This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Sean Faircloth, Naked Ladies and Mormons

Sean Faircloth, Naked Ladies and Mormons - Comments

Dirty Kuffar's Avatar Comment 1 by Dirty Kuffar

The Egyptian Lady is actually an atheist blogger, and well deserving of our support, and let it be said is also highly attractive !, to inform the discussion, here are links to her site ; link text

Well done Sean for sticking up for her in the face of the sycophantic liberal media.

Sun, 20 Nov 2011 21:08:50 UTC | #891816

Richard Dawkins's Avatar Comment 2 by Richard Dawkins

Well said, Sean. One of the main things we have to fight in our culture is the widespread tendency for the non-religious, especially in the media, to give religion a free pass: to treat religion, and religious prejudice, with a respect which it has done absolutely nothing to deserve. Congratulations on calling attention to the similarity between these three cases of religious prejudice against women.

Richard

Sun, 20 Nov 2011 21:34:26 UTC | #891830

InYourFaceNewYorker's Avatar Comment 3 by InYourFaceNewYorker

I love how in America religious people challenge books all the time at libraries, and yet if a non-religious person were to challenge a religious book (s/he probably wouldn't), s/he would be accused of being disrespectful. When is this double standard going to end?

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 00:30:46 UTC | #891863

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 4 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator - sockpuppet of banned user

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 02:42:10 UTC | #891879

Greyman's Avatar Comment 5 by Greyman

Comment 1 by Dirty Kuffar :

The Egyptian Lady is actually an atheist blogger, and well deserving of our support, and let it be said is also highly attractive !, to inform the discussion, here are links to her site ; link text

There is just one too many http:// in that link; try this one

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 02:56:27 UTC | #891882

mmurray's Avatar Comment 6 by mmurray

Comment 1 by Dirty Kuffar :

The Egyptian Lady is actually an atheist blogger, and well deserving of our support, and let it be said is also highly attractive !,

What is the relevance of her physical appearance ? Is the idea that only attractive women should be allowed to dress as they like ?

Michael

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 03:05:10 UTC | #891883

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 7 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator - sockpuppet of banned user

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 03:35:50 UTC | #891886

Neodarwinian's Avatar Comment 8 by Neodarwinian

" Is the idea that only attractive women should be allowed to dress as they like ? "

Perhaps undress as they like! All joking aside Sean's comment on perspective vs reality is the point. Until these people realize that " Reality is that which exists outside of their ( wackaloon ) beliefs " we get nowhere with them. If their beliefs tell them, for instance, that even birth control is some sort of insult to " magic man " then there is no reasoning with them. Seems only they can cure themselves of delusion and until then they must be constrained as well as legally possible.

By the way, that is one attractive young lady.

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 04:32:53 UTC | #891890

mmurray's Avatar Comment 9 by mmurray

Comment 8 by Neodarwinian :

" Is the idea that only attractive women should be allowed to dress as they like ? "

Perhaps undress as they like! All joking aside

Was that a joke ? There I was thinking you were just being crass and sexist. Sorry.

By the way, that is one attractive young lady.

Nope it seems I was right the first time. You were being crass and sexist.

Michael

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 06:24:02 UTC | #891896

Dirty Kuffar's Avatar Comment 10 by Dirty Kuffar

Here is the other part of the link that did not show up ; link text

T4 - yes, I agree - women are more aesthetic, and what, despite the guilt trips pushed by a holy alliance of feminists and religion is wrong with admiring this ?!

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 06:29:48 UTC | #891898

mmurray's Avatar Comment 11 by mmurray

Comment 10 by Dirty Kuffar :

Here is the other part of the link that did not show up ; link text

T4 - yes, I agree - women are more aesthetic, and what, despite the guilt trips pushed by a holy alliance of feminists and religion is wrong with admiring this ?!

Because when you say it and it's not relevant it's a form of objectification. You are implying that the most important thing about this person is their looks. It's the same as leaning out the top floor of a building site and yelling "show us your tits".

There is a discussion you could have had here about how relevant her attractiveness is to the furore she has evoked and would it be the same if she was not attractive. But that was not the point of your comment.

