 21, 2011 at 9:50 am

    bravo Lesley…I’ve posted this one to Facebook.

  2. Hossam says:
    June 21, 2011 at 9:52 am

    Do cops ask what a woman was wearing when she was raped??

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      June 21, 2011 at 10:30 am

      Yes, even if the woman was raped in the middle of the night by an intruder who held a knife to her neck.

    • Labrys says:
      June 22, 2011 at 11:15 am

      Yes. And when my daughter, at 14 1/2 was date-raped, they asked her what her grade point average was, too. At that point, I said we were “done” and took her from the room.

  3. kyo_9 says:
    June 21, 2011 at 10:25 am

    Nice post.. as always~

  4. Ali Zaidi says:
    June 21, 2011 at 11:13 am

    I say blame and punish the rapist but do not go slutty, also!!

    • Labrys says:
      June 22, 2011 at 11:16 am

      You miss the point. THe point is people say women get raped for being slutty.
      But the majority of women who are raped are not the least bit slutty at all.

      A grandmother in her 70’s for instance, not slutty! It is not what you wear, it is the idea that women are responsible for being raped that is being attacked.

      I say “Stay slutty and carry a BIG stick”

    • sarah says:
      July 17, 2011 at 4:15 pm

      it’s a woman’s right to dress ‘slutty’, whatever that means, if she chooses to. noone, however, has the right to rape. What I wear has nothing to do with wanting sex – it is not asking for it. If i want to wear a burqa, I will. if i want to wear a bikini, I will. None of that translates into what I want in terms of sex.

      The point is, women are often blamed for being raped due to what they wear, and this is not only ethically wrong, it is an example of an extremely fallacious argument – that choice of dress translates into consent, or something deserving of rape.

      how about we focus on society targeting rapists for their actions, which are ultimately much more harmful than anything a woman chooses to wear or not wear?

      that’d be nice.

  5. Godfrey Teirre says:
    June 22, 2011 at 5:56 pm

    Slut is a pejorative term applied to an individual who is considered to have loose sexual morals.

    It’s hard to rape a slut, they want it more than you do, goes the thinking.
    Dressing like a slut will most certainly create some interest from individuals, whose thinking goes along those lines.

    How does the Slutwalk effort lessen *anyone’s* chance of getting raped??
    Or will this show of “solidarity” somehow make them immune?

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      June 22, 2011 at 6:08 pm

      The idea of the SlutWalks is to stop blaming and shaming the women who are raped. What they wear, how they behave, how much they drank, what grades they got in school, what jobs they do, etc is all irrelevant to the rapist. Time to wake up and start really thinking, Godfrey.

  6. Godfrey Tierre says:
    June 23, 2011 at 5:16 pm

    Mmm. The last 2 items you mention: grades, and jobs, have nothing to do with a rape scenario.
    Alas the first three very much do; they create vulnerability in the victim, and can send very much the wrong signals to the would-be rapist.
    And, what is commendable about dressing, behaving and drinking like a slut?
    Is this the role model you are advocating for the young women of tomorrow?

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      June 23, 2011 at 6:38 pm

      I assure you that “the young women of tomorrow” are here today and am glad to say they have no need of my advocacy — and certainly not yours. Especially since you seem to have entirely missed the point. Just as a woman’s grades and jobs have nothing to do with rape, neither does her dress or behavior. Stop blaming women!

  7. Godfrey Tierre says:
    June 23, 2011 at 8:26 pm

    There’s no “blaming” involved.
    If someone gives you good advice not to step into a busy road without looking, do not cry Foul when run over by a truck.
    The truck was there first, and potentially dangerous.
    Putting yourself in harm’s way is just stupid.

    And advocating sluttiness is just…sad, really.

    • Hossam says:
      June 24, 2011 at 3:26 am

      The point is that men (or any would be rapist i suppose) is not an animal, they are in any case humans, and should really be able to control themselves, the idea that how a woman dresses increases the risk of her getting raped shows that men or any would be rapist has no mind or self control, or reason, and acts more like an animal than a human. I am not advocating sluttiness, but the message we are suppose to be giving out is: If you rape someone because you think she dressed like a slut, it’s your fault, not hers. If not dressing like a slut would avoid getting raped, then this shows we have a problem in how we perceive women. I think things like the slutwalk are not saying that women should wear like a slut, but it is raising awareness that nothing should be taken as an excuse to rape someone, rape is rape, no is no, it’s that simple.

    • sarah says:
      July 17, 2011 at 4:17 pm

      did you just compare choice of dress and rape to stepping of a busy road, as though it’s the same thing?

      How about, instead of asking women to dress a certain way, you ask men to not rape? Could you try doing that? Maybe you’d do some actual good instead of subscribing to stereotypes about rape and doing a damn good job of adding to rape culture.

