Protest or parody


women driversWomen in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have been asking for the right to drive for sometime and it culminated in a recent protest whereby they took to the wheel of vehicles and drove them without official permission.  However, such protests aren’t without some risks to those involved or for those who might tacitly support the protest.

Hisham Fageeh, a Saudi-American made a video whose timing coincides with the women’s protest but I leave it up to you whether it is in support of the protest or of the government’s position on the subject of women as drivers.  No doubt Fageeh is well aware of how  the Kingdom handles dissent or the ridiculous lengths the monarch goes to persuade women NOT to want to drive.  I’m a bit incredulous but does driving really damage women’s ovaries?!?!

 

 

UPDATE

At least 16 Saudi women have received fines for taking the wheel on a day set by activists to defy the kingdom’s traditional ban on female driving, police and reports said on Sunday.

Only few women braved official threats of punishment and drove on Saturday in response to an online campaign headlined “Women’s driving is a choice”.

“Police stopped six women driving in Riyadh, and fined them 300 riyals (Dh293.67) each,” said the capital’s police deputy spokesman, Colonel Fawaz Al Miman.

Each of the women, along with her male guardian — who could be a father, husband, brother, uncle, or grandson — had to “sign a pledge to respect the kingdom’s laws”, Miman told AFP.

In Jeddah, police also fined two women for driving, according to the Red Sea city’s police spokesman, Nawaf Al Bouq.

Saudi newspapers, meanwhile, reported that six women were stopped by police in the Eastern Province, and at least two others were stopped in other parts of the kingdom.

A dozen Saudi women posted videos on the Twitter account of the campaign, @oct26driving, showing themselves driving.

Activists had originally issued a call on social media networks for women across the kingdom to drive their cars on Saturday to challenge the ban.

Some say they received telephone calls from the interior ministry asking them to promise they would not drive on Saturday.

On Wednesday, the ministry said it would act against anyone who attempts to “disturb public peace” by congregating or marching “under the pretext of an alleged day of female driving”.

The next day ministry spokesman General Mansour Al Turki told AFP: “It is known that women in Saudi are banned from driving and laws will be applied against violators and those who demonstrate in support” of this cause.

Activists say Saturday was chosen as a “symbolic” date as part of efforts first launched more than a decade ago to press for the right to drive.

The absolute monarchy is the only country in the world where women are barred from driving. Public gatherings are officially banned.

……and the beat goes on.

Islam, Body parts and Islamophobia


device The Islamophobic rantings of a mentally challenged press along with the help of a few well placed idiots in the Muslim world continues unabated.  The two news items below have taken the sublime to the level of ridiculous. First off, the so called female virginity-faking device is really a condom, not a device, that a man would have to wear before it could serve its purpose of making the wearer think his wife is a virgin.  The explanation of how this condom works is

The product……. consists of a flexible, open-ended sheath (like your regular Trojan), but is outfitted with an additional burstable pouch “containing a red colored fluid simulating blood.” The pouch is constructed from a weaker material than the condom itself so that the blood compartment “ruptures during sexual intercourse, while the sheath remains intact.” Unlike your standard translucent condom, this prophylactic is meant to be made from a dark material to help conceal the red liquid stored inside. If all goes according to plan, the man straps on the condom before sex, the woman appears to bleed during intercourse, and nobody is the wiser.

Naturally, if the man wants a virginal  bride on his wedding night, he won’t be the one purchasing this “device” but rather the woman, and if Egypt is a society where even men aren’t too disposed to purchase condoms it’s even more unlikely a conniving bride would do so, unless she enlists the help of a male relative, but then the secret would be out of the bag, wouldn’t it? Who and how then does anyone benefit from such a “device” under these circumstances?  You don’t have to be an expert in condoms to figure too that the condom you’re putting on has liquid in it and not be more than a little curious what that liquid is, wouldn’t you? Frankly it’s an obsessed West who loves taking pot shots at Islam and its “spokesmen” like Mr. Abdul Mouti Bayoumi who loudly proclaims the death penalty for anyone importing the $15 buck a piece  device into Egypt, making themselves  and the religion of Islam irrelevant.  Men unfortunately must bare some  responsibility in this charade played out by all parties, East and West.  The notion that virginity is a prized attribute of a wife is noble, as it should be for the goose as well,  but human physiology  and science can sometimes get in the way of that ideal, especially when bleeding is not always the outcome for females in an initial sexual encounter,  for varied reasons.  It certainly shouldn’t be the goal of men who love their spouses and want to equally and legally enjoy their sexuality with them.  The objectification of women into “bleeders” and breeders then is as abhorrent as the insane heights a racist press goes into demonizing marginal characters  like Mr. Bayoumi who make no real contribution to their societies.  It’s kinda like picking on the village idiot who can neither read nor write in order to score points and amuse a crowd of spectators.  It’s not only pointless but inhumane and immature.

The second story that piqued my interests was the anal bomber story out of Saudi Arabia.  According to the press, this terrorist implants explosives and a detonator in his anus, arranges a meeting with a high ranking Saudi official, waits for an extended period of time to see this official, goes through a myriad of security checkpoints (or does he?) and detonates the device only to slightly wound his intended target!  All that trouble and he didn’t succeed, through no fault of his own or of the target?!?!?  I still am at a loss how he was able to keep a chemically solvent explosive ready for detonation in such a sensitive area of the body, and of course it raised all sorts of concerns how this would affect airport security and keep the state from anal terrorist bombers lurking in bathrooms of airports the world over, stuffing themselves with bombs.  You can be sure the requirements for screening at airports will change for the worse for passengers/consumers, becoming more invasive.  It seems government gets off on exploiting the dangers terrorism poses to society, making such high tech devices as image scanners  mandatory instead of optional as they are currently.  However, back to the anal bomb story, it seems according to Saudi authorities it wasn’t wedged in the bomber’s anus but rather in his underwear.  That’s not comforting either, since if it’s true the explosives were in an article of clothing that  should have been discovered by a pat down, social sensitivities be damned.  Finally, the scenario goes the culprit was standing next to his target who was only slightly injured if at all if you take this account into consideration, though he, the bomber was seen exploding in a flash of light.  I’m still trying to figure out how that happens, unless the Saudis are really stretching the meaning of “slightly” or not injured to new heights.  Along with the assertion the bomb wasn’t in the anus as the last link above  seems to imply and the fact that the Saudi prince did NOT have the bomber searched seems to point more to Saudi incompetence and negligence than to the ingenuous anus of an  al-qaeda member. Check out the  picture of the bomber, dismembered amidst an almost totally destroyed room.  My point, another media story which focuses on the ridiculous and salacious shows just how irrelevant media has become in its attempts to scare and disgust you.