A Campaign to Stop Stoning

posted by Katha Pollitt on 02/11/2008 @ 11:32am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (123)

Subscribe Now

Iranian judges apparently didn't get the memo about the moratorium on stoning issued in 2002 by Ayatollah Shahroudi, head of the judiciary. According to Amnesty International, nine women and two men are currently in prison awaiting this cruel and barbaric punishment, which is usually meted out for sexual transgressions.

In May of 2006 a man and a woman were reportedly stoned in Mashhad and the government has officially confirmed the stoning on July 5, 2007 in the village of Aghche-kand of Jafar Kiani, convicted of "adultery" along with Mokarrameh Ebrahimi, with whom he had two children. She has been sentenced to stoning also and is currently in prison with one of her children.

In the most recent case, two sisters, Zohreh and Azar Kabiri, have been sentenced to stoning for "adultery." (This sentence came after the ninety-nine lashes meted out for "inappropriate relations," which came after a trial notable for its lack of due process.). Equality Now has the whole horrific story, with addresses of officials to address letters calling for a ban on stoning and the decriminalization of "adultery."

The Iranian activist group Stop Stoning Forever has been pressing for a ban since the 2006 stonings. It was their network of volunteer lawyers, in fact, who identified the prisoners facing this punishment, and took up their cases. So far they have saved four women and one man; the sentence of another woman has been temporarily stayed.

The courage of these activists is breathtaking; several are currently under indictment for participating in a demonstration in support of women's rights. You can sign Stop Stoning Forever's online petition here.

Women Living Under Muslim laws has more information about the Stop Stoning campaign, and a sample letter about the case of the Kabiri sisters.

Comments (123)

wow.

if the iranians want to show the world just how advanced they are,

this is an easy place to start.

maybe they could use lethal injection instead.

fucking humans!

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 11:48am
i tried to sign the petition. i got the message, "this petition has been closed to new signatures at the author's request."

Posted by loveloki at 02/11/2008 @ 11:51am
Well, I'm sure ZERO will be along to blame it on "upper-middle class American feminists getting all in an uproar".

Posted by Mask at 02/11/2008 @ 12:01pm
frosty, it sounds like you agree with the death penalty for adultery.

mask, yes zero will do what you say. then he and b kool66 will explain how katha's iran article is laced with the subtle message, "vote for hillary." no matter that she said she's voting for barack, silly! can't you see the subtle message? it is sooo obvious.

Posted by loveloki at 02/11/2008 @ 12:24pm
You are taking the Neocon bait, Katha! They want feminists to focus on the MUSLIM world to justify their desire to invade more Muslim countries, especially Iran!

Don't be fooled by the Neocon tactics, and renounce sexism and oppression of women EVERYWHERE it occurs, not just in the Muslim world.

Posted by Metteyya at 02/11/2008 @ 12:55pm
Posted by LOVELOKI 02/11/2008 @ 12:24pm

i disagree with the death penalty.

i meant to say that often a society accuses another of barbarianism without looking in the mirror first.

how long will it be before our theocrats battle their theocrats for the kingdom of stupidity?

Leviticus 20:10

" 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 1:03pm
Don't be fooled by the Neocon tactics, and renounce sexism and oppression of women EVERYWHERE it occurs, not just in the Muslim world.

Posted by METTEYYA 02/11/2008 @ 12:55pm

exactly.

In the Colonies, adultery was once a capital crime and there are at least three recorded cases of people who were executed for adultery, and others were branded with an "A" on their foreheads. (At least one other adulterer, Thomas Newton, escaped in Connecticut shortly before his hanging). Women were routinely stripped to the waist and publicly whipped. In many cases, the convicted were given heavy fines and shaming punishments. A common shaming punishment (taken from England) was recorded in a 1640s Virginia case: the unfaithful were ordered "to stand in the middle of the . . . church upon a stool in a white sheet, and a white wand in their hands, all the time of divine service and shall say after the ministers such words as he shall deliver unto them before the congregation there present and also pay the charges of the court."

two hundred and change years is not all that long ago in a historical context.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 1:11pm
Online Throngs Impose a Stern Morality in China

Published: June 3, 2006

SHANGHAI, June 2 -- It began with an impassioned, 5,000-word letter on one of the country's most popular Internet bulletin boards from a husband denouncing a college student he suspected of having an affair with his wife. Immediately, hundreds joined in the attack.

"Let's use our keyboard and mouse in our hands as weapons," one person wrote, "to chop off the heads of these adulterers, to pay for the sacrifice of the husband."

Within days, the hundreds had grown to thousands, and then tens of thousands, with total strangers forming teams that hunted down the student, hounded him out of his university and caused his family to barricade themselves inside their home.

It was just the latest example of a growing phenomenon the Chinese call Internet hunting, in which morality lessons are administered by online throngs and where anonymous Web users come together to investigate others and mete out punishment for offenses real and imagined.

fucking humans.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 1:23pm
metteya and frosty, in this case you are about as in touch with reality as the neocons you complain about. your statements are complete bullshit. katha does not align with or aid the neocons by bringing attention to this and asking people to sign a petition to save lives.

she does regularly speak out against oppression here and everywhere.

you two are dead wrong. and i'm sure katha will not be silenced from speaking out against oppression anywhere, including the muslim world, by ridiculous false assertions like this!

and frosty, you don't have to go back 200 years. many of the "honor killings" here in the u.s. are called domestic violence. and they are happening as we type.

Posted by loveloki at 02/11/2008 @ 1:30pm
Posted by LOVELOKI 02/11/2008 @ 1:30pm

i guess i'm just sick of this "islam bad" talk.

assholes who use a religion in the name of being assholes are bad.

of course i appreciate the work ms. pollitt does. it just seems lately that the focus (not necessarily hers) is on a specific people instead of a problem that is humanity's.

women are beaten everyday here. women in india are set on fire. girls in africa are sold. etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.,

i think i'm gonna become a plant. humans are really getting on my nerves.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 1:45pm
Posted by JOMAMMA 02/11/2008 @ 1:51pm

Or we could invade, waste 1000s of American GIs; 10s of thousands of Iranian lives, and a couple TRILLION dollars?!?!?!?

Posted by Mask at 02/11/2008 @ 1:55pm
you get the message, don't you katha? the treatment of women in muslim countries was one of the many excuses used by the neocons to invade and occupy iraq. therefore you may no longer mention the treatment of women in muslim areas. we are against the war. if you are not with us then you are against us. in order to be with us, you must be silenced! stop mentioning any ill treatment of muslim women. sure the muslim women lose out on this one. but males on the left of the west say this is a small price to pay. don't bring your stinking neocon petitions to save muslim women round here no more!

Posted by loveloki at 02/11/2008 @ 2:05pm
to clarify: that is males on the left in the western world.

Posted by loveloki at 02/11/2008 @ 2:06pm
Posted by LOVELOKI 02/11/2008 @ 2:05pm

Do you think we should invade Iran to save the women that are oppressed there?

Posted by Metteyya at 02/11/2008 @ 2:13pm
oh yeah metteya, that's exactly what i'm saying. and that's exactly what katha is saying.

you should really consider silencing yourself for a change if you really care about obama's campaign.

Posted by loveloki at 02/11/2008 @ 2:17pm
i have been loudly opposing the occupation here long before you joined the conversation, metteya.