  8. Godfrey Tierre says:
    June 24, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    Possibly some room then, for better in-depth studies into the mind of the rapist.
    I suspect most of the present discussion is based on ignorance.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      June 24, 2011 at 2:14 pm

      On the contrary, we know a lot about rapists. The ignorance is yours.

      • sarah says:
        July 17, 2011 at 4:27 pm

        well said, lesley. dealing with ignorant people can be such a challenge – i try hard not to instantly yell, but I admit, I involuntarily raised an eyebrow at some of the stuff he was saying.

    • sarah says:
      July 17, 2011 at 4:34 pm

      Did you know that a woman has a higher chance of being raped on a college campus as compared to women who don’t attend college campuses? interesting, eh? Make syou wonder how much good we do by classifying rapists as people outside of society and deviant – maybe we should focus on rape culture as a whole.

      I suspect your discussions and viewpoints are based in ignorance.

      here are a few things you should look up on your own time, should you have the interest or inclination or ability to perceive arguments rooted in logic, theories with a strong intellectual backbone.

      1) rape culture
      2) slut/stud paradox

      that’s a good start. maybe it’ll lead you to other things such as
      3) oppositional sexism vs traditional sexism

      good luck godfrey – i hope you see what most of us mean on this site at some point in your life – if not, it’s a tragic thing for you and women in your life simply because of the way you perceive women.

      also, comparing a rapist to a truck is is like saying that wearing provocative clothing makes a rapist rape – this is simply not true. Women in burqas are raped, women in hijabs are raped, women in so called modest clothing are raped – it is not the women’s fault that she is raped. Do you understand? Dress. is not consent. It is never consent. This is the fundamental thing you need to understand and recognise that rapists RAPE because THEY CHOOSE TO regardless of their victim’s choices. Their victims are tall short skinny fat promiscuous modest mentally challenged queer straight disabled abled strong weak – it doesn’t matter.

      asking a woman what she was wearing while raped is the same thing as asking her “well why didn’t you just fight him off then?” – that is a much closer analogy than the one you were striving for, because it PLACES THE RESPONSIBILITY OF HAVING BEEN RAPED squarely on her shoulders.

      I don’t normally use capital letters when commenting, but then, normally, I’m speaking with people on an even intellectual plane. With some people, using such methods might make the message sink in better.

  9. Godfrey Tierre says:
    June 25, 2011 at 9:29 pm

    Well goodonya Lesley, always a pleasure to discover there is no other point of view.
    Hope y’all succeed in whatever it is you aim to succeed in, and that you achieve a degree of pleasure from it also…

    • sarah says:
      July 17, 2011 at 4:26 pm

      lol, we aim to succeed in getting rapists to stop raping, to stop this culture of shaming women, when we should be shaming rapists, that choice of dress is not remotely close to consent. We don’t care about women dress, we think men are not mindless creatures who think a particular dress means yes, and we think pejoratives like slut, which, in masculine culture translates to stud, is something worth reclaiming. Some of us would reclaim it, others not so readily – but all of us believe that CHOICE OF DRESS is not a reason or an excuse or a justification for rape. Do you understand that?

      The point of slutwalk is to highlight a few things:
      1) dressing like a ‘slut’ whatever that means is not an excuse for anyone to rape
      2) no matter what you wear, be it amish clothing, a burqa, a bikini, short shorts, fishnet stockings – whatever it is – none of that translates to consent
      3) the double standard of slut/stud – and that reclaiming the word slut in a positive context – why? because why is STUD such a compliment for describing the same actions that a woman labeled a slut is? ridiculous.

      What you don’t understand godfrey, is that we have analysed your point of view, know it very well, inside and out, and can probably intellectualise it and demolish it with very good logical arguments. What you have to back your argument are social mores that are outdated, oppressive, and illogical.

      there are many different points of view within feminist and queer theory – such as – is reclaiming the word slut really effective? some feminists would say yes, others no. There’s also classism to consider, and queer politics to consider – does slutwalk appeal to women from all socioeconomic classes and to those who do not identify as straight?

      we’ve moved on from your petty arguments after having given them considerable thought – dealing with logical fallacies is a cornerstone of any academic or intellectual feminist – and a practical aspect of dealing with ignorance in our lives.

      maybe you should read more, get out there, and actually learn why this is a movement. Go from a place of intellectual curiosity, and not defensiveness, and maybe you’ll learn things you didn’t expect to!

    • sarah says:
      July 17, 2011 at 4:37 pm

      hope you learn a thing or two from these discussions or spread your misogynistic, stereotype-based filth elsewhere, and that you achieve a degree of remorse eventually when you figure out how wrong and ignorant you’ve been all along.

  10. fozi says:
    January 2, 2012 at 5:30 am

    All those skanky men, dressed in their skanky underwear-showing baggy pants/ tight tops/ no tops with their bodies on show etc.

