|
June 09, 2003THE POST-RAINES NYTIMES GOES TO THE PROM Now that Howell Raines has departed the NYTimes, can we expect its news columns to refrain from hyping a politically correct, radical feminist and multicultural agenda? Don't count on it. In today's paper Patricia Leigh-Brown offers, in the guise of a news report, a starry eyed, multi-cultural celebration of prom night for Muslim Americans. In this account, gender apartheid is presented, through the eyes of Fatima Haque, as a wondrous solution young Muslim women have found to the problem of leering, aggressive, sexual young American males. Ms. Leigh-Brown writes that Ms. Haque and her Muslim girlfriends "dwell in a world of exquisite subtlety in which modesty is the underlying principle.." This exquisite subtlety includes donning hijabs to cover their bodies, and "a commitment not to date or to engage in activities where genders intermingle." What courage! What committment! These young women are hailed as bringing Muslim modesty to crude and macho American culture. As the worshipful Ms. Leigh-Brown puts it: "Ms. Haque's decision to cover herself, which she made in her freshman year, was nuanced and thoughtful." Nuanced and thoughtful? Don't you just love it? It sounds to me more like a troubled adolescent's effort to avoid dealing with her own emerging sexual feelings. But in Ms. Leigh-Brown's narrative this is a tale of brave Muslim young women seeking to preserve their modesty in a corrupt culture, by fending off male sexual predators who surround them. True feminist heroines! Does it occur to Ms. Leigh-Brown to inquire what other values of the "religion of peace" these young women wish to preserve? How about Islamic anti-semitism? Or sharia law which would condemn them to death for sexual activity? Female genital mutilation? One wonders, perhaps avoiding sexual temptation will spare them the primitive wrath of their families. Inquiring minds want to know. Posted at 02:25 PM by
 
|
The problem wasn't Howell Raines -- though he had some issues, of course.
The issue is Pinch Sulzberger, who's not up to the task because he's in over his head.
Posted by: IB Bill on June 9, 2003 02:52 PMIt's always laughable when Muslim women are credited with autonomy in matters like this. Unless they're aged widows with no male descendants, the odds are overwhelming that their decisions are rooted in the fear of their own blood kin.
Of course, if you write for the New York Times, such a possibility is not permitted to cross your mind.
Posted by: Francis W. Porretto on June 9, 2003 05:54 PMOf course, if you write for the New York Times, such a possibility is not permitted to cross your mind.
Of course, if you don't bother to read the article, you make ignorant assumptions.
The young woman on whom the article focused has a mother with a master in economics who doesn't wear hijab, and her parents were surprised by her decision to put it on.
What is with you guys? Do YOU feel threatened when a woman decides to control her sexuality? Sounds like just the other side of the patriarchal coin. Liberals think that people should decide for themselves what they want, and not have it dictated to them. Want to strip in a bar -- without tassles? Liberals will be there for you, the conservatives on the Supreme Court won't. Want to wear a hijab and have a girls-only prom? Liberals will be there for you, the conservatives will assume you have sexuality issues.
Funny how often you hear conservatives wailing about AUGH! sex education in schools and OH NO! teenage pregnancy and HOW DID THIS HAPPEN?! welfare mothers, but let someone from a different culture decide to avoid the open sexuality of modern America, and conservatives are angry and feeling rejected.
I guess you can't be a real American girl without a bikini and a navel ring.
Posted by: PG on June 9, 2003 07:26 PMIn reading this article, I couldn't help but infer that the reporter viewed the girls' reaction as one of Islam vs. American culture, and that Muslim teenagers are at the forefront of opposing certain aspects of American teenage behavior. I am sure that plenty of people are not going to the prom only to get drunk or laid, and plenty of people are skipping the prom for any number of reasons. But I am sure they are viewed by the reporter as anti-social weirdos and losers, as a opposed to principled adherents of faith.
Posted by: David W on June 9, 2003 07:30 PMConsidering how many of the nerds and newspaper types didn't go to prom, I doubt the NYTimes reporter looks down on anyone who doesn't go, unless their not going is due to fear of racial integration or terror of seeing a gay couple there.
Posted by: PG on June 9, 2003 07:34 PMCame to Horsefeathers, got my daily dose of hatred. Thanks, I was feeling a little low on that. You guys are always good for topping off the tank.
Seriously, why do you always have to look for the worst in people?
Please list the cultures and peoples you've celebrated. Pronto.