Michael

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 06:35:27 UTC | #891899

Dianne's Avatar Comment 12 by Dianne

Comment Removed by Author

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 06:39:10 UTC | #891900

Dianne's Avatar Comment 13 by Dianne

Comment Removed by Author

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 06:46:21 UTC | #891902

susanlatimer's Avatar Comment 14 by susanlatimer

comment11 by mmurray

Very well put, Michael.

Thank you.

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 07:07:04 UTC | #891904

Greyman's Avatar Comment 15 by Greyman

Comment 10 by Dirty Kuffar :

Here is the other part of the link that did not show up ; link text

You really do need to practice your hyperlink format. Use this hyperlink.

http://ex-muslim.org.uk/2011/11/support-atheist-egyptian-blogger-aliaa-magda-elmahdy/.

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 07:52:00 UTC | #891908

jimbobjim's Avatar Comment 16 by jimbobjim

I'm confused (and maybe I have picked him up totally wrong) Did he say that "people who have ben sex trafficked should be allowed contraception"? Shouldn't we be more shocked that people are being trafficked for sex more than if they are allowed a condom or not? not sure he's protesting about the right issue on that one.

Maybe I have picked him up wrong though.

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 10:42:05 UTC | #891935

Peter Grant's Avatar Comment 17 by Peter Grant

I'm very glad that Sean and all the rest of the rdfrs are showing so much support for this brave, beautiful young woman :D

Makes me feel proud to be an atheist!

Follow Aliaa Magda Elmahdy @aliaaelmahdy

[Edited by moderator]

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:26:19 UTC | #891985

Peter Grant's Avatar Comment 18 by Peter Grant

[Edited by moderator]

But why can't I link to her blog, and what have you got against including a # to show support?

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:42:38 UTC | #891987

Vorlund's Avatar Comment 19 by Vorlund

The main issue here apart from this courageous woman's protest is Sean's point that the media tip toe around religious loons every time they start pontificating and roaring about things that simply don't matter.

Absolute lunacy is reported with the utmost deference as if it were perfectly reasonable to think and act like a gibbering imbecile. I couldn't find a word of condemnation in the scotsman article against the attitudes of those attacking her.

So I'll have a go at beign disrespectful on their behalf:

Mysognistic muslims in Egypt with more problems than spare time on their hands have caused an uproar of self righteous indignation because A WOMEN’S rights campaigner posted nude pictures of herself on her blog in protest over limits on free expression. A woman undressing and exciting their uncontrollable male urges is bad enough but she had the gall to do it to draw attention to the exact oppressive behaviour that is now evident in their responses. The fact that a naked woman has caused them no harm whatsoever has hardly dissuaded them from behaving like a ruck of gynaephobic cretins.

Does that sound too harsh?

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:07:37 UTC | #891993

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 20 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator - sockpuppet of banned user

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:38:19 UTC | #892000

bewlay_brother's Avatar Comment 21 by bewlay_brother

very well put, t4

"And mmurray - for heaven's sake, it is no more crass and sexist to remark tastefully on a woman's attractiveness than to remark on a man's attractiveness. She is an attractive woman - and remarking on that by the way is really just not the same as cat-calling some female passerby"

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:54:48 UTC | #892006

alaskansee's Avatar Comment 22 by alaskansee

@ comment 11 mmurray

So if I'm on the top floor of a building site and yelling "what time is it?" does that mean I am implying that the most important thing about this person is their time piece?

Is it less offencive if I'm gay and I shout it at another guy? BTW I think this analogy is as weak as your comparison of "she looks fantastic" with "show us your tits."

In my mind if someone is taking their clothes off to make a point the only inappropriate thing you can say is "what a fat ugly cow." That would just be rude and missing the point. Pointing out how wonderful she looks is exactly the point to the people who want her to cover up.

Having said that the bar is so low with the muslims that the attractiveness of their women is actually why they expect them to cover up in order to help the men not rape them. So we've a long way to go before we can use "enlightened" ideas to battle their sexism, oh dear.

@ Aliaa Magda Elmahdy - you look fantastic (with your clothes on or off)! Keep up the good work and good luck, I think you'll need it.

