the all searching eye

Through ifeminist I have become aware of a debate in Australia to ban the Islamic headscarf (Hijaab) in public schools. One proponent of such a ban called the scarf “Uncompromising retrograde curtailment of women’s rights”. In The Australian the same commentator is quoted as saying:

As a female MP, I am concerned about women’s rights in this country. There are those who subscribe to a belief system that devalues and degrades women, that accepts a legal system that would relegate women back to the Dark Ages.

It is true that in some Islamic countries, harsh dress-codes including head and face covering have been prescribed as a means of denying women their rights. However, in most of the Muslim world women themselves have interpreted it as lawful in Islam, or have adopted the headscarf to express themselves.
Nearly a century ago Egyptian activist Huda Sha’arawi uncovered her face in public as a show of independence and solidarity for women. This, coupled with other political tides of the time, triggered a widespread unveiling. However, many of the the next generation of girls, in political and religious protest, took up the hijaab. They saw this as an expression of their religion, and as a manifestation of their adherence to political ideals apart from those of their parents.

In modern times the hijaab is freely worn and is meant to express certain things about the woman wearing it. It is not an instrument of supression, as the “women’s rights activist” in Australia has wrongly state.

In reality, there is more going on here than a fight for women’s rights. Another article on the issue gives entirely different reasons for which some are backing the ban on the headscarf. For example, one person says

But this has really been forced on us because what we’re really seeing in our country is a clash of cultures and indeed, the headscarf is being used as a sort of iconic item of defiance,” she told Channel Seven.

Isn’t it interesting that one proponent of the ban calls the scarf a tool for supression while another calls it an expression of defiance?

Through a syndicated editorial, I found my way to the Individual Feminists’ Website: ifeminists.com. My Microsoft-washed mind at first jumped to the conclusion that the catchy name ifeminism referred to an internet based movement - very 21st century. However, some further research showed that the ifeminist movement is very old, dating back to the anti-slavery movement of the 19th century, sans the nifty moniker, of course.

Those issues aside, what prompted me to mention the ifeminists was my fascination with them. I hesitated to even follow a link leading to a feminist site, knowing that mainstream feminism is at odds with many of my core values. However, my curiousity overcame and I arrived at this strange place. The FAQ page features tidbits such as the following:

What is ifeminism?

Individualist feminism, or ifeminism, advocates the equal treatment of men and women as individuals under just law. The core principle of individualist feminism is that all human beings have a moral and legal claim to their own persons and property. It is sometimes called libertarian feminism.

Isn’t government trying to help women?

Governments have been the greatest violators of women’s rights for centuries. In the 18th and 19th centuries in America, government denied to women the most basic rights of controlling their own bodies (e.g., birth control) and their own property (e.g., wives did not have an uncontested claim to their own wages). By the late 20th century, government cemented gender hostility into society by assuming a paternalistic role that advantaged women at the expense of men (e.g., affirmative action). Whether through privilege or oppression, governments seem unwilling to respect the full and equal individual rights of women.

Opposing affirmative action and defending property rights is generally associated with conservatives. Isn’t ifeminism just conservative feminism?

Many conservatives are uncomfortable with the way ifeminism embraces radical civil liberties. For example, ifeminism calls for the decriminalization of prostitution and pornography. To an ifeminist, there is no schism between economic and civil liberties. They are both expressions of an individual’s right to use her own body and property in any peaceful manner she chooses.

And the most intriguing:

Does this mean ifeminism supports abortion rights?
This is a controversy within ifeminism. The majority of opinion is pro-choice on the grounds of a woman’s self-ownership. A vocal minority within ifeminism, however, oppose abortion. They believe that the developing fetus can rightfully claim the same human rights as a newborn baby.

In their website, ifeminists denounce unversity Women’s Studies programs, saying Women’s studies programs are a good example of why universities should not be publicly funded. Many people find that their tax dollars are funding poor scholarship and dissemination of offensive and inaccurate information in the name of women’s studies.

While some aspects of ifeminism are still difficult for me to embrace, I find the view refreshing, if not a little too Ayn Randesque in its religious zeal for individualism and the free market. After all, how many feminists philosophies would even entertain negative notions of abortion and Women’s Studies?

Here I again link to the website, specifically to a well-written review of a recent editorial. I am not necessarily embracing ifeminism. I am simply putting this out there.