    They’re dressing like studs, studs being those perceived to have loose sexual morals, they’re practically asking to be raped, abused, violated, hit.

    They should choose what they wear with more thought! Watch what they drink, not drink like a skank! Otherwise they’re just inviting those dangerous evil women that are out there waiting to savagely attack, sexually assault and mutilate them…

    ..like walking in front of a lorry without looking.

    Yes, it wasn’t entirely her fault, she couldn’t help herself, you were sending her mixed messages with how you were dressed /behaving/drinking.

    How was she to know you didn’t want a gun butt smashed against your testicles or her long nailed fist shoved where the sun doesn’t shine? If you didn’t want it why didn’t you fight her off?

    #banbaggypants

Revolution, Saudi Style

Posted June 17th, 2011 by Lesley Hazleton
Is this what a revolution looks like in Saudi Arabia?
As the AP reports on what’s been happening today as Saudi women get behind the wheel in coordinated civil disobedience — and on what they risk by doing so — here’s a taste of the flood of messages of support on Twitter.
—-
@lisang:
Saudi women defy the ban on driving today. Follow #women2drive for unfolding events. Here‘s Amnesty’s report.
—-
@amnesty (Amnesty International):
We are in solidarity with #Women2Drive as they peacefully defy violations of their rights today!
—-
@SamAtRedMag:
#ff @saudiwoman for up to the minute tweets on #women2drive
—-
@daliaziada:
I support Saudi women to drive their cars and most importantly to drive their lives! #women2drive
—-
@GEsfandiari:
We are all Saudi women today #women2drive
—-
@accidentaltheo (me):
May this be just the beginning.
Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: feminism, Islam, Middle East | Tagged: Tags: Amnesty International, civil disobedience, driving, Saudi Arabia, women, women2drive | 9 Comments
  1. rivrpath says:
    June 17, 2011 at 10:33 am

    It is down to the root thing – men’s power over women whether it is driving a car or abortion. And everything in between.

  2. Lamiaa says:
    June 17, 2011 at 11:58 am

    I lived in Saudi for 3 years and on the door of every mosque there is a long poster with fatwa at the top being the one denying women the right to drive in the name of religion. I have read my Quran and there is nothing in there that belittles the freedom of women in any form. I used to cover my head not knowing it was based on fatwa as such. I read the Quran and found it say “covers” should conceal parts of the body not “head covers.” Many things unfortunately are legislated in the name of God and God is innocent of these crimes against women. I stopped believing in man made interpretations. What you did Lesly with your explanation of “heaven” and how male interpretors have imposed their sexist thought doesn’t deviate from many forms that we still have to deal with as women brought up in the region. I’m Egyptian and no longer believe in these male dominated laws. I believe in The God of Muhamed, Jesus and Moses. The one who created us all equal. I pity those men for what they have done they brought war upon us, stifled the lives of women and worst of all they completely misunderstood God.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      June 17, 2011 at 1:46 pm

      Amen.

    • aboalhasan says:
      June 18, 2011 at 8:30 pm

      Sooory.. Lamiaa you mixed the truth with mistakes.. Really, you have read (alnoor) chapter
      وليضربن بخمرهن على جيوبهن
      or you just say that when wrtting cmmnts?

      Other point, where are those long poster?

      The men in saudi arabia are save thier women. And if women drive cars that not mean our real problems were finished.

      Again and again, this is an intorior issue not a global.

  3. aboalhasan says:
    June 18, 2011 at 8:20 pm

    At the end, they fail. Next time all people will help women to drive. But this time it is BIG fail 😛

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      June 19, 2011 at 10:53 am

      You sound so pleased. But you are wrong. Ideas cannot be repressed for ever. The number of women driving on Friday may have been in the dozens instead of the thousands, but wake up and smell the roses: soon it will be in the thousands and hundreds of thousands. It seems clear enough that a large percentage of Saudi women no longer want to be ‘saved’ by men, and much prefer the idea of doing the ‘saving’ themselves. Then, perhaps, the women will do better than the men at tackling the mountain of other problems you refer to in Saudi Arabia. They certainly can’t do much worse.

    • rivrpath says:
      June 19, 2011 at 12:28 pm

      What are you afraid of? How is a woman not driving honoring Allah? It is sad that you take joy from the sorrow of others.

  4. Lamiaa says:
    June 21, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    Dear Aboulhasan, the verse you wrote doesn’t state women should cover their heads it states they should use their covers over defined body parts there is no mention of heads any where and I personally don’t think common issues are internal. I believe issues relating to woman should concern women and women only should be consulted in matters that concern them. unfortunately we live in a world where interpretation is an exclusive arena for men or few women who walk in the footsteps of men and are deprived of speaking for themselves. I believe Allah gave men, women and all creatures abilities to use them and live a productive easy life but man is stifling the lives of women putting restrictions on the breath they take. I know it is hard to accept ideas that challenge conventions but you are given a tongue then you are meant to speak..