Also what has Michael got against people yelling from the lower floors of buildings?

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:56:44 UTC | #892037

ZenDruid's Avatar Comment 23 by ZenDruid

Well, I think the stockings and red pumps are just a tiny bit tacky.... ;-)>

She 'exposed' the fact that the so-called progressives are more concerned about being politically expedient than a strong force for human freedom. One might hope for future progress, though.

Michael, lighten up.

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 18:25:34 UTC | #892058

Dave H's Avatar Comment 24 by Dave H

I remember many years back, the excuse that certain Middle-eastern Muslims made about making women wear the burka was to say that the men wouldn't be able to control themselves, and it would be the women's fault for tempting them. Later that day I saw Lady Diana on TV, wearing a nice simple dress, being shown around the same country. And do you know what? The guy showing her around didn't atack her or rape her! It turns out he could control himself after all!

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 18:42:34 UTC | #892065

Neodarwinian's Avatar Comment 25 by Neodarwinian

@ mmurray

Your obsequiousness to feminist ideology and PC BS would be amusing if not so pitiful. I am not implying anything about this person by remarking on her attractiveness, you are supplying the implication. And the comparison you lambasted Dirty Kiffar with rather highlights your priggish attitude here. Please spare me anymore of your Steinem like ideology in the future and I will continue to be " crass and " sexist " as long as it annoys you.

[Edited by moderator to bring within terms of use.]

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 18:58:56 UTC | #892073

achromat666's Avatar Comment 26 by achromat666

It is disturbing that religion routinely removes rights from people as it regards sex (birth control, the positions one is allowed to do it in, how people should dress) and literally contradicts their doctrine with their behavior on every rule they create.

With women, it gets a thousand times worse becauseof the perception many religions (the abrahamic faiths especially) have of them. Thanks to people claiming biblical doctrine as the rule women get blamed for everything from the fall from grace to the fall of prophets to the base rape and violation for any number of reasons given some justification by doctrine.

Who even in the ancient world would be happy to just wake up pregnant only to find out your deity decided to impregnate you? What child thinks in the ancient world that being married to a much older prophet is the life they should lead? Rights don't exists in these scenarios, options are not given.

So when people take that sort of thinking seriously, it never ends well.

And when others enable it....

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 19:51:15 UTC | #892087

kraut's Avatar Comment 27 by kraut

Nope it seems I was right the first time. You were being crass and sexist. Blockquote

What a fucked up puritan attitude. It is now wrong to say that one appreciates beauty for its own sake? I have to apologize now for finding someone attractive?

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 20:17:25 UTC | #892095

ZenDruid's Avatar Comment 28 by ZenDruid

Comment 27 by kraut

Nope it seems I was right the first time. You were being crass and sexist. Blockquote

What a fucked up puritan attitude. It is now wrong to say that one appreciates beauty for its own sake? I have to apologize now for finding someone attractive?

My appreciation for human beauty understands that her stern is as see-worthy as her bow.

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 20:24:44 UTC | #892096

Corylus's Avatar Comment 29 by Corylus

Rather than just commenting about the lady in question why not hear from her instead?

A translation of the words on her blog that I found in the comments on Maryam Namazie's blog entry on this: (I have not linked as I suspect that that the moderator is keeping the jobs of those who don't think about 'safe for work?' before clicking on links, but it is easily found)...

“Put nudist models who worked at the (Egyptian) Faculty of Fine Arts until the early seventies on trial, conceal the art books and break the naked archaeological statues. Then take off your clothes and look at yourselves in the mirror, and burn your bodies that you despise in order to get rid of your sexual complexes forever… before you hit me with your racist insults or deny me my freedom of expression!”

So what do we have here?

Well, we have a realisation that the line between art, erotic representations and porn can be merely temporal; we have the knowledge that our representations of ourselves as physical things has been treated as fully legitimate in many other societies - without inevitable moral decline or thunderbolts from above; we have the understanding that many of us know so little about the workings and appearance of our own bodies that we cannot help but treat any body as a source of discomfort and fear; we have the depressing understanding that many externalise their dislike of themselves, displacing their fear of ever losing control over their feelings and environment onto others - those whom they deem 'out of control', and we have the final realisation that that this fear and anger leads to the oppression of those who spark those uncomfortable thoughts into being.