All of this heavy political stuff sometimes makes me forget that I have a soft side. In this piece of Argentine news is the story of a dog who gave his life saving his owners during an attempted robbery. For readers who do not speak Spanish, I have translated the most interesting portions of the article below.

…The criminals entered the residence and threatened members of the family. “In that moment” the [wife of the owner] later told the press, “my baby started crying, and my mother-in-law came down with the dog. Then the thieves started running in order to escape, and the dog took off after them.”
The criminals, seeing that they were being followed by the animal, shot at him, and ended up killing him, according to the owner of the residence…
…The owner of the house had also gone out after them when he saw what had happened with the dog and with his family. The criminals also shot at him, though they were unable to would him…

Dog-lovers will appreciate this story of canine heroism.

A very popular T-Shirt among young Argentines reads El Che es Nuestro (Che is ours). Interestingly enough, very few of those wearing the shirts can tell you what Che did or stood for–besides fighting the United States. Of course, Ernesto Guevara’s countenance graces college dorms the world over. Many a resident of the Basil Al-Asad Student Housing center at the University of Damascus has hung out a poster paying homage. American college students also seem to be enamored with him and his stick-it-to-the-man, underdog facing the lions image. If only they realized that Ernesto wasthe embodiment of “The man”. In other words, he was the power and the oppressor, along side Fidel Castro, that savaged the anti-communist peasants in the countrysides of Cuba. A recent article by Humberto Fontava directs some very important criticism at the view of Che the guerilla and points us to another hero whose face ought to represent sticking it to the man in every sense of the word: La Niña Del Escambray.

P.S. I discovered something very interesting. If you search Google images for “Che Guevara”, it yields over 21,000. Searching La Niña Del Escambray yields 0. Searching under her real name, Zoila Aguila, yields 0. Apparently, her image just is not as compelling as Che’s.

P.P.S. I am adding this to my post since it represents almost the exact sentiments I previously expressed here.

Saddam has whipped out his old Pan-Arab Socialist rhetoric. He has said:

My soul and my existence is to be sacrificed for our precious Palestine and our beloved, patient and suffering Iraq…

I guess he had planned to donate all of the cash he was holed-up (pun intended) with to precious Palestine.”
I believed that his information minister was the funniest human being alive until I read these words. Then again, it all depends on how you define sacrificing your existence. Is it the kind where you go down fighting for your precious and beloved country? Or is it the more subtle kind of hiding in a hole ?

On a more serious note, negotiations continue on major points of the Iraqi constitution. I will be commenting more later. In the mean time, my heart is with the individuals who must make the hard choices, and also with those who must live by them. Iraqis have proved to be a very brave and resilient people throughout the past several years (well, except for the self-sacrificing ex-leader). These negotiations bear heavily on their future, which I hope will bring brighter days for them.

Abuzachary

I wonder if anyone besides me is tired of reading headlines such as the following every other day:

Oil prices spike upon report that Saudi prince x skipped breakfast this morning…

Record prices for crude oil follow the news that a Pepsi machine was not refilled at a Riyadh refinery…

Gas prices reach $3.00 in the wake of a Bedouin allegedly sneezing within the vicinity of a Saudi pipeline…?

Saying that the U.S. depends on Saudi Arabia is like saying Michael Jackson is an interesting fellow. What’s disturbing about this is that we know Saudi oil money is providing the cash for many terrorist operations. In essence, Americans are chipping in to their own demise at the hands of some very bad people.

The eagle-eyed U.S. congress sees the obvious solutions in the new 12 billion dollar energy bill from which we will benefit “for the next five or ten years”. Basically, congress has helped line the pockets of already obscenely wealthy oil companies while simultaneously buying 10 years of time to say “just wait. Things will get better…”

In the meantime, we will continue to pay too much for gas, our economy will suffer, and worst of all, we will keep quivering in our depths every time a grain of sand in the Rub Al-Khalii is displaced.

Unfortunately, the answer is going to have to lie with the American people. We often refer to the generation that lived through the Depression and WWII as the finest in our history. The strength of our country was affirmed in their time because of a spirit of sacrifice. Sadly, now we turn to our government leaders for answer to these pressing problems of security and economy (which are inseparable). At the same time, we are not interested in changing self-destructive habits such as selfishness, over-indulgence, and ultra-consumerism in order to regain our independence from a foreign power.