Posted by: Frank on June 9, 2003 09:36 PMPG: My amusement over your assumptions about "you guys" is considerable. As if the prerogatives of "a woman deciding to control her sexuality" were really at issue here! Any American woman has that right. But Muslim women who "decide" to conceal their bodies and avoid the company of men are, in the usual case, compelled to do so out of sheer terror of their relatives. If the young Miss Haque's family is an exception to this pattern, she's a very lucky gal...and a whole lot of young Muslim women, both here and abroad, will undoubtedly envy her.
As for your gratuitous generalizations about conservatives' attitudes toward sex, well, no comment is really required. It's standard liberal hate speech, one of three varieties that dominate their rhetoric:
1. Conservatives are dumb.
2. Conservatives hate anyone who's not white and wealthy.
3. Conservatives are sexually repressed, unless they're ogling strippers or banging teenage girls.
You'd think the vaunted liberal intellect could come up with something new, now and then.
Frank: Thank you for your original, insightful, incisive, nuanced, and highly eloquent comments. The world as we know it could not possibly survive without this aliquot of wisdom. Indeed, I expect it to solve all known social and economic problems, probably before noon EST. You will forever be remembered as one of humanity's greatest benefactors.
Contributions to the fund for the construction of a shrine to Frank's glory should be sent to the Palace of Reason. Cash only. Small bills, please.
Posted by: Francis W. Porretto on June 10, 2003 07:39 AMNo shrine necessary, Francis, but we appreciate your sentiment: obscure the fact that this site is constantly filled with hateful expressions.
Posted by: Frank on June 10, 2003 11:40 AM"hateful expressions"? That means that what is expressed here arouses hatred in you. Strange, up until now I thought you simply disagreed. I would suggest that, unless you are what Dr.Johnson would call "a very good hater", you might enjoy sparing yourself that daily emotional strain.
Posted by: Stephen on June 10, 2003 12:47 PMStephen, read what you've written:
"Ms. Leigh-Brown writes that Ms. Haque and her Muslim girlfriends "dwell in a world of exquisite subtlety in which modesty is the underlying principle.." This exquisite subtlety includes donning hijabs to cover their bodies, and "a commitment not to date or to engage in activities where genders intermingle." What courage! What committment! These young women are hailed as bringing Muslim modesty to crude and macho American culture. As the worshipful Ms. Leigh-Brown puts it: "Ms. Haque's decision to cover herself, which she made in her freshman year, was nuanced and thoughtful." Nuanced and thoughtful? Don't you just love it? It sounds to me more like a troubled adolescent's effort to avoid dealing with her own emerging sexual feelings."
You cannot find it in you to accept that different cultures are OK. There is no harm being done here - - this is there culture. Why do you have to mock it?
Posted by: Frank on June 10, 2003 01:23 PMFrank,
Posted by: Stephen on June 10, 2003 04:18 PMLet me know when the Times writes a heartwarming and sympathetic account of a Christian youth group or an orthodox Jewish group. My point--perhaps not made clearly enough--was the absurdly starry eyed, unquestioning account penned by a NYTimes reporter with an agenda, in the guise of news. I feel pity for the young women she described and hope they manage to throw off their hijabs, and with them the whole structure of Islamic gender apartheid, and women as chattel.
I'd be curious to know what other Islamic customs these young women adhere to; sharia law, for example? Fatwahs decreeing death to blasphemers? This is not a question of dress codes, but of a religion, many of whose adherents don't recognize the separation of church and state and who actively incite the murder of 'infidels'. Take a look at some of the sermons of leading Islamic Imams (see above) and then another look at parts of Europe with growing Muslim populations. Let's not go all warm and fuzzy over different cultural practices. Salman Rushdie learned to his peril the consequences of questioning such a religion. Now that North Korea is practising cannibalism perhaps we can learn from them as well. "Understanding" the 'other' is not a suicide pact.
Also, Frank, you didn't bother to say why YOU felt hatred. I thought you were above such base emotions. I suspect you would have been horrified by Churchill when he said of the Germans: "The Hun is either at your feet or at your throat". How harsh! How wrong! How mean and intolerant! Well, maybe so, but he knew we were in a war to the death and I believe we are now in another such conflict.
Stephen,
In my june 9 9:36pm comment I was being sarcastic.
In my june 10 11:40 AM post I was referring to the hateful expressions I see from you.
I won't attempt to psychoanalyze you, since I'm not qualified and we've never even met but in the Internet space, but a lot of what you write comes off that way. I remember well the post you made where, as you worked to compliment the Israelis for a scientific achievement, you made this gratuitous swipe at Arabs along the way... Arabs weren't at all the issue, and you just had to get it off your chest. Praising Israel's achievement, on its own, wasn't enough.