Posted by loveloki at 02/11/2008 @ 2:19pm
Posted by LOVELOKI 02/11/2008 @ 2:05pm

This is similar to what AIPAC boosters did to the Baha'i Faith, in which they got the Baha'i leadership to support efforts to demonize Iran as a prelude to a possible invasion, even though their founder, Baha'u'llah, was against war.

Getting people to turn against their principles by focusing EXCLUSIVELY on "one" violation of these principles, is a trick, and we need to be smarter than that if we are are not going to fall victim to unwittingly supporting more war.

Think about how many women and children will suffer if we sanction an invasion of Iran? I'm sure it will be a MUCH greater number than those who are suffering now under the Sharia.

Posted by Metteyya at 02/11/2008 @ 2:20pm
And, no, my comments here have absolutely nothing to do with Obama or his campaign.

Posted by Metteyya at 02/11/2008 @ 2:21pm
and its much better here in the politcally off years, when there are only genuine posters. now i have to wade through people like you, who are only here to campaign for someone, to find the names of regular nation bloggers. most of them aren't around much right now. probably sick of wading through people like you, as well.

Posted by loveloki at 02/11/2008 @ 2:22pm
My free speech rights on "any" issue are just as great as yours!

Posted by Metteyya at 02/11/2008 @ 2:22pm
And just for the record, I have been blogging here at The Nation long before I started supporting Obama!

Posted by Metteyya at 02/11/2008 @ 2:23pm
we didn't invade iraq for the women. we would never invade iran or anywhere for the women. you are being ridiculous.

Posted by loveloki at 02/11/2008 @ 2:23pm
we didn't invade iraq for the women. we would never invade iran or anywhere for the women. you are being ridiculous.

I guess you missed Bush's State of the Union address in which he claimed he was invading Iran "to free the Iraqi people".

Posted by Metteyya at 02/11/2008 @ 2:26pm
Typo...."claimed he was invading [Iraq] to free the...

Posted by Metteyya at 02/11/2008 @ 2:27pm
ya, i missed that. and i also missed the part where he and the other neocon warmongers constantly spoke of the treatment of muslim women.

the latter would have supported your point more, metteya, don't you think?

but just because the neocons used it as one of the many reasons for invading does not mean we should be silent about the problem.

Posted by loveloki at 02/11/2008 @ 2:29pm
Posted by LOVELOKI 02/11/2008 @ 2:29pm

Not be silent about it, but connect it to a broader problem of oppression of women in archaic cultures, including the Amish right here in America!

Oppressive male-dominated cultures are certainly not confined to those with Sharia, so when we report on the oppression of women we should put it in this broader global context.

Posted by Metteyya at 02/11/2008 @ 2:33pm
you're getting all this, aren't you katha. if you sign this muslim woman's petition, you are actually joining the neocons and supporting the invasion of iran.

and unless you quit bringing attention to oppression of women in the muslim world, you're going to cause the invasion of iran which will kill many more women.

iraq is all your fault, katha. you should never speak out for women. look what you've done!

Posted by loveloki at 02/11/2008 @ 2:36pm
Posted by METTEYYA 02/11/2008 @ 2:33pm

this was addressed up thread. perhaps a course in reading comprehension would help? or some dyslexia meds?

Posted by loveloki at 02/11/2008 @ 2:37pm
Posted by LOVELOKI 02/11/2008 @ 2:36pm

All I'm saying is don't allow yourself to be used as a tool by others that want to start a war in Iran on ANY pretext, including the oppression of women.

Posted by Metteyya at 02/11/2008 @ 2:37pm
and its not just archaic cultures metteya. dumbfuck. i have a dear friend who was murdered in an honor killing. it is all around. katha knows this. and she speaks to it. regularly.

Posted by loveloki at 02/11/2008 @ 2:38pm
Posted by METTEYYA 02/11/2008 @ 2:37pm

no, that's not all you're saying.

Posted by loveloki at 02/11/2008 @ 2:38pm
you see, i am able to comprehend.

Posted by loveloki at 02/11/2008 @ 2:39pm
Thanks LOVELOKI for being the voice of reason here. So many posts seem to be of the "if you oppose global warming and don't mention the death penalty, then you must be for the death penalty" variety. When someone points out that stoning and other forms of bizarre cruelty are bad in the Muslim world, it does not mean he or she condones wife beating in America.

No one here has said we should invade Iran or any other country. To insinuate that is a real leap in logic - or lack thereof. We don't have to go to war with anyone to object to some cultural practices, and we don't have to use violence to combat violence. Katha Pollitt, a constant voice against the Iraq invasion, has certainly never even indicated a desire to use military force to stop the stoning of women in a foreign land. Nor has LOVELOKI.

Women are oppressed in many, many places - including the US. Shining a light on one area does not leave all other locations in the dark. Awareness must begin somewhere. It's impossible to address every issue in a single article.

Come on people - give it a rest! Aside from the usual freepers and trolls (who are on my ignore list, so I don't care what they think or say), the progressives, liberals, and human rights supporters who come here might try a little harder to find common ground, rather than use their efforts so often to run each other down!

I'm not saying we always need to agree, but there are some issues that seem rather obvious. Stoning human beings is not a good thing, right? Some Muslim countries are on record for stoning adulterers. This is barbaric, is it not? Thinking, compassionate people would like to stand against this practice. It does not follow that these same people approve of other barbaric practices because they have not brought them into the current conversation.

The fact that the US government might want to clean up its own act before trying to tell others what to do does not change the fact that stoning is inhumane and repulsive. American citizens who are just as quick to condemn the illegal activities of the Bush administration (and others before it) have a right to say so.

Posted by LeeAnnG at 02/11/2008 @ 2:48pm
cnn right now, (and no, its not the amish or the hutterites): 2 year old tells police, "mommys in the rug."

Posted by loveloki at 02/11/2008 @ 2:49pm
thanks leeang. and yes, you are right. we should try to get along. sorry for calling you a dumbfuck, metteya. i strongly disagree with you on this issue. but i should not have said that.

Posted by loveloki at 02/11/2008 @ 2:52pm
Actually LOVELOKI, what you're seeing is something I've been predicting as an outcome of the Iraq war for years....namely "neo-isolationism" on the Left (but soon to come to the more sensible Right as well).

Nobody wants to "get involved" anymore...for fear of appearing to favor or even getting dragged into another war, and a bogged-down one as well.

Same reason we won't see any moves to go into Kenya or Darfur. The immediate image that comes to mind is "Oh great. We go into some Muslim/African country to 'save the people' and it becomes a new Vietnam".

To a lesser degree, places like Iran. Nobody is going to call for anything TRULY THREATENING against Iran...because of the failures of the past...AND for the recommendations of the past.

For instance, how does somebody on the Left call for sanctions against Iran...when they opposed sanctions against Iraq and said it "killed a million children"? How can they call for more embargoes...when they call for LIFTING the embargo against Cuba?

We're at a point now where unilateralism is a failure...and international organizations (like the UN) are a failure...so the only thing left is... MOOB.

(Mind Our Own Business)

Posted by Mask at 02/11/2008 @ 2:53pm
i would love to see the u.s. being an example of safety and equality for women. this situation is far from our present reality. seeing how easily men on the left and the right in the u.s. unite against women does not leave much room for hope.