So, in that short paragraph have an understanding of art, history, politics and psychology packed into few words. Words that are bound together with some righteous fury and an individualistic spirit: intellect and heart combined. What is there about her not to admire about her motivations? Nothing!

Now, a word on what else it is appropriate to admire, and when, for those that seem confused. Some question and answers first...

Q.What is she railing against?
A. Being told how she must be as a women, how she must present herself, told to care about those who would both deny her permission to dress in a given way, and also tell her how to dress in a certain way.

Q. Whose views does she give credence to?
A. Her own.

Q. What reactions does she care about?
A. Her own. (There is a addendum on this one as I suspect she would rather that any reactions shown were not violent towards her or those she loves).

So, the evidence is that she treats the views of those who would clothe her in purdah with unconcern. How then does she treat the views of those who would tell her not to clothe herself too much? With even less concern than those who would seek to cover her, I strong suspect. For, laudably, there is no threats associated with this.

Now, for those who are still not getting my point, I am now going to be a little more direct than normal - for I find myself getting frustrated at the lack of listening going on. The moderator may edit as s/he chooses. The bottom line gentleman is:

It is not about your dick.

It really isn't. For those who seek to clothe her, for the sight of her body makes their dick bother them:

It is not about your dick.

For those who seek to disrobe her, for the sight of her body makes their dick happy:

It is not about your dick.

It really is remarkable simple. What she has done is about her - not about you. She does not need your disapproval and she does not need your approval. She does not care if you are turned on or not for ... you guessed it :) ...

It is not about your dick.

I do hope that makes things clearer. BTW Kudos to Mr Faircloth for dealing with the matter perfectly, with gentle amusement at the fuss of those outraged, without prudery or prurience, combined with humane concern for those without free expression.

P.S. Someone saying "It is not about your dick" does not equal a prude. This is just someone who does not care about your dick. Please don't get upset about this - it is not insult, merely a statement of fact. Be reasonable. Not every can be as interested as you in the 'other guy' - just as not everyone can be as interested as you in that funny dream you had last night. Just as talking about; for hours; how odd it was that you found yourself in Vienna; a shopping trolley; with a hippo, is boring, I am afraid to say that your dick is also boring.

Sorry.

Now, I am sure that it is very nice and all, and I really do hope you enjoy it, but can I suggest that on fora where you would not bother people recounting your dreams you do not also talk about ... you know ... Little Joe.

It really would be so much nicer if that could be accepted and people could move on.

Thanks all :))

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 21:54:48 UTC | #892118

Paul the Pretentious's Avatar Comment 30 by Paul the Pretentious

It's the same as leaning out the top floor of a building site and yelling "show us your tits".

Hey there.

Under what circumstances is complimenting a woman on her physicality not sexist? I'm just trying to clear this whole thing up, because it seems very often that there are people on this planet who regard complimenting a woman on her looks at all as being one step above misogyny.

I'm really, really not trying to be funny. But to suggest that saying "you look pretty" is no different than "undress right now or you'll get the back of my hand", I mean...that seems a little silly.

There are parts of the world where there is actual misogyny, and to associate a silly offhand compliment with the actual damages done to women in other parts of the world is, to me, highly offensive. There are regions where women cannot be complimented on their looks or their beauty because they're covered head-to-toe in sacks, made to peer out at a world through an inch-wide slit. Which is more horrible?

And of course, this is something I've pointed out to a few ex-friends who described themselves as "feminists", and their answers were usually something like this: "Just because it's worse in one part of the world doesn't stop it being bad here."

Right.And how, after all, can we be so arrogant as to think we can fix some OTHER part of the world when we can't even get things right at home? To think, there are men here in America who--I'm sorry to have to bring it up--whistle at attractive women. Horror, horror. How can we worry about women being abused in Afghanistan when they're getting objectified in the United States? I hear it even occasionally happens in the UK.

But I can understand the argument.

How can I justify worrying about starving children in Africa when I haven't had lunch?

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 23:33:54 UTC | #892144