Again, I won't psychoanalyze, but maybe somebody should.
Posted by: Frank on June 10, 2003 05:40 PMFrank,
Posted by: Stephen on June 10, 2003 06:18 PMThank you for your self restraint. I will similarly refrain from psychoanalyzing you and won't even resort to your disingenuous technique: suggesting a need for psychoanalytic help. You seem to find my characterization of Israeli and Arab science evidence of hatefulness. Apparently you don't feel it necessary to refute what I said by offering examples of Arab contributions to modern science. Politically correct sentiment is no substitute for critical thought. Or perhaps you could let me know what great contemporary Arab institutions of higher learning have nurtured scientific creativity. In fact there are none and there is a reason for this: the Arab world is in the grip of a primitive, 11th century religious mindset, hostile to modernity. Is it "hateful" to mention this? I think not. Shouldn't celebrate the achievements of civilization and do all we can to expose and combat barbarism? I think so--that's one of the points of Horsefeathers.
I think it's hateful that you go out of your way to bring up your opinions of Arab countries on the way to celebrating an Israeli accomplishment. Commenting on Arab cultures in that context was uncalled for.
By the way, weren't you overstepping when you tried to see inside the Arab-American teenager's mind in the Times article? Do you have adequate credentials for that analysis, and had you met the article's subject? Perhaps if you had made your authority and your personal understanding of her clearer, there would be no reason to get into this. But I digress...
As for Arab contributions to modern science, it's not my field, so I'm not in a position to know. My ignorance is neither an argument for nor against: I couldn't name many cultures' contributions to science.
I still want to know why you consider it healthy that, in praising one person, you feel a need to denegrate others at the very same time? Regular readers here know you take frequent opportunities to criticise Arabs, I just would have thought that you could have enjoyed the Israeli accomplishment without bringing up the Arabs at the same time.
And as for my overall thesis that this web site is full of hateful expressions, I stick with that. It is.
Posted by: Frank on June 10, 2003 07:27 PMFrank,
Posted by: Stephen on June 10, 2003 07:52 PMYou are so eager to toss around that word 'hateful'. As I said I believe it is you who are feeling and expressing hate. Describing reality feels "hateful" to you because you wish it were otherwise and maybe even believe it is otherwise, that Arab cultures are as admirable as our own. When I describe the accomplishments of democratic, civilized societies and contrast them with the failures of savage, totalitarian societies that's simply a fact. There's no argument you can make, so you switch to a false highmindedness. You, Frank, see it as expressive of hate, because of your politically correct cultural ecumenism. I could as easily have contrasted Western science with Hitler's or Stalin's genetic theories. Or should we genuflect at the altar of political correctness and refuse to assert the superiority of democratic culture? To turn away from science for a moment, I'm sure you can find much to recommend in Sharia law, as opposed to our flawed Anglo-Saxon legal system. However, when Islamic justice spreads to the West I think you will likely get a clearer sense of what "hatefulness" means. Meanwhile, if Horsefeathers offends your utopian sentiments it might be wise to read something more sympatico--The Nation, al Ahram or the Islamic Republic News Agency.
PSYCHOBABBLE ALERT!! I don't express hate, but Stephen reads it into my words!!
I'm not being highminded: your words are full of hate. 90% of your columns here are inspired by your myriad hatreds.
I see your words as expressing hate because they do. You are never satisfied with merely discussing facts, you have to mock cultures, as well as articles from the Times which praise minority communities.
I will come here frequently and comment on your hateful comments (someone should). Your words embody hate, mine don't. YOU are the one who couldn't resist chiding Arab countries on the way to praising the Israelis.
Posted by: Frank on June 10, 2003 08:08 PMThanks Frank for making my point in your last rant. Signing off for now to indulge another of my cultural chauvinisms--watching the Yankees play the great American pastime.
Posted by: Stephen on June 10, 2003 08:22 PMOy-vey! Frank, when are you going to learn to read? Stephen's ire was directed at (get ready, I know this will come as a shock given the title of the post) the New York Times writer!
As I read the post, what he was trying to say is that the writer is seeking to see inside the mind of this girl, describing her decision as "nuanced and thoughtful." How does she know? How about simply reporting the story and not interpreting it for us, eh? Especially since it wasn't an op/ed piece!