Posted by loveloki at 02/11/2008 @ 2:56pm
ahhh...sharia...how ta keep yer bitches in line! and god approved!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/11/2008 @ 3:00pm
I'd like to see the US as an example of safety and equality for everyone! I don't agree with either of the democratic candidates (or at least what I know of their positions) on everything, but I am pretty much convinced that even Clinton would be a great improvement over the Bush cabal and the neocons. Clinton is far, far from my ideal candidate, but I believe I'd vote for her. A McCain presidency is a high price to pay for my principles. Maybe any democrat is a step in a better direction, and I think I'm willing to give it a try.

This is off topic. Sorry. But I do believe either Clinton or Obama would be a champion for women's rights and minority rights. One can always hope. Even when Pandora opened the box of miseries, hope was there at the bottom.

Posted by LeeAnnG at 02/11/2008 @ 3:02pm
actually mask, i am attracted to an isolationist approach right now. we are a wounded beast. we need to lick our wounds and develop our economy. we need infrastructure and production.

on the topic of this thread, i'd love to see the u.s. as an example where women can live safe lives, out of the war zone of violence. it would be nice if it were most common for the women of our own country to be able to go to sleep without fear of beatings or murder. it would be great if the u.s. could "clean up its own backyard." its much easier to help others if you take care of your own self first.

but the federal funds for domestic violence shelters continue to be cut. we have way more animal shelters than domestic violence shelters. if the cuts continue, our local butte domestic violence shelter will close.

like i said earlier, women are being murdered here in the u.s., as we type.

Posted by loveloki at 02/11/2008 @ 3:04pm
women doing soooo much better now in raq than under saddam! now the know whats good for them!

sharia law and the vigilantes to back it up!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/11/2008 @ 3:04pm
down with intelligence! long live death!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/11/2008 @ 3:06pm
IBBLEBLIBBLE, god approves all kinds of bad stuff. In the Bible, he approves of stoning women and putting children to death for disrespect. He approved of leveling whole cities and killing every living thing within them, he called up a flood that decimated the entire world except for a few chosen ones, and he turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt for looking back in sadness at what she had lost. All the Abrahamic religions are based in violence and destruction, in spite of Jesus' teachings. Christianity as it is practiced today relies much more on the cruelty and exclusivity of the Old Testament than it does on the message of kindness, peace, and love.

Posted by LeeAnnG at 02/11/2008 @ 3:07pm
Posted by LEEANNG 02/11/2008 @ 3:07pm | ignore this person

damned demi-urge! ever try to read leviticus?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/11/2008 @ 3:09pm
Christianity as it is practiced today relies much more on the cruelty and exclusivity of the Old Testament than it does on the message of kindness, peace, and love.

AMEN!!!

Posted by Metteyya at 02/11/2008 @ 3:09pm
until the muslims cleanse their villages of women, leaving a few villages with only a solitary female, they have a long way to go to catch up to their white christian brothers. malleus malefecarum.

Posted by loveloki at 02/11/2008 @ 3:13pm
Posted by LOVELOKI 02/11/2008 @ 3:04pm

I think you'll get your wish. Nobody, Left or Right, can push much of ANY kind of interventionism.

Even "U.N. peacekeepers" ANYWHERE is problematic, given they would be primarily European or East Asian (as well as a big American contingent) and the first couple of roadside bombs and suicide bombers....the screams to "get out NOW" would be deafening.

Posted by Mask at 02/11/2008 @ 3:14pm
IBBLEBLIBBLE - your point? I've tried to read much of the Bible, but it's hard going. All those begats in Genesis kind of make it difficult to wade through. Recently I've read parts, like the ones in which god tells his people to destroy all life in a certain city. I don't have it memorized,and I can't remember the books or verses (I was directed there by a friend). Which ones are you referring to?

Posted by LeeAnnG at 02/11/2008 @ 3:15pm
i'm a bad buddhist with gnostic/arian christian heretical leanings who likes atheists and agnostics. i just can't comprehend how people can toloerate such angry intolerance in their religion/society...

oh wait...i do live in the south...har har...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/11/2008 @ 3:16pm
iran messed up today

hmmmmmm?

1953.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 3:28pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/11/2008 @ 3:28pm

lol... why frosty, our destruction of their secular democracy in 1953 and imposition of a monarchical fascist regime against which arose the current shia islamo-fascist sharia law theocracy with a dressing of democracy koran style certainly is a distant cause of this.

but the religion aint innocent either...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/11/2008 @ 3:36pm
ever stop to think about why places like sweden or even canada have many muslim immigrants?

is it because they want to turn these places into theocracies?

or is it because they see that these places offer a better hope for themselves and their kids?

why would one want to change a new place into the place they've worked so hard to escape?

like most plagues of human behaviour, education is key.

education leads to financial security (i.e. at least the basics, not plasticized greed) which leads to happiness.

and happiness leads people to forgetting about the stupid parts of their religion or the religion itself for that matter.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 3:41pm
but the religion aint innocent either...

Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/11/2008 @ 3:36pm

see above.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 3:42pm
IBBLEBLIBBLE - glad you like agnostics and atheists! I'm a "militant" agnostic with the philosophy of "I don't know and you don't either." (Actually, I'm not really "militant" about anything; I just kind of find that amusing.) Seems like the biggest difference between believers and non-believers of my acquaintance is that non-believers just don't care what anyone believes.

My most adamant opposition to Christianity, and my problem with it, is its exclusivity. Even if I were to able to force myself to believe the mythology, the idea that their way of thinking is so superior that those who don't adhere to it will wind up tortured for eternity is so repulsive, I could never buy into it. Talk about the mind police! It's pretty ugly at its core, and the True Believers don't even seem to realize it. All that "God is love" rhetoric is belied by the basic principle of God's vicious punishment for lack of belief. Foreverandeveramen. Wow. Not nice at all.

Posted by LeeAnnG at 02/11/2008 @ 3:45pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/11/2008 @ 3:42p

see above see above....

Posted by LEEANNG 02/11/2008 @ 3:45pm

sure. all specifics aside, my problem too. same with islam, though even worse. i'm a bad buddhist - what do i care? you people will get it eventually. so i operate on the atheist/agnostic level comfortably, and am suspicious of all shaved apes who too loudly proclaim/obsess over their religion.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/11/2008 @ 3:55pm
239. A Kandala, a village pig, a cock, a dog, a menstruating woman, and a eunuch must not look at the Brahmanas while they eat.

144. He who has vomited or purged shall bathe, and afterwards eat clarified butter; but if (the attack comes on) after he has eaten, let him only sip water; bathing is prescribed for him who has had intercourse with a woman.

147. By a girl, by a young woman, or even by an aged one, nothing must be done independently, even in her own house.

148. In childhood a female must be subject to her father, in youth to her husband, when her lord is dead to her sons; a woman must never be independent.

149. She must not seek to separate herself from her father, husband, or sons; by leaving them she would make both (her own and her husband's) families contemptible.