  5. outspokenthug says:
    September 30, 2011 at 4:27 am

    Women in Islam have equal rights as that of a man. There is no single verse in The Glorious Quraan which states females are inferior to men. They should be given equal rights in each and every field.
    But its sad to know that people nowadays, in the name of religion, make and impose rules as per their understnding and their wish.

    And mr. Aboulhasan, do not mention the verse of The Holy Book if you dont know the meaning of it. Coz little knowledge is very dangerous!

Soccer v. Headscarf: 0-1

Posted June 10th, 2011 by Lesley Hazleton

More absurdity this week:  FIFA, the international governing body of football, banned the Iranian women’s soccer team from an Olympic qualifying event because the players wear hijab — Islamic headscarves.  The official reason:  safety.  Wearing a hijab while playing “could cause choking injuries.”

Yeah, sure.  As one commenter noted, Google “hijab soccer choking deaths” and the search engine doesn’t exactly hum.

These aren’t just any hijabs, mind you.  They have to be the coolest  ones ever.  They’re like speed-skaters’ hoods, and the players look like white-clad ninjas.   I’ll bet they can move like ninjas too.   Clearly FIFA has no sense of style.

Correction:  FIFA has no sense, period.

The decision to ban the Iranian team was made by FIFA head Sepp Blatter, who’s apparently one of those Berlusconi-type men who’ll tell you how much he loves women, by which he means how much he loves looking at female flesh.  No, I’m not making assumptions.  The arrant hypocrisy of this ban is clear when you consider the fact that Blatter proposed in 2004 that women players wear plunging neckines and hot pants on the pitch to boost soccer’s popularity.  Tighter shorts, he said, would create “a more female esthetic.”

I guess it was kind of amazing he didn’t propose wet tee-shirts.

And if you believe that Blatter is for a moment concerned about women being injured, his response to requests by human rights organizations to take a stand against the sex trafficking that accompanies the arrival of the World Cup was this:  “Prostitution and trafficking of women does not fall within the sphere of responsibility of an international sports federation but in that of the authorities and the lawmakers of any given country.”

No, Blatter’s all about the sport.  He’s presumably salivating for more on-field celebrations like Brandi Chastain‘s famous shirtless moment when the U.S. won the 1999 Women’s World Cup.  And drooling over women’s sportswear catalogs instead of Victoria’s Secret ones.  In which case he’s pathetically misreading that Chastain photo.  This was the victory of hard work and muscle over frills and pretty posturing.  Serena Williams revolutionized women’s tennis in much the same way, making it a power game (in dress as well as style of play — the black catsuit she wore a couple of years back was dynamite).

What Blatter’s really doing is trying to piggyback on the burqa ban in France and the minaret ban in his native Switzerland.  But the good news is that it’s backfiring on him.  Badly.  Already the focus of multiple accusations of corruption in his 12-year tenure as FIFA president, he probably saw this as an easy way to try to redeem himself by jumping on the anti-Muslim bandwagon.  Instead, the storm of criticism might be an indication that Europeans are beginning to realize just how badly they’ve been manipulated by misogynistic xenophobes on such issues as burqa bans.

One further note on that shirtless photo:  Chastain herself was amazed when it ran worldwide .  “I wasn’t trying to make a statement;  I was just carried away, and doing what male players do in the same situation,” she told me when I met her not long after.  “I was really surprised there was so much fuss about it.  I mean, there’s a much better photo of the victory moment, but nobody ran that one.”  Here it is, on the right — the photo they didn’t run, baggy shirt, baggy pants, and all.  Which I guess just means the world is full of Blatters.

—————————

(Thank to Sarah Hashim for alerting me to this story.  I know I was born in England, but soccer’s not my thing.  Tennis, though…)

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: absurd, feminism, Islam | Tagged: Tags: ban, Berlusconi, Brandi Chastain, FIFA, football, headscarves, hijab, Iran, Islamophobia, Olympics, Sepp Blatter, Serena Williams, sex trafficking, soccer, tennis, women, World Cup, xenophobia | 8 Comments
  1. Sanaa says:
    June 10, 2011 at 10:49 am

    Thank you for your insight and humor, and for posting this. Sanaa

  2. kyo_9 says:
    June 10, 2011 at 11:11 am

    Pity for Iranian Women Soccer team..
    But more pity when I heard that it was Bahrain who filed the statement during the match.. Funny when football meets politics and religion.. 😉

  3. Adila says:
    June 10, 2011 at 5:42 pm

    Interesting reading!

  4. Philip says:
    June 13, 2011 at 12:29 pm

    It is time other players on other teams refused to play if an injustice is done to other players on other teams such as in the case of the Iranian women. The old corrupt men who run FIFA should be embarassed by the athletes for whom the game exists.

