The pathology of your choice, justified by religious dogma.

Oh yeah?

Well, I want a law making it legal and mandatory for men who believe they will sexually assault women because of the way they're dressed, or for those who have violated women for those very reasons, to be given skewers to poke their eyes out.

Problem solved.

Thus women can continue to dress *provocatively* if they choose to do so, without risking physical or emotional violence. The people who can admire and enjoy their *provocative* attire will assume complete responsibility for their actions and thus won't be projecting their own fetishizing pathologies or sexualized proprietary claims onto *provocatively* garbed female bodies.

Just in case you thought this was an exclusively islamist misogyny, check out the poster held up in the background by a christianist zealot.

The Stoning of Soraya M.

There is a buzz happening around this movie. Part of it is the timing - it's an adaption of the eponymous book written by the Iranian journalist Freidoune Sahebjam who was subjected to a fatwah declared by Khomeini's clerics.

The Stoning of Soraya M. is based on a true story; in fact, you may have read the bestselling book when it came out in 1994. Journalist Freidoune Sahebjam was traveling through Iran when he came upon the village where Soraya had lived and died. He learned about Soraya and her cruel fate from her aunt. Sahebjam’s book gave Soraya a voice from beyond the grave, making her a spokeswoman for all women who have suffered under radical Islam.

Soraya was 35 years old, a wife and mother of seven children, when her husband, Ghorban-Ali, decided to marry a 14-year-old girl. But it would cost him too much to support two families. ... Soraya’s only crime was being what was called “an inconvenient wife,” for standing in the way of her husband’s second marriage. For that crime, Ghorban-Ali determined, she had to die. He brought a false accusation of adultery, and with the support of their friends, neighbors, and family, Soraya was sentenced to death.

Soraya’s story shocked the world when it was published. At that time, little was known in the outside world about a system that said that an accused wife had to prove her innocence, but if a husband were accused, his wife had to prove his guilt. We must remember that these grave injustices, like what happened to Soraya, are still happening today.

The film was presented at the 2008 Toronto International Film Festival: Director Cyrus Nowrasteh explained at TIFF that the act of stoning has created,

“Voiceless women, armed with only their innocence and dignity, are no match for the overwhelming primal forces that overrun their town."

The other reason for strong public interest in this film, other than heightened international awareness about Iran and current violent confrontations between religious authority and political forces, is the powerful critical and audience response that it has generated.

Saw this film recently at a special "pre-screening". The Stoning of Soraya M. is one of the few movies you will vividly remember to your dying day. It is almost unwatchable, yet you can't take your eyes off the screen. To think that women are still going through this today, creates a sense of obligation to see this movie. I can't stop thinking about all the women who encounter this type of injustice around the globe. Shohreh [Aghdashloo]'s performance is stunning and she surely deserves an Oscar nomination. She literally has pages of written text on her face, in one glance she communicates so much.

The above review from IMDb reflects the impact 'The Stoning of Soraya M.' has on many viewers. No indication yet on when it will be released on Canadian screens.

Will fundamentalist christian crusading zealots attempt to use this film as propaganda in their ongoing campaign to demonize muslims? Sadly, that would be a tactic typical of their odious hypocrisy and pro-lies spinning.

Frum misrepresents Obama's words

... about what he said in his Cairo speech regarding women's equality.

Oh David. For awhile there, we had such hopes. We saw you recoil from the vile rhetoric of the fundamentalist religious rightwing zealots.

But I guess your Republican friends were beginning to worry about you. So you had to join the fray and do the expected slamming of the US president, in spite of the fact he's nowhere near the socialist you and the other neocon pundits say he is. But I digress. Here's Frum:

The president addressed – surprisingly briefly – the issue of the rights of women in the Islamic world. This is not a small issue, now that the Islamic world extends into Europe and America. Women in cities like London, Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Oslo face mounting threats not only to their freedom, but even to their physical safety, from men who deploy violence in the name of Islam. Nor is it only Muslim-born women at risk. Now listen to the president:

"I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal."

But it is not only “some in the West” who take this view! It is many Muslim-born women themselves, some of whom live in the West – but others of whom live in Muslim-majority countries.

What?!?!? Is that all that Obama said about women's rights? Ah, no. There's also this, which Frum didn't rip to shreds because ..., well you figure it out.

"I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well educated are far more likely to be prosperous."Now, let me be clear: Issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we've seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

I am convinced that our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons. Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity -- men and women -- to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. And that is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams."

Because the whole question of whether a woman chooses to wear a head covering is so much more significant than whether she's allowed to go to school? Tsk, tsk, David. There you go again.

Removing women from the picture, deliberately.

Two fundamentalist Orthodox Jewish newspapers in Israel altered an official photograph of the new cabinet picture to remove the two female cabinet ministers.

Limor Livnat and Sofa Landver were grouped with the rest of the 30-member cabinet for their inaugural photo.

But Yated Neeman newspaper digitally changed the picture by replacing them with two men. The Shaa Tova newspaper blacked the women out.

Publishing pictures of women is viewed by many ultra-orthodox Jews as a violation of female modesty.

I heard about this on Radio-Canada this morning. Are fundamentalist zealots in the planet's three major religions conspiring and competing to see who can put on the most MASSIVE display of misogyny? The actions taken, which range from allowing men to rape their wives with impunity in Afghanistan to the Pope's deliberate obfuscation of scientific research, are a clear violation of women's basic human rights. Using photoshop to remove women from view seems benign, in comparison but such incidents demonstrate that religious clerics persist in using doctrine and ideology to punish women who dare to act like human beings.

Islamist Fathers4Justice

Thanks to The Mound of Sound, we learn about:

An eight-year old Saudi Arabian girl who was married off by her father to a 58-year-old man [...] in August after the marriage contract was signed by her father and the groom. ... The case appears to fit a pattern of divorced fathers using their children to take revenge against their ex-wives. Mothers usually only have custody while the children are young.

The disgruntled members of fathers4justice must be gnashing their teeth in envy.