155. No sacrifice, no vow, no fast must be performed by women apart (from their husbands); if a wife obeys her husband, she will for that (reason alone) be exalted in heaven.

etc.,

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/manu/manu05.htm

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 4:13pm
Well, I'm sure ZERO will be along to blame it on "upper-middle class American feminists getting all in an uproar".

yeah, and this is the whole thing about feminism: many anti-feminists like zero seem to forget that even very basic and human rights for women have yet to be realized in many parts of the world.

when ever i hear about a woman being stoned for adultery.....even if she never willingly submitted to said adultery.......i become physically ill. i feel it mainly in my chest and stomach. and sometimes i start to cry uncontrollably.

and all of those tears go out to all of the women in this world who are subjected, day in and day out, to such ridiculous violations.

Posted by darladoon at 02/11/2008 @ 4:17pm
and don't get me wrong, even though i have had it with the identity politics movement, i can say with certainty that these women were violated because of their biological identity.....and for no other reason. that is when identity truly does play a role.

Posted by darladoon at 02/11/2008 @ 4:18pm
Posted by DARLADOON 02/11/2008 @ 4:17pm

Actually, in fairness (sort of) to ZERO, what he probably would say is "You chicks get outraged about some Latinas getting pinched on the ass, while Iranian women get stoned and you give both the same consideration."

Which is still stupid, since you can be against WAR and against getting mugged and not be a hypocrite.

Posted by Mask at 02/11/2008 @ 4:23pm
INDIAN WOMEN'S ISSUES : INDIA has an elaborate laws to protect the rights of women, including the Prevention of Immoral Traffic, the Sati (widow burning) Act, and the Dowry Prevention Act. Women and children have figured prominently in the government's agenda of social reforms and initiatives.

However the Government is often unable to enforce these laws, especially in rural areas where traditions are deeply rooted. Dowry, Female bondage and forced prostitution are widespread in some parts of India.

Many obstacles to the realization of women's human rights in India, are social and cultural in nature, deeply rooted in the traditions of its communities.

eek! here come the hindus.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 4:26pm
Stoning...honestly, how can this be described as anything but primitive and barbaric? Its embarrassing enough we still have capital punishment here....but at least we don't stone people to death.

Posted by jro555 at 02/11/2008 @ 4:31pm
Violence against women, particularly domestic violence, often went unreported due to social and cultural concerns about shaming one's family or endangering the reputation of one's spouse or children. Consequently, NPA statistics on violence against women probably understated the magnitude of the problem. According to NPA statistics, there were 12,568 cases of alleged domestic violence and 1,499 restraining orders issued in 2003. Police took action in 41 cases in which court orders were violated. Between April and September, the 120 prefectural consultation centers received 24,818 cases of domestic violence consultations. Of the total 103,986 consultations since fiscal 2002, 99.6% were for women.

eek! here come the buddhist-shintos

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 4:32pm
Statistics and Facts about Domestic Violence in Israel

Every year in Israel an average of 17 women are murdered by their spouses; 1,500 women arrive at the ER annually due to domestic violence disputes.

In 2004, 20,553 complaints were filed of violence between spouses – an increase of 0.7% compared to the previous year, a fact which increases continuously.

eek! here come the jews

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 4:39pm
According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, in the 400 cases of domestic violence reported in 1993 in the province of Punjab, nearly half ended with the death of the wife.

eek! here come the sikhs

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 4:45pm
etc.,

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 4:45pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/11/2008 @ 4:26pm

They also had a woman, Indira Gandhi, as dictator for a while, too.

That helped.

Posted by Mask at 02/11/2008 @ 4:45pm
Actually, in fairness (sort of) to ZERO, what he probably would say is "You chicks get outraged about some Latinas getting pinched on the ass, while Iranian women get stoned and you give both the same consideration"

that's not "fairness to zero" mask, that's "solidarity with darla".

Posted by darladoon at 02/11/2008 @ 4:53pm
Posted by MASK 02/11/2008 @ 4:45pm

stupid humans.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 4:54pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/11/2008 @ 4:32pm

condoned by buddhism/shintoism?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/11/2008 @ 5:02pm
ever stop to think about why places like sweden or even canada have many muslim immigrants?

is it because they want to turn these places into theocracies?

or is it because they see that these places offer a better hope for themselves and their kids?

why would one want to change a new place into the place they've worked so hard to escape?

like most plagues of human behaviour, education is key.

education leads to financial security (i.e. at least the basics, not plasticized greed) which leads to happiness.

and happiness leads people to forgetting about the stupid parts of their religion or the religion itself for that matter.

Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/11/2008 @ 3:41pm | ignore this person

Well, I might wish that you were right, FROSTY, but I don't think you are.

People immigrate to places like Sweden, Canada and the U.S. primarily for the economic opportunity, i.e., a better-paying job.

I doubt most Turks, Algerians, Palestinians, Pakistanis or, for that matter, Central and South Americans or Filipinos would identify Islam or Catholicism, respectively, as the major problem with their homeland, or as the major impediment to its development. Atheist and Marxist that I am, I'd point to continued imperialist exploitation via first world corporations and international financial institutions backed by American, French, British and NATO arms, among others, as far greater causes.

Education is grossly overrated as a guarantor or financial security, as we are seeing with the degrading of the bachelors and masters degrees in the U.S. The rise of the labor movement did far more to raise living standards and secure the financial well-being of the majority of the population than did mass education, primary or collegiate. Heck, I'd probably rate the homeownership provisions of the G.I. Bill above the education assistance for helping secure the financial futures of the working and middle classes of the World War II and Baby Boom generations, much as I greatly prefer a good, even a classic, liberal education to the standard mortgage deduction.

Posted by cka2nd at 02/11/2008 @ 5:07pm
21st Century Invaders Handbook

RULE NUMBER 1: Demonize the leaders and government of the country you want to invade;

RULE NUMBER TWO: Make it appear the this is the only place in the world that such violations, atrocities, and bad behavior are occurring;

RULE NUMBER THREE: Find a pretext to invade that has majority support among the people of the invading country;

Get the drift?

Posted by Metteyya at 02/11/2008 @ 5:41pm
You guys are really trying to make an argument against the discussion of immoral acts towards women? Talking about how stoning is wrong does not lead to war for any semi-intelligent being and considering this is a forum on a progressive board and considering you are typing leads me to believe you are at least intelligent enough to understand basic moral concepts. YES immoral acts happen all over the world. Everyone knows this. This is an act Katha chose to focus on in this article. She could have easily chosen to focus on the castration of women in Africa and nobody would have raised an eyebrow. Don't sit here and try to say that Katha is trying to justify war in Iran by turning our attention to the fact that women are being stoned.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 02/11/2008 @ 5:58pm
People immigrate to places like Sweden, Canada and the U.S. primarily for the economic opportunity, i.e., a better-paying job.

Posted by CKA2ND 02/11/2008 @ 5:07pm |

that's what i'm saying. stomachs first, books later.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 6:10pm
religion, that is.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 6:11pm
Iranian women writers on KQED

This Thursday KQED's live call-in program, Forum, hosted some of the contributors to the book Let Me Tell You Where I've Been, New Writing By Women of the Iranian Diaspora. From their comments it was clear that these Iranian-American women writers were careful not to fan the anti-Iran flames that have facilitated the Bush administration's plan to invade Iran. For example, one of the guests mentioned that Americans should not judge living conditions in Iran by what they see in Iranian movies. These films are dramatizations of Iran's social issues, not literal reenactments. I saw her point immediately. Would we take the bleak and gut wrenching Oscar winner "Monster" as a snapshot of American life? Another guest mentioned that while her work does not paint a rosy picture of Iran, she does not wish to leave out what rosiness there is. One guest hinted at similarities between Iran and the United States regarding the erosion of civil rights and its connection to religious fundamentalism.