  5. Piotr Rozwalka says:
    June 14, 2011 at 4:23 am

    Lesley, thank you for this post. I was quite astonished too when I first saw this information few days ago. When researching the topic further, I found another interesting example of Jewish basketball player Naama Shafir (link below).

    I wonder what really lies at the core of this issue. Firstly, we have Western world with its rather strict separation between religion and public life. Since the West has a lot of power over many spheres of international public life it enforces this value of separation on many various parties, being it Iranian footballers or Jewish basketball players. What is important I guess, is that in modern Christianity there is less artifacts which could be affected by such separation so we can accept it easier. But is not it a very effect of centuries-long separation in the first place? Secondly, we have cultures for which such separation is a very unusual concept due to completely different role religion plays in their societies. It seems that the West has no proper understanding of this role and those societies. Is not it the deficiency of modern understanding of cosmopolitanism – us, the West, imposing our values on other cultures in the name of vaguely understood human rights?

    Here is a link to the story: http://www.jpost.com/Sports/Article.aspx?id=224734

  6. Piotr Rozwalka says:
    June 14, 2011 at 4:30 am

    Here is a great picture of the Iranian footballers taken after they heard the decision, I reckon: http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/254284_10150651695560657_805115656_19225931_1960693_n.jpg

  7. Anon says:
    August 19, 2011 at 1:15 am

    Pity..they look so cool.
    I thought diversity and inclusiveness was at the heart of international sport.

  8. Noura says:
    December 1, 2011 at 9:08 pm

    “They have to be the coolest ones ever. They’re like speed-skaters’ hoods, and the players look like white-clad ninjas. I’ll bet they can move like ninjas too. Clearly FIFA has no sense of style.” made my day. & by his sex trafficking remark, were you trying to imply that he’s a “consumer”? Cuz I just made a nasty connection. After all, if he’s not a “consumer”, then where do the thousands of trafficked persons go to instead if a Fifa head?

The Virginity Test

Posted June 2nd, 2011 by Lesley Hazleton

Sometimes I wonder what year it is.  2011, or 1911?

Item:  former IMF director Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s legal team is about to spend at least half a million dollars trying to discredit the immigrant chambermaid who accused him of rape and sexual assault.  Presumably, they’ll try to use her sexual history against her.  After all, she’s a widow with a 15-year-old child.  That is, she’s no virgin.

Item:  the so-called virginity tests forced on women protestors in Cairo by the military.  In fact these were officially sanctioned rape, even if no penetration was involved.  They were a deliberately chosen means of intimidating, humiliating, and attempting to control women.  To say that virginity has nothing to do with political activism is to belabor the point.  It’s not as though those who “passed” the publicly administered “test” were released with the military blessing to go demonstrate in freedom.  It was yet another means of repression.

For those who might think this is a peculiarly Islamic thing, consider that Muhammad’s first wife, Khadija, with whom he lived monogamously for 19 years, was twice widowed by the time they married.  And that of the nine women he married after her death, only one was a virgin at marriage (the others were all divorced or widowed).  Since virginity was clearly a non-issue to Muhammad himself, any religious argument for it is hard to make.

As for those virgins in paradise, well, see my TEDx talk for that.

The same applies in Christianity.  Yes, of course I know about the Virgin Mary — I wrote a book about her.  But as I pointed out there, to reduce the concept of virginity to the existence of a biologically useless membrane called the hymen is worse than absurdly literal.  It totally misses out on the grand metaphor of virginity, which existed around the world at the time.  As with a virgin forest, it stood for incredible fecundity, for a surfeit of growth and reproduction, untamed and unfettered.  That is, virginity was the miracle of fertility, and in that respect, the Virgin Mary is the last in a long and once-powerful line of mother goddesses.

So let’s not blame religion.  That’s just the excuse.  Nor such a thing as a “Middle East mentality.”   Because…

Item: as late as the 1970s, British officials were administering virginity tests too.  And again, the purpose was to intimidate women — to deter them from entering the country as immigrant brides (if they weren’t virgins, it seemed, they had to be lying about their reasons for entering the U.K.).   And while we’re talking about Brits, by the way, how weird is it that at that same time, the early 1970s, Richard Branson chose the name Virgin for his enterprises?  Flying the friendly skies?

Perhaps all this means that in forty years’ time, the confusion of virginity with virtue will be as outmoded in Egypt as it now is (Branson excepted) in England.  But then of course it’s not about virtue, and never was.  It’s about the peculiar desire of some men (thank God not all) to control women — their sexuality, their behavior, their freedom of choice.  That is, it’s about not about women as people, but as possessions.