Perhaps we could be thought of as a fine generation if we reversed the trends set in motion by our baby-boomer parents. If we made personal sacrifices such as disciplining our consumption, individually cutting our fuel usage (our grandparents even rationed their food!), and averting imminent servitude, we might just command that kind of respect from our grandchildren. In the meantime, we would financially weaken the terrorists who depend on the revenues from Saudi Arabian oil.

All-encompassingly has raised the issue of the subtle revisionism nearly all media sources are perpetrating in their coverage of the 60th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombings. Spanish-speakers will also enjoy the commentary on argepundit. One of the most compelling points:

Los que realmente amamos la paz, sabemos que esta solo es posible cuando se basa en la justicia, no en la entrega y la rendición.

Roughly translated:

Those of us who really love peace know that it is only possible when it is based on Justice; not on giving-up and surrender.

This interesting development has caught my attention. When I lived in Syria, I was exposed to types of dialogue that are much less common in the U.S.A. For example, nearly everyone spoke openly and matter-of-factly about their dislike of Jews. While this initially shocked me, I became less judgmental as I learned about regional politics and history. For one thing, Syria was and is in an official state of war with Israel. Additionally, much of the pan-Arab rhetoric for three decades was calculated towards fighting “The Zionist Entity”.

Much of this overtly anti-Semitic dialogue contained references to a Jewish lobby, and to the cooperation of American Christian organizations with this lobby. According to the common thread of discussion, these two powerful entities (ill defined as they were in the conspiracy theories) combine to control U.S. finances and politics, place key figures in positions of authority, and shape media opinion.

The Syrians would ask: “How else could America support Israel’s blatant terrorism and disregard for U.N. laws?”

For the curious reader, below are the most common Jewish Lobby conspiracy theories as I heard and disputed them in Syria. You will see that I treat these theories with no small degree of sarcasm. Please do not mistake this to be disdain for Syrians or Arabs. Remember, these sentiments rise out of three generations of perpetual war, indoctrination, and political dispute. Many of those who expressed these theories are refugees. Many have lost loved ones to Israel military forces. So, enjoy this peek into the Syrian mind. But don’t get the impression that I am mocking Syria or its people:

1. Monika Lewinsky was a a plant by the Jewish Lobby. Her job was to humiliate and bring
Bill Clinton. Why? Because he was going to start playing hardball with Israel.

2. The Middle East version of Big Brother, based in Bahrain, was the brainchild of Jews. The goal was to undermine Muslim unity, introduce corrupt Western Morals (this one I believe), and generally weaken the resolve of the Arabs. Because of a multi-national uproar, the producers pulled the plug on the show after only 2 or 3 episodes. In fact, the promotionals leading up to the premier of the show lasted longer than the show itself.

3. The Jews had JFK assassinated. First of all, because he was Catholic. Second…you guessed it. He was going to make policy favorable to the Arabs.

4. The Jews were behind the attacks on September 11, 2001. When I asked a Syrian friend what his reaction was on 9-11, he told me that he was watching the news with his father-in-law, and that the first words out of his mouth were: kulna Kharaa: We just ate Sh–. Being more naive at that time, I asked him what he meant by that. The answer: As soon as those buildings went down, we knew that the beast had been awakened, and that the backlash against Arabs was going to be unprecedented. The immediate implication of this was carte blanche for Israel in its Palestine problems.

The evidence: None of the hundreds of Jews who worked in the buildings showed up to work that day. They had all been notified in advance to call in sick.

Obviously, the New York Times article I’ve linked to above brings all of these memories back. If you have not read it yet, go back up to the top and open it. As you read, you may hear faint music in the air around you. That would be the theme of The Twilight Zone.

Through a series of interviews with an all-star cast of dozens of performers, television writers and other intellectuals - among the best known are Whoopi Goldberg, Robin Williams, Jon Stewart, Drew Carey and the animated boys of “South Park”

This comes directly from the New York Times. These are our intellectuals!

I’m filing this one under humor. This story from Al-Jazeera tells us that the verdict is in on America. Unfortunately, few news outlets have picked this story up. Besides special interest groups, the only news source with such a code of ethics as:

Adhere to the journalistic values of honesty, courage, fairness, balance, independence, credibility and diversity, giving no priority to commercial or political considerations over professional ones

to run this seems to be Al-Jazeera. Although Telesur will probably pick it up.

Notably, this trial is related to the Nuremberg trials by the activist group who held it.