In response to this careful land-mine treading, American callers phoned in with attacks. Do you not lose credibility when you compare Iran's theocracy with the influence of religion in American life? Where is the morality police in America? Where are the veiled women in America? Another caller phoned in his support. Michael Krasny, the host of Forum tried to shield his guests by correctly mentioning that these writers and poets are not experts on the policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Yet that did not stop the next caller from asking the panel to comment on Iran's appointing Saiid Mortazavi to lead her delegation to the UN Human Rights Council. With this request the caller, Judy Stone, shelled with devastating accuracy an already hard to defend position. Among other human rights crimes Mortezavi is accused of complicity in the murder of Zahra Kazemi, the Iranian-Canadian journalist who died while in Iranian police custody. It was a moment of great tension in the show.

Judy Stone is an author and former film reviewer for the San Francisco Chronicle. And she is no Iran hater. On the contrary I consider her to be an Iranophile, because her recent book Not Quite a Memoir devotes many pages to Iranian filmmakers. The philanthropic outlook of this book leaves no doubt that its author wishes to see Iranian artists thrive in a country that is worthy of their talent. She does not however seem to have caught on to the concern of the show's guests: we live in a political environment where too much negative publicity on Iran could lead to the deaths of thousands of Iranians--millions in case of a nuclear attack-- and the destruction of this country's heritage and infrastructure. How then to respond to the Judy Stones of America?

The best policy is to follow Iranian Noble Laureate Shirin Ebadi's lead. Go ahead and say what you believe. Yes, Iran's government must be held accountable for the death of Zahra Kazemi and for countless other human rights violations, but this does not in any way mean that the United States should invade Iran.

Like the baby's real mother seeking Solomon's justice we must make it clear that we do not support a regime change that may cost more lives than it saves. The pillars of human rights rest on the solid ground that life should not be sacrificed to principle. Confronted with rights abuse questions about Iran, our first human rights obligation is to make the questioner clarify his/her position on the subject of military intervention in Iran. "Before I answer that, I would like to know where you stand on the subject of the military invasion of Iran by the United States." This is not an out of place request under the current circumstances. If the questioner approves of such an invasion then clearly his/her human rights concerns need further maturing. If however the questioner takes a clear stand against war with Iran we have succeeded in distinguishing a person of conscience from a warmonger masquerading as one.

Posted by Metteyya at 02/11/2008 @ 6:15pm
Posted by CKA2ND 02/11/2008 @ 5:07pm |

as too education,

i was refering more to the type of education that allows a human to become self-sufficient and independent of thought.

i'm happy renting.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 6:15pm
to

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 6:15pm
At last a justifiable cause to invade Iran

The Bush administration has been itching to invade Iran. If only it would find a justifiable reason to light a fuse under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ass. At last there is a clear and present danger emanating from Iran.

Tehran's police chief, General Ahmad Radan has banned women from wearing boots and hats on the streets of the capital. His explanation? They make women look too sexy.

The true test of a democracy is not whether elections are held regularly in a country but whether a woman can choose to wear what she wants or not wear anything at all. Between punishing Tehran for trying to make nuclear weapons and banning boots and hats, I would choose the latter any day. After all women might want to wear boots everyday unlike even Ahmedinejad who could not possibly want to nuke his enemies daily.

"If boots are not covered by pants that fall to the ankles, they show the female shape and that is therefore in contradiction with Islamic dress code," said Radan.

Iranian women can no longer leave home with their pants inside their boots or wear hats without a veil. I wish some gutsy women will come out in protest wearing just hats and boots with nothing in between.

General Radan said decision to apply the Islamic code came from a committee composed of the Revolutionary Guard, the judiciary, police and officials from the intelligence ministry and the ministry of culture and Islamic orientation. Unless I am missing something here in the country of Iran boots and hats and who wears and them and how are on top of its development agenda.

I can only picture members of the committee, all fierce looking bearded men (my imagination), sitting around and discussing the day's meeting. The Guard's top commander Maj. Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi summoning his deputy commander, Brig. Gen. Morteza Rezaie and saying, "Of all that is ailing this country, including Ahmadinejad and the Guard's very existence, we must focus on women wearing boots and hats on the streets of Tehran. Yes, that's the real crisis."

A truly free life is mostly about simple and inane freedoms to choose what we want-which clothes to wear, which food to eat, which gender to date and sleep with, which mullah to ridicule. Rather than getting trapped in lofty civilizational debates why don't we focus on the seemingly trivial? It is not just anachronistic but downright oppressive that in the 21st century women in many countries still have to follow a dress code laid down by obscurantist men claiming to know the divine mind better.

It may sexist and primitive but I think in countries like Iran, where a bunch of fundamentalist goons control your life, it is important that women use the most potent weapon they have at their command-sex. They should use sex as a weapon to seriously change the direction men want to take the country in in the name of a religion. If there is one power men understand and respect in women it is the power of sex. I am not being flippant. I am being quite serious. Imagine millions of men in a country like Iran deprived of sex for days and weeks. At some point their sheer libido would break their fundamentalist resolve.

I have never understood why religions the world over are so opposed to sex and sexuality and sexiness. The notion that women wearing boots and hats would push up lasciviousness in the country is so medieval and so chauvinistic and so ridiculous that I do not know even know how to condemn it.

Posted by Metteyya at 02/11/2008 @ 6:22pm
The above was from the Daily Journal of South Asia - 12/14/07

Posted by Metteyya at 02/11/2008 @ 6:24pm
It is time to invade Iran Dec 1, 2004 by Anthony Mantova, www.eurekareporter.com

Iranian.ws

Persian Journal - Iran Latest News Three years since Islamo-fascists devastated the World Trade Center and America answered with unprecedented force, no successful Islamist-led attack has occurred on American soil.

Thanks to the uncompromising resolve of President George W. Bush, an estimated 70-plus percent of the enemy has been brought to justice. Terrorist cells have been destroyed - including (thanks to vigorous law-enforcement) an Al-Qaeda "chapter" in New York.

Bush's not so unilateral foreign policy has encouraged other nations to support America with both intelligence and readied troops. The result has been a relentless pursuit of Al-Qaeda all over the world.

The Bush Doctrine is on the move. Changing the regimes that support Islamic terrorists and in effect draining the swamp of Islamic fundamentalism, Bush has brought radical changes to the Middle East.

His successful efforts to deliver democracy to the Middle East and Afghanistan are not "as many people believe" based upon either altruism exclusively or imperialism. Instead, he understands that free societies are less likely to wage war upon each other.

Indeed, when was the last time you heard of Canada waging war on Great Britain? Or Australia trying to force New Zealand under its control? Free enterprise (and relatively free) systems of government fighting militarily is unthought of to us.

Why is this? Peace and a higher standard of living are direct consequences of having a free-market system. People who live in freedom - where the government protects their rights and who thus have the opportunity to achieve success for themselves - are also highly unlikely to support the anti-liberty (especially for women) lifestyles advocated by the Islamo-fascist horde.