Item:  A commenter on this blog, fulminating against Islam with such blatant racism that I had to bar him as spam, summed up his argument this way:  “We know how to treat our women.”  That “we” evidently referred only to men, specifically to non-Muslim western men who think of women as possessions — “ours” — and as such, to be (mis)treated as “we” see fit.   He was, he made clear, a fundamentalist Christian.

So tell me, what year are we living in?  Scratch the years I gave at the top.  If you go see Werner Herzog’s new movie, Cave of Forgotten Dreams (about the prehistoric paintings on the walls of that cave), you might discover that even Neanderthals had more respect for women than this.  And they lived 35,000 years ago.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: Christianity, feminism, Islam, Middle East | Tagged: Tags: Cave of Forgotten Dreams, DSK, Egypt, fertility, Great Britain, Khadija, Muhammad, rape, sexuality, UK, virgin forest, Virgin Mary, virginity tests, Werner Herzog, women | 14 Comments
  1. Hossam says:
    June 2, 2011 at 2:49 pm

    As usual you wrote a very well article. It sometimes amazes me how some people quickly forget the past. It is something horrible if it really did happen, a disgrace. I think that guy’s ridiculous excuse “We didn’t want them to say we had sexually assaulted or raped them, so we wanted to prove that they weren’t virgins in the first place,” shows how much lack we have in terms of understanding of human rights and what constitutes rape. So we are about 40 years behind, i just hope we start catching up soon.

  2. lavrans says:
    June 2, 2011 at 11:24 pm

    As usual, I wonder about how much all of this is the struggle of overcoming “civilization”.

    Of course the Neanderthals treated women better… women were still part of the family. To move into a city requires agriculture and religion. Both of those seem to require hierarchies, and the simplest one is that of sex, followed by color, and then all the other facades that mean so little.

    Of course that’s a bit simplistic. Plenty of bad behavior to go around, but I’m constantly surprised by how much people seem to require someone else to provide them with the rules of composure, of respect, even while the ideal can be pulled from every mouth with very little prompting.

    We all know the myth of respect and virtue. What is it that makes it so enticing to withhold that from as many people as possible and upon such capricious reasoning? Religion itself of course isn’t an excuse- even though many put extra conditions on women and “others”, all of the prophets spend their time treating everyone as equally as possible.

    What turns me from religion and religious people is the awesome ability of the organization of religion to be so consistent in its absolute rejection of the very simple idea that the priests, those who manage the religion, should be bound to act LIKE their phrophets. They don’t seem to have a problem claiming some special connection to their God, but I suppose it’s a lot easier to [i]CLAIM[/i] to be the closest thing to God’s Chosen One on Earth than it is to ACT like the prophet who brought God’s word here.

    BTW- I don’t know how to do italics in this

  3. lavrans says:
    June 2, 2011 at 11:25 pm

    Oops- didn’t mean to post yet- I don’t know how to do Italics, so the CAPITALS aren’t meant to be shouts, just emphasis…

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      June 3, 2011 at 9:25 am

      I know — WordPress seems to take sadistic delight in forcing commenters to capitalize by denying the use of italics. Awaagh….

  4. chefranden says:
    June 4, 2011 at 2:33 pm

    “So let’s not blame religion. That’s just the excuse. Nor such a thing as a “Middle East mentality.” Because…”

    Yes let’s do blame religion. Where do you suppose the British got the idea that a bride should be a virgin in the first place?

    • sirnassir says:
      June 7, 2011 at 9:06 pm

      Except that numerous societies with vastly different religions, from Buddhist Japan to Muslim Turkey, valued virginity amongst potential brides. This shows that religion isn’t at the root of the issue, since the problem (if that’s what you would like to designate it) crosses religious and cultural boundaries.

  5. Lamiaa says:
    June 10, 2011 at 2:17 am

    you made me cry … thank you

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      June 10, 2011 at 8:53 am

      Thank you, Lamiaa. Your tears, my privilege. You definitely earn the title Luminous Woman (http://luminouswoman.blogspot.com).

      • Lamiaa says:
        June 12, 2011 at 6:50 am

        🙂 Thanx Lesley..

  6. Ali Zaidi says:
    June 21, 2011 at 8:51 am

    “….consider that Muhammad’s first wife, Khadija, with whom he lived monogamously for 19 years, was twice widowed by the time they married.”

    According to Shia Islamic literature Khadija never married before marrying the Prophet. So may be it is not justified to claim that Khadija was a two-time widow before she married the Prophet.

    • Ali Zaidi says:
      June 21, 2011 at 9:08 am

      “… is not justified to claim that Khadija was a two-time widow….”

      Oops! Ofcourse you are justified to make this claim but what I meant to say was that it may not be entirely true that Khadija was a two-time widow before marrying the Prophet.