What Stephen was trying to identify is the obvious double standard of the NYTimes--a paper that seems to have no difficulty extolling the "vitues" it sees in this girl's decision, but doesn't even inquire as to why a daughter of such a moderate household would choose to be quite so orthodox. Stephen is right, maybe her decision isn't quite so nuanced. Maybe her decision is based on pressure she's received from friends, or the Internet, or something internal--a need to belong perhaps--that fueled her sudden need for orthodoxy in her life. The point is, we'll never know because this writer didn't do her job!
With the number of teens who have recently turned to radical Islam, in America and abroad, and the sheer number of them who sympathize and support those who would not just hide from our culture, but seek to destroy it, it's natural for Stephen (or me, or anyone who reads this article) to wonder what, if anything, might lie beneath the surface here.
And, as Stephen says, show me the story that extolls the virtue of young Christian teens opting to remain virgins until marriage. If you find one in the NYTimes, chances are, it will be spun to show how abstinance is "unrealistic" and just another nail in the pro-choice coffin. Funny, last time I checked, "choice" wasn't really something devout Muslim women had loads of, be it over their bodies or anything else, but again, this writer doesn't seem to acknowledge that.
Posted by: Deb on June 10, 2003 08:42 PMDeb, I did notice that Stephen's target was mostly the New York Times. Two things, though:
I don't really need to show articles by the Times which profile other groups; the TImes is not a non-profit organization, and tends to run articles its editors consider newsworthy to the audience. With prevailing attitudes as they are towards Arab-Americans, the Times seems to have made a commercial judgment that news like this will sell more papers. Posted by: Frank on June 14, 2003 11:09 AM
Hi!
I'm glad you guys all got a chance to look at the article in the NY Times.
I read through all your comments and etc. Let me know if you have any questions. Email me at lilolme00@yahoo.com if you do.
I'd just like to say that nowhere in the article was I criticizing American culture. I just wanted to have an alternative to the actual prom because Muslim girls aren't allowed to dance in front of men that they can marry. So, to make this easier for us, I thought it'd be nice to have a Muslim prom where we can spend time with our friends our own way.
Yes, I have chosen to wear the scarf on my own, as well as a lot of other Muslim women. You'd be suprised to see how many Muslim women chose to wear this headcovering by themselves. Yes, in rare cases, and unfortunetely, some males do pressure their wives/daughters to wear the headcovering...doesn't mean it's Islamic and it definetely doesnt' mean every women has been pressured to do it.
I hope that helps a little.
Take Care,
Bye,
Fatima
Posted by: Fatima Haque on June 25, 2003 03:30 PMLet me get this straight; Stephen's criticizing the writer for interpreting the story instead of plainly reporting it?
"As I read the post, what he was trying to say is that the writer is seeking to see inside the mind of this girl, describing her decision as "nuanced and thoughtful." How does she know? How about simply reporting the story and not interpreting it for us, eh? "
Wwwait... but we're not making our own interpretation of the story at all over here are we?
"It sounds to me more like a troubled adolescent's effort to avoid dealing with her own emerging sexual feelings."
" ...her decision is based on pressure she's received from friends, or the Internet, or something internal--a need to belong perhaps--that fueled her sudden need for orthodoxy in her life. "
Hey, now that Fatima Haque, herself, has posted here, why not we ask her what "fueled her sudden need for orthodoxy in her life?"
Oh, by the way Deb, what exactly is "radical Islam" in your opinion? (With the number of teens who have recently turned to radical Islam...) Is it simply following the religion of Islam to its true standards according to Islamic shariah?... the same sharia Stephen's great knowledge of Islam has told us that Islamic sharia will give us a "clearer sense of what 'hatefulness' means?"
...ha-ha, you keep saying that to yourself buddy!
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
Posted by: Arman Zaman on June 26, 2003 02:43 PMdamn most of you people have been posting like crazy... and for what? who in the blue hell do u think you guys are? no one gives a damn about your opinions, (hint hint: Francis W. Porretto, Stephen, and Frank).. if you guys are famous then your opinion matters.. until then (which i think will never happen) keep your mouths shut..
Posted by: U Know your daddy? on June 26, 2003 03:07 PMMaybe they should be given an example by YOU, "babi" (above poster): Why don't you take your own advice, and put a sock in it. Some of us have a greater sense of self worth than you seem to.
Posted by: Jim on August 1, 2003 03:25 PMwho the hell do u think you are? shut the hell up. don't question my authority
Posted by: u are gay jim. on August 5, 2003 10:22 PM