Surely, the uprising of Iraqi civilians (in a country on its way to enjoying free enterprise) joining the police services against the "insurgents" and otherwise condemning the Islamist-Jihadists proves this analysis.

While there are still Islamists in small groups plotting our destruction, there is one place on the globe where a government unilaterally supporting Al-Qaeda exists today. It is their great motivator, partner and sympathizer, the home of the Ayatollah Khomeini who arguably fired the first Islamo-fascist salvo against America and the free world two decades ago, declaring that infidels must either convert or die - the Islamic Republic of Iran.

For the sake of concluding this necessary though expensive war the time has come for us to change their regime.

The necessity for an American-led regime change in Iran once again concerns WMD. Unfortunately, the step between nuclear power and weapons is alarmingly small, with some estimates predicting that in two to five years the Iranian government will have nuclear weapons - a development that if allowed by the United States, would embolden the Iranians to sell these weapons to all kinds of sordid customers, including, of course, Islamo-fascists.

Can the United States stand idle and allow Iran to follow its goal of entering the now somewhat exclusive nuclear club? One wonders what actions Israel would take if America failed to combat this threat, dismissing it as too costly to preempt or simply underestimating it.

At the least, the United States must warn Iran not to build nuclear weapons and may perhaps have to forbid its usage of nuclear power plants (they certainly have plenty of oil). If the Iranian government does not comply than it would become necessary to use GPS-guided bombs to destroy the facilities in question.

America has a large amount of conventional military equipment in Iraq. We also have special forces that have been battle-tested in Afghanistan and Iraq that could be called upon to neutralize strategic and regime targets in Iran. Even our forces presence next door gives us some useful leverage with the mullahs.

Also consider that currently in Iran there lives a young generation that desires to overthrow the theocratic regime and establish a democracy. Events in Iraq have inspired them. The writings of their leaders can sometimes be accessed on National Review. Perhaps we can assist them?

The United States is poised to strike the death knell to the Al-Qaeda central command and hopefully end this war. Bush has America's support. Our forces are in place. It is time. Iran News and Iranian Culture Journal, 12/1/2004

Posted by Metteyya at 02/11/2008 @ 6:28pm
Power by Paradox: Women empowered by divorce law in Iran

Dr. Ziba Mir-Hosseini, a visiting professor from NYU School of Law, provided insight and commentary during a seminar entitled, Women and Family Law in Iran: Challenging Patriarchy. She reviewed clips of her award-winning documentary film, Divorce Iranian Style, to Thomas Jefferson students and faculty members on October 13.

"Human understanding is flexible," she said about the Iran's Feminist movement which merged political and religious power during the 1990s. The changing face of divorce law, which began in 1979, created a paradoxical and unintended opportunity for Iranian women to empower themselves. One example Dr. Mir-Hosseini provided was virginity. Once used to deny Muslim women of their human rights, virginity, offered to a man after marriage, is now a powerful negotiation tool used by Iranian women during divorce.

Few people realize the denegration of human of rights that have resulted from the U.S. invasion of Iraq. By focusing on divorce and custody issues in Iran, Dr. Ziba Mir-Hosseini, continues to bring attention to the strong Feminist movement in Iran which, as she stated, will be completely destroyed when and if the U.S. decides to invade Iran. Dr. Mir-Hosseini recently wrote an article in CriticalInquiry addressing the human rights in both Iraq and Iran as a result of the war.

Posted by Metteyya at 02/11/2008 @ 7:07pm
My most adamant opposition to Christianity, and my problem with it, is its exclusivity. Even if I were to able to force myself to believe the mythology, the idea that their way of thinking is so superior that those who don't adhere to it will wind up tortured for eternity is so repulsive, I could never buy into it. Talk about the mind police! It's pretty ugly at its core, and the True Believers don't even seem to realize it. All that "God is love" rhetoric is belied by the basic principle of God's vicious punishment for lack of belief. Foreverandeveramen. Wow. Not nice at all.

Posted by LEEANNG 02/11/2008 @ 3:45pm

I agree with you, in that I find that concept repulsive as well. However, I don't think it's inherent to Christianity; a lot of denominations definitely don't subscribe to it, and many come out and say that we are in no position to dictate who is "saved." I find it particularly striking that the overwhelming majority of the people Jesus railed against were the Pharasaic types. I think there's a solid argument to be made from the tradition that no one can be condemned except by their own decision to deliberately reject God. I'm sorry that you've gotten this impression of Christianity, but I don't think it's nearly as monolithic as you seem to suggest.

Posted by Thrawn at 02/11/2008 @ 7:19pm
METTEYYA, are you saying that we can't even criticize STONING....because it somehow leads to the "inevitable conclusion" that we "must invade Iran"!?!?!???!

Posted by Mask at 02/11/2008 @ 7:40pm
Where is the National Organization for Women when we need them? These are the types of 'urgencies' which they should involve themselves with instead of pandering to desperate politicians!

Posted by Anne_c at 02/11/2008 @ 7:49pm
i see some norwegians signed this petition, written by iranian activists. (metteya--its iranian activists who wrote the petition. did you get the iranian part?) who knew the norwegians were hell bent on invading iran too. they have supported iranian women, so they must be. goddamn norwegian neocon warmongers! how dare they speak out for iranian women. i know what they're really up to!

also, we can no longer have any articles from nation writers that focus on the iraq war alone. unless these articles simultaneously discuss every other unjust war and occupation in the world, the articles are no longer valid. (this according to metteya-logic, of course.)

no more discussing the sickening income gap in the u.s. without discussing every other country in the world with income disparities. no more discussing corporate control in the u.s. without discussing all of the other corporate control in the world at the same time.

if you don't talk about all of it, its no longer pc (according to metteya) to discuss any of it.

Posted by loveloki at 02/11/2008 @ 7:49pm
Posted by MASK 02/11/2008 @ 7:40pm

I'm just saying it would be more convincing if we included "all" countries that have the Sharia and oppress women with it like Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait and a number of Muslim countries that are considered "allies" of the US.

When criticism of Islamic law is limited to adversaries of the US, it takes on a a Bush/Cheney tone of hypocrisy. I think feminists must be smarter than that and not go for the Neocon bait that wants us to selectively define which country we can oppose for oppressing women.

When they select a particular country to demonize for a desired invasion, we should be pointing out this "demonic" behavior in other countries that are similarly situated to defuse their war drumbeat and expose their hypocrisy.

Posted by Metteyya at 02/11/2008 @ 7:55pm
United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Nigeria, Iran, Sudan, and Afghanastan have Hadd Offence laws on the books that permit stoning of women in accordance with the Sharia. And except for Pakistan, actual stonings are still taking place today.

Given Bush/Cheney ties to the UAE and Saudi Arabia, if I wanted to highlight this stoning issue from a feminist point of view, I would focus on these supposed allies of the US. We give a lot of government contracts and weapons to these countries, so why not make this conditional upon them ending these barbaric practices?

Instead, we FOCUS on Iran, the same country Bush/Cheney wants us to invade.

Not very smart, Katha. Not very smart.

Posted by Metteyya at 02/11/2008 @ 8:26pm
Posted by METTEYYA 02/11/2008 @ 8:26pm

Okay, so we can't criticize IRAN...because it somehow helps the case of Bush and Cheney?!?!?!