  7. Lamiaa says:
    June 21, 2011 at 2:07 pm

    khadija had kids before Muhamed PBUH we all know that and even if she didn’t we all know she was 25 years his senior and women didn’t stay unmarried that long in that community so it is highly probable she was…I wonder when will men de-sexualize their intellects and truly think out side the box. It is thought that ruined the lives of widows and divorced women denying them a second chance at a happy married life.

    • Ali Zaidi says:
      June 22, 2011 at 10:43 am

      My only point is that when you say “..khadija had kids before Muhamed PBUH we all know that….”, it reflects only one version of the Islamic history. There is enough historical literature available on Khadija not being ever married before Muhammad PBUH.

      • Lesley Hazleton says:
        June 23, 2011 at 6:43 pm

        The earliest Islamic historians all agree that Khadija was twice widowed, but what interests me is this: why does it seem to be so important to you to believe that she was not?

Portrait of a Saudi Criminal

Posted May 24th, 2011 by Lesley Hazleton

You might think it absurd that a woman driving a car is news.  But then this is the absurdity known as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, now frantically trying to censor video clips of Manal al-Sharif driving.  An apparently government-supported online drive is under way to beat women caught driving, and al-Sharif  (this is her, to the right) is being held in detention for “inciting public opinion” and “disturbing public order.”

That is, for driving while female.  DWF.  A crime.

Watch the Al Jazeera report here.  Check out the newly replicated Facebook page here.  Read al-Sharif’s instructions for the June 17 ‘drive-in’ protest here on Saudiwoman’s Weblog.

And then consider the far greater absurdity of the continued existence of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which refuses to extend the most basic civil rights (even the vote) to half its population, and whose wealth and power is entirely fueled by the Western thirst for oil.  An intensely repressive Middle East regime, that is, funded directly by Western money.

But that’s only the surface.  This Western oil money is still funding the worldwide Saudi export of the most conservative and repressive form of Islam.  If there is one single country that has enabled violent Islamism, it’s not the perceived enemies of the United States like Libya, Afghanistan, or Iran, but our “good friends” the Saudis — our oil dealers.

The Saudis thought they had escaped “the Arab spring.”  They sent their military into Bahrain to help squelch protests there.  They encouraged the violent suppression of protests in Yemen.  They thought they had things under control.

But another kind of Arab spring may now be in the making.  An Arab summer, perhaps.  Six months ago, a single Tunisian street vendor couldn’t take it any more and sparked a revolution by setting himself on fire.  Now a tech-savvy Saudi woman refuses to take it any more and threatens to spark another revolution by simply taking the wheel.

This is how it starts — with individual acts of defiance, with a refusal to knuckle under, with an insistence on basic dignity.  And with the support of a vast and unsquelchable online community.

The links are above.  Go to it, everyone.

Share this post:  Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
File under: feminism, Islam, Middle East | Tagged: Tags: Afghanistan, Arab spring, arrest, Bahrain, censorship, driving, Iran, Libya, Manal al-Sharif, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, video, women, Yemen | 12 Comments
  1. Derakht says:
    May 25, 2011 at 9:21 am

    Its good Saudi Arabia doing that which help people in the world to understand and find true Islam.
    In fact nothing wrong with woman driving, just Saudi Arabia want to destroy Islam by this way! but its very helpful for the people think. in a lot of Islamic country woman driving car even van and airplane. but in wahhabism thought NO. they not Muslim, they are anti-Islam, and anti human.

  2. aboalhasan says:
    May 27, 2011 at 3:19 pm

    Really, this is intrior issue for saudi people..
    U R not saudi, so why you are talking about ?
    Every social has thier own traditions, may you know how they save thier family.
    so just keep away from us 🙂

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      May 27, 2011 at 3:41 pm

      Does that ‘us’ include Manal al-Sharif? Does it include all Saudi women? Does it even include all Saudi men?
      And why, precisely, should I not comment?

      • Abdulrahman says:
        May 27, 2011 at 8:30 pm

        Lesley, I am a Saudi man and I am a supporter of the women right to drive (and so many other rights), actually i think it is stupid law to ban women from driving. However, I do not encourage my female family members to disobey it, simply because it is the law no matter how stupid it is. so in this context I think what manal did is wrong; she broke the LAW. what she should have done is: ask for changing the law through the legal channels. and now if you ask me should we change the law and allow women to drive I would say no, at least not this year. because that would encourage anybody: just go to the street, break any law that you do not like, get the support from all over the world, and there you are: you made it. there are some people who are looking to make weed legal in the US, are they out there smoking weed in public to make it legal? is this the right way to do it? absolutely no. On the other hand, It is purely internal issue, it is up to the society to decide. I was against banning women from driving (and i will be again in the future) but i did respect the opinion of the majority (even women majority). this bring us to how we make the law anywhere in the world. what is right and what is wrong? believe me, people from different parts of the world have different views, what you think is right is not necessary right in the eyes of a group of people in Nigeria for instant. you have to respect that. Did you ask your self how did the goverment in Saudi made this law? it is a long story and i am happy to tell it if you wish.
        to answer your question: why should you not comment, 1. because it is purely internal issue (no saudi has the right to comment on an internal issue in the US)
        2. you do not know the circumstances related to enforce this law in the first place and the issue of 1991 and the issue of conflicting parties in Saudi regarding this issue and so many others.
        3. and believe me when i say that: you are making it harder to us (supporter of the women right to drive) to change the law any time near in the future, and the more you interfere the harder you make it.
        PEACE