Posted by Mask at 02/11/2008 @ 9:03pm
Okay, so we can't criticize IRAN...because it somehow helps the case of Bush and Cheney?!?!?!

No, we criticize THE PRACTICE of stoning women, wherever it occurs; and don't limit ourselves to the countries that are targeted for invasion by this Administration!

Posted by Metteyya at 02/11/2008 @ 9:29pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/11/2008 @ 6:27pm

rio, are you having problems today?

you seem more vitriolic than usual.

and that's saying a lot.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 9:46pm
"Islamists, from Saudi Arabia, are offering money to young Kurds, visiting their schools, marrying Kurdish girls and taking them back to the kingdom." Sayadi tells me, "Kurds have always been quite secular, none of us practiced the hijab but now Kurdish women are being forced to do this. There is segregation of men and women. People in sheer desperation and hope for aid are turning more fundamentalist. The environment is ripe for fundamentalism, and Saudi influence is increasing rapidly. They are creating a hope-filled impression amongst the people that Islamic assertion is the way to resist the West.

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4560

like i keep saying, "if people are happy, they are just too busy to get mixed up with the nonsense that can be found in any religion

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/11/2008 @ 10:09pm
"goddamn norwegian neocon warmongers! how dare they speak out for iranian women."

What a foolish and outrageous claim! With this attitude, you are condoning the rest of the world, including Norwegians, to band ALL Iranians together as....say, terrorists?!

Posted by Anne_c at 02/12/2008 @ 08:09am
mask, yes zero will do what you say. then he and b kool66 will explain how katha's iran article is laced with the subtle message, "vote for hillary." no matter that she said she's voting for barack, silly! can't you see the subtle message? it is sooo obvious.

~LoveLoki 2/11/2008 @ 12:24pm

LL,

just wanted to clarify briefly. i didn't mean to imply that katha is subtly suggesting "vote for hillary" while endorsing obama.

my beef with katha is simply that she has a proven track record of showing far too much unqualified support for hillary and even after an obama endorsement --how does one not catch the wave that's sweeping The Nation and the nation-- she indicates how heartfelt she is for hillary.

let's be honest, any candidate for prez will have a downside. it just happens that hillary has a huge well-documented downside, and katha has often written as if that downside barely existed. period.

but i love your loki regardless.

;-)

Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/12/2008 @ 09:38am
Posted by ANNE_C 02/12/2008 @ 08:09am | ignore this person

yeah, they were once sensible zoroastrians!

ancient acheamenid persia had no slavery, women occupying high posts, acceptance of other's differences, and a religion that didn't advise the opposite. then came the muslims...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/12/2008 @ 09:49am
then came the muslims...

Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/12/2008 @ 09:49am

who elected a prime minister in 1953....................

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2008 @ 09:59am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/12/2008 @ 09:59am

you keep saying that. are you trying to say to me something like...

say, ibble, what about that little incident in 1953 you keep reminding controlls. the iranians had a secular democratic regime. sure it wasn't perfect, but the prez was a fan of FDR (and therefore since he was not american, a dangerous socialist in the eyes of the cia/national intelligence/industrial establishment).

but the iranians had an imperfect yet existant secular democracy despite their religion, which you, ibble, claim to be so anathamous to secular democracy!

yeah, some times, places, make possible cool things, like the growth of secular democracy despite all obstacles...but then foreign pseudo-fascists come in and screw it all up!

still doesn't change ugly truths.

so...

195319531953195319531953195319531953195319531953195319531953195319531953 19531953195319531953195319531953195319531953195319531953

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/12/2008 @ 10:33am
Posted by ANNE_C 02/12/2008 @ 08:09am | ignore this person

yeah, they were once sensible zoroastrians!

ancient acheamenid persia had no slavery, women occupying high posts, acceptance of other's differences, and a religion that didn't advise the opposite. then came the muslims...

Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/12/2008 @ 09:49am | ignore this person

Let's not idealize the ancient Persians (or demonize them like that idiot Frank Miller did in 300). I thought Zoroastrianism was rabidly homophobic. And where the Romans had crucifiction, the Persian form of torture as excution was impaling through the rectum.

I've also just checked out a bunch of websites after googling for Ancient Persia and slavery. The story seems to be more complicated than just "Persia didn't practice slavery" or "Cyrus the Great freed the Jews of the Babylonian Captivity." It does sound as if slavery was far, far less prevalent than in Greece or Rome, but the peoples of rebellous cities could be enslaved, and the slaves of conquered countries were not always freed. There are also estimates on the age make-up of the slaves in Persepolis, the Persian capital, floating out there. Anyone know the latest expert thinking on slavery in ancient Egypt, by the way? I saw a show on either PBS or cable a few years ago, and the host - an Englishman? - disputed the claim that slaves built the pyramids. I wonder if it was more of a feudalistic system, akin to China and medieval Europe.

The status of women, as in Egypt by the way, was also much better in Persia than in Greece or Rome.

Posted by cka2nd at 02/12/2008 @ 10:46am
Wow, talk about going off topic!

Sorry about that, folks.

Posted by cka2nd at 02/12/2008 @ 10:47am
Posted by CKA2ND 02/12/2008 @ 10:46am | ignore this person

sure - nothing's ever as good as the point making nostalgizers say, but not bad.

also i was referring mostly to achaeamenid persia. by the sassanid times it appears zoroastrianism had devolved a few notches into complexity and ritualized mess - entirely counter to the earliest zoroastrian texts, the avestas...

in fact, some aspects of shia islam show the continued influence of late, mumbo jumbo style zoroastrianism...in terms of tolerance there was indeed an early christian/zoroastrian conflict which got ugly on both sides before the muslim/christian thing...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/12/2008 @ 11:05am
Posted by CKA2ND 02/12/2008 @ 10:47am

not off topic - deep insight.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/12/2008 @ 11:20am
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/12/2008 @ 10:33am

cálmate cuñado.

"ugly truths" are soon forgotten when people have good jobs and are free of despots.

fundamentalism is reactionaryism.

reaction to oppression.

people want food and t.v..

do you plan to eradicate islam?

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2008 @ 11:32am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/12/2008 @ 11:32am |

not specifically. just want to guard that part of western civilization i like and in which i and many others thrive, including western civ's detractors.

i wish the best for the people living in the islamic part of the world, including freedom of concience and freedom from medievalist patriarchy and barbarism.

and us getting as far out of that area as possible is that area's best hope.

that way they won't be able to point to the great satan and say we are the source of all their troubles. perhaps at such a point they might be able to change without losing face or something silly like that. i don't know.

but sharia law is a bitch and there it exists in one of its forms.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/12/2008 @ 12:05pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/12/2008 @ 11:32am |

ay maje...estoy bien calmado, como el ojo del hurrucan!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/12/2008 @ 12:07pm
i was being sarcastic anne. i don't think the norwegians are neocon warmongers for speaking out for oppressed iranian women.

i really doubt anyone but metteya would think along these lines.

i do agree we shouldn't demonize any religion. religious freedom is a great ideal to hold. i have some wonderful muslim friends, even here in butte, mt. but it seems every monotheistic religion wants to remove religious freedom except for their own. "our way is the only way." i don't think there was a polytheistic religion where conversion of others was a goal of the religion.

cka2nd, some of the best stuff on these nation blogs has been off topic.

b kool66, i don't know about katha's support of hillary. and i don't think katha is very subtle. she says what she thinks outright. i think lots here confuse her with gloria steinem.

Posted by loveloki at 02/12/2008 @ 12:59pm
you did catch the last article about her voting for barack, didn't ya, b kool?

Posted by loveloki at 02/12/2008 @ 1:00pm
you know, it would be really funny if someone posted here in favor of stoning...like the sharia law enthusiasts who support it in iran and plenty other parts of the islamic world.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/12/2008 @ 1:28pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/12/2008 @ 1:28pm

Well, how about a Marxist interpretation of a Shirley Jackson short story???

Posted by Mask at 02/12/2008 @ 2:27pm
we could focus on the horrific aspect of the petition to stop stoning. but then, do any of you remember the burned u.s. woman on the news a few months back? her husband had tied her to a chair, doused her in gas and lit her on fire. he got a ridiculously lean sentence. so there is horror everywhere. the past of christianity is far more barbaric and violent than muslims. mass produced machines of torture anyone? here's how to build a real slow burning pyre....

the thing to focus on here is the iranians reaching out to the world in a pacifist way. they are asking for help. it is ridiculous to me that some would think we should refuse to help because bushco. has a big target painted on them.

i know what you mean about the heartsickness, darla. it also makes me heartsick that the authors closed this petition.

Posted by loveloki at 02/12/2008 @ 2:30pm
Posted by METTEYYA 02/11/2008 @ 6:22pm | ignore this person ""It may sexist and primitive but I think in countries like Iran, where a bunch of fundamentalist goons control your life, it is important that women use the most potent weapon they have at their command-sex. They should use sex as a weapon to seriously change the direction men want to take the country in in the name of a religion. If there is one power men understand and respect in women it is the power of sex. I am not being flippant. I am being quite serious. Imagine millions of men in a country like Iran deprived of sex for days and weeks. At some point their sheer libido would break their fundamentalist resolve.""

I can NOT believe my eyes. The things that I am reading among these comments. Are you MAD? What perverted backward thinking person would say such a thing? Wow!!!!!!!!!! You are talking about Iranians (men) as if they are ANIMALS. Or, may be they are... in your view.

Posted by Anne_c at 02/12/2008 @ 3:23pm
Posted by MASK 02/12/2008 @ 2:27pm | ignore this person

well...nothin' wrong with a good stonin'! i mean, sure its illegal, but eff the government! they should legalize and tax it!

oh wait - cheech and chong moment...lol...

more like...well, its in the sharia! they shoulda known! they chose to adulterate!

har har...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/12/2008 @ 3:45pm
Posted by ANNE_C 02/12/2008 @ 3:23pm

see what i mean metteya? you should choose to silence yourself. you are not doing barack any favors by acting as his number 1 fan here. and before you post yet another unfounded accusation of my trying to violate your right to free speech, notice that i suggest you do it to yourself. you can comprehend that part, can't ya?

Posted by loveloki at 02/12/2008 @ 3:53pm
i think lots here confuse her with gloria steinem.

Posted by LOVELOKI 02/12/2008 @ 12:59pm

hi katha.

good work always.

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2008 @ 4:32pm
Posted by ANNE_C 02/12/2008 @ 3:23pm

That wasn't my comment, ANNE_C. It was italicized, meaning it was taken from somewhere else. It was only used here to make the point that some think oppression of women in Iran is a reason to invade their country and do regime change.

Posted by Metteyya at 02/12/2008 @ 5:04pm
Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 02/12/2008 @ 3:45pm

hi ibbs,

seems strange to disagree with my bro'

i guess that's what brains are for.

peace,

fz

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/12/2008 @ 5:38pm
That wasn't my comment, ANNE_C. It was italicized, meaning it was taken from somewhere else. It was only used here to make the point that some think oppression of women in Iran is a reason to invade their country and do regime change.

Posted by METTEYYA 02/12/2008 @ 5:04pm

first metteya, cite your sources. second, how in the hell does what you cut n pasted make your point? by what contortion of logic could you possibly come to that conclusion? you think this imaginary lysistrata type situation makes your point? how? one thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

here's your argument: some guy thinks iranian women should withhold sex to force social change. therefore supporting iranian women will lead to the invasion of iran by bushco.---hmmmmm. i know. i get it now. you're schizophrenic, aren't ya?

Posted by loveloki at 02/12/2008 @ 8:16pm
Posted by MARKCANYON 02/13/2008 @ 12:10am

why do you hate being alive so much?

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/13/2008 @ 12:45am
b kool66, i don't know about katha's support of hillary. and i don't think katha is very subtle. she says what she thinks outright. i think lots here confuse her with gloria steinem.

you did catch the last article about her voting for barack, didn't ya, b kool?

~Love Loki 2/12/2008 @ 1:00pm

since this topic is not exactly super critical i'm not going to drag it out --just gotta say that i am usually impressed by your agile apprehension of key points, and by your fine grasp of the gist of other's arguments.

re the pollit-hillary shenanigans we're not on the same page apparently. no biggie.

as kafka --i believe-- said, "language is a creaking kettle".

Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/13/2008 @ 02:45am
thanks b kool66, right back at ya. we'll just have to agree to disagree once again.

Posted by loveloki at 02/13/2008 @ 2:17pm
why do you hate being alive so much?

Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/13/2008 @ 12:45am

MARK's a neo-Nazi...whadda ya expect?

Posted by Mask at 02/13/2008 @ 3:55pm
Jesus said about the prostitute:' "He who is free from sin, throw the first stone.." and everyone left..'

If we don't have compassion for another human being which would be the best answer, at least just looking at ourselves in the inside and discover we are anything but perfect, helps a lot to understand the other's 'fault'. The violence and hatred of these 'moralists' is a much more venomous, insidious, self-righteous crime than 'adultery' which is only a human passion.

I find fascinating the parallels between these Muslim extremists (the stoners) and the religious right here in the US. Both seem to have a predilection to condemn sex crimes as the worst of the worst. Yet, they are uncapable to see that the worst is right inside them as the inability to love another human being because of either their selfishness or arrogance, or narrow mindness.

And these acts are so much repressive and directed to women in the absolute mental - and sexist - attitude that it is women that bring 'sin' to the world and that they 'should be inside four walls'. These people should look instead to themselves and how they degrade the dignity of human beings into sexual objects.

It is very difficult to change these things in a society that is not very mature at all. A lesson for the US and Iran: Religions should not be in political power, not there nor here. It is not about the exertion of repressive power as it is about a personal conversion that we cannot force others upon. Stoning will never help people, learning about mutual respect, compassion and how to understand and manage emotions in a positive way, will. After all sex between consenting and not married adults should be considered much more a human frailty than a derogatory 'sin'. Here and there.

Posted by Frank42 at 02/14/2008 @ 01:53am
Happy valentines day, Katha!

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 02/14/2008 @ 11:49am
And a Happy VD to Ms Ensler, too!

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 02/14/2008 @ 11:50am
great post frank42.

Posted by loveloki at 02/14/2008 @ 11:50pm

News & Analysis »

Katha Pollitt

Strongly held opinions on politics, feminism, culture, books and daily life.

A Campaign to Stop Stoning

posted by Katha Pollitt on 02/11/2008 @ 11:32am

Share this article

News & Analysis »

Katha Pollitt

Archives