        • Lesley Hazleton says:
          May 27, 2011 at 9:48 pm

          Abdulrahman, it sounds like you’re between the proverbial rock and a hard place.
          If I understand you right, you’re essentially saying “of course the law is nuts, but now’s not the time to change it.” But to quote an ancient saying: “If not now, when?”
          You’re saying that open discussion will only make things worse. But isn’t that another way to suppress speech and thought?
          You’re saying that we must respect the law. But law is not carved in stone. When it’s manifestly wrong — segregation laws in the American south in the 50s, for instance — it needs to be broken, and those with the courage to do so both need and deserve our support, wherever we are.

      • aboalhasan says:
        June 12, 2011 at 12:25 am

        1- Yes
        2 – also YES
        3 – also YESSS
        4 – I just told that ” U R not saudi ” citizen !!

  3. Abdulrahman says:
    May 27, 2011 at 9:07 pm

    it is me again, aha, after posting my last comment i checked you on wikipedia. and i would like to say that my last comment was based on the assumption that your article was just a pure support for the human rights. now after reading about you I think that you are going to criticize this country no matter what. so my comment was a huge waste of my valuable time.
    anyway: PEACE

  4. Abu Abdulrahman says:
    June 2, 2011 at 1:59 pm

    To the best of my judgement, allowing Saudi women to drive will be a negative change in Saudi society because of the high potential for them being grossly mistreated and harrassed, in more ways than you can imagine, by the general male public. That is why the “Saudi Society” is fearful of allowing it. This fact is acknowledged by most opposers as the real reason for continuous ban on women driving and it is why the majority of Saudis do not want it so as to protect their women.

  5. Abu Abdulrahman says:
    June 2, 2011 at 2:09 pm

    Correction: This scenario is acknowledged by most opposers as the real reason for continuous ban on women driving and it is why the majority of Saudis do not want it so as to protect their women.

    • Lesley Hazleton says:
      June 2, 2011 at 5:15 pm

      “Their” women? See my latest post “The Virginity Test.”

      • Abu Abdulrahman says:
        June 3, 2011 at 3:43 am

        Please do not perceive my thoughts as contradictory (on one hand, I say the people want to ‘protect’ their women while on the other hand I warn of the potential ill treatment of these same women by the same ‘general public’). Unfortunately, ME societies suffer from high levels of ignorance, hypocricy, lack of education, misconception and non-implementation of the true values of Islam, and the list goes on . . .

  6. Abu Abdulrahman says:
    June 3, 2011 at 2:52 am

    Yes, “their” men. Likewise, us men are “their” men. Considering who you are and where/how you were brought up, you may never understand the nature of social relations in an Eastern, not necessarily Islamic or Arab, society. And considering you have much insight into the Arabic language, explore the word Haram (حرم)

Order the Book

Available online from:
  • Amazon.com
  • Barnes & Noble
  • IndieBound
  • Powell's
Or from your favorite bookseller.

Tag Cloud

absurd agnosticism art atheism Buddhism Christianity ecology existence feminism fundamentalism Islam Judaism light Middle East sanity technology ugliness US politics war women

Recent Posts

  • Flash! September 1, 2019
  • “What’s Wrong With Dying?” February 9, 2017
  • The Poem That Stopped Me Crying December 30, 2016
  • Talking About Soul at TED December 5, 2016
  • ‘Healing’? No Way. November 10, 2016
  • Psychopath, Defined August 2, 2016
  • Lovely NYT Review of ‘Agnostic’! July 14, 2016
  • Playing With Stillness June 22, 2016
  • Inside Palestine June 20, 2016
  • Virtual Unreality June 6, 2016
  • The Free-Speech Challenge May 23, 2016
  • Category-Free April 20, 2016
  • Staring At The Void April 13, 2016
  • Sherlock And Me April 3, 2016
  • Hard-Wired? Really? March 22, 2016
  • A Quantum Novel March 9, 2016
  • This Pre-Order Thing March 4, 2016
  • The Agnostic Celebration February 29, 2016
  • The First Two Pages February 23, 2016
  • Two Thumbs-Up For “Agnostic” February 10, 2016
Skip to toolbar
  • About WordPress
    • WordPress.org
    • Documentation
    • Support Forums
    • Feedback