Now you're saying to yourself, "What is this dude talking about?"

Does the name Moammar Kadafi or Libya mean anything to you? If not, just click on the name and read some of the articles about this leader. What I found interesting was his comments or high school crush-like admiration for U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice a few days ago.

"I support my darling Black African Woman. I admire and very proud how she leans back and gives orders to Arab Leaders. She beckens to Arab Leaders and they come to her, either in groups or individually. Leeza, Leeza, Leeza I love her very much."  - Moammar Kadafi

PLAYA, PLAYA, PLAYA! slow your roll, just ask for her number first. Instead of a "Love Jones" I'm going to have to start saying I got a "Kadafi" instead. (Some reading this may not get that, but for those who do stop laughing.) Seriously, why don't you just put it in a rap and get Lil' Jon to produce it for you. Moammar doing the damn thing.

Reference Source:

LA Times "Over dinner in tent, Kadafi and 'darling' Condi Rice put US-Libyan relations on normal footing"

You have 28 more days to register to vote.

1.866.MYVOTE1 (1.866.698.6831)

This is amazing, I have stumbled upon the cure for my "acne" and quite by accident.  I've been struggling with what I would describe as an infection on my face for many many months.  It all seemed to start after I had my tonsils out last year.  I think I caught something at the hospital because within days I had a strange red mark growing on my face in an area that could've been covered by a ventilating mask or some other medical device.  It didn't seem like much at first and in my experience these things had always gone away when given a little time.  I am not one to rush out and get lots of medicines at the drug store or go see a Dr. for every little red mark or sniffle plus my tonsil recovery was a much greater concern. 

The first mark went away but another appeared on the opposite side of my face and it became a growing concern.  Still given time that too went away leaving only minor subdermal discolorations that in time I expect will fade.  For the next several months though my skin was very sensitive and reddened, I kept getting pimples which left ugly red discolorations.  By May I had finally broke down and went to the Dr. to get some treatment.  My primary care gave me some antibiotics which had some soothing effect but when they ran out I still had the infection.  Then I went to a dermatologist who turned out to be a real asshole.  He gave me some anitbiotics and topical lotion.  At first it seemed to help but I still had the infection by the end of August so things were not looking to hopeful. 

The redness and irritaion combined with the side effects of the antibiotics and the unpleasantness of constantly putting on the topical lotion was significantly affecting my comfort, appearance (oh, the horror!), and well-being.  

When it was apparent that the medicines were not doing the trick I tried to make note of my diet and see if I had worse days after eating at the golden arches or after eating mayonaise or chips.  Nothing seemed to make the irritation change at all until about a week ago I was surprised to feel my face was getting dry and itchy rather than inflammed and painful.  It was that feeling of healing and I recognized it like an old friend.  I thought about what I had done differently, and I hadin fact eaten an unusual meal the night before.  I had made a ton of garlic bread, and I use lots of garlic when I make it because I like garlic.  I like it so much that on a couple occasions last year when restaraunts gave me "garlic bread" with indetectible amounts of garlic on it I sent it back and told them there was something wrong with it that I expect garlic bread to have garlic on it.  What is with places calling themselves italian restaraunts serving buttered toast without any trace of garlic on it?  trying to save money by skimping on garlic?  Trying not to offend the sensitive American palate?  I used to make it with fresh garlic but lately I by the jars of minced garlic which saves a bunch of time and mess.  So in the afternoon on day after I ate the garlic bread I noticed that my face was feeling less irritated and it was a bit drier than it had been in a long long time.  I immediately knew that less "stuff" was growing in my skin.  

Just to test the theory that it was in fact the garlic I made garlic bread again and again (everyone in my family likes it too so none goes to waste).  My wife bought me some garlic supplements too so I started taking those as well.  It really was working!  It started working so well that I barely needed any topical lotion at all.  The inflammation and irritation went down and all the redness is going away.  I am ecstatic because I am once again seeing the skin tone that I used to know. 

I did some research on garlic and found that it does have some unique and incredible biological effects.  It has been used worldwide to fight bacterial infections including those that have become resistant to antibiotics

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11238826?ordinalpos=19&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Here are some fluffy links without technical references:

http://naturalhealthremedies.org/what-are-the-health-benefits-of-garlic/

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/1655/health-benefits-garlic-unravelled

and a place to find somewhat more technical ones if you are so inclined:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&DbFrom=pubmed&Cmd=Link&LinkName=pubmed_pubmed&LinkReadableName=Related%20Articles&IdsFromResult=7557803&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed

I read some posts on message boards of acne related websites too.  People have used it topically with success but that is a bit too agressive a treatment for me.  Apparently it can really burn your skin.

I am still taking the antibiotic since that can only help but I can say that based on first hand experience garlic can really really help clear up acne/facial infection, and it is yummy too! 

So I was looking for  a nice picture of garlic using google images and I saw one on a blog called faithandgender and being a sucker for anything referring to gender I checked it out.  I found much of what I read about the blog and the author somewhat intriguing.  If you think you might be interested in Faith and Gender check it out.

Me, well I was raised Catholic but haven't practiced any religion since junior high school.  Religions are nice old political and social clubs for mass mind control but I don't see any of them as being relevant today.  I can just as easily make up my own mind about what is important and good in this world by interacting with people I meet or by things I see and read.

Take care,

Rachel

"'I know this sounds hokey," she told an interviewer in 2006, "but basketball was a life-changing experience for me.' The problem for today's feminists is that the life lessons Palin learned from basketball have made her their biggest nightmare."

A woman who played against her on the basketball courts during their high school days has some unique and fascinating insights into the mindset of the woman that I believe will be our next Vice President.

Jessica Gavora, writing in an article titled, "Game Changer: Will the battle of 2008 turn out to have been won on the playing fields of Alaska?" has this to offer:

"All I ever really needed to know I learned on the basketball court."

That's Sarah Palin, circa 2004, when she was merely, as the Obama campaign would say, "the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience."

More than once on her way to becoming a national political phenom as John McCain's running mate, Palin has said she owes it all to playing hoops. But she's not just talking about basketball.

She's talking about girls' basketball.

In Alaska.

In the seventies.

It was a time and a place before identity politics. Before feminists made young female athletes the bright, shiny faces of their graying crusade; before Nike cut treacly, black and white commercials featuring sweaty and empowered young women; and before the law mandated that all six-year-old girls, regardless of race, color, creed, or total lack of interest, strap on shin guards and spend each and every Saturday kicking around a #3 soccer ball.

I know because I was there. While Sarah Palin was calling plays as point guard for the Wasilla Warriors, I was posting low as center for the West Valley Wolfpack, just a few hundred miles north in Fairbanks.

It was a different world. We didn't play basketball to pad our college applications or fulfill some bureaucrat's notion of "gender equity." We played because the winters were long and cold and dark. There was nothing else to do. Maybe as a result, basketball was deadly serious business. Away games were played at the end of eight-hour bus rides or
harrowing plane landings in frozen, remote villages. Our opponents were tough, and the fans were unforgiving. And even though the law that feminists like to credit with all female athletic success, Title IX, was then unenforced in high school sports, we girls wouldn't have dreamed of taking second place to the boys--nor did we.

Palin earned her now-famous nickname on the hardcourt--"Sarah Barracuda." Her enemies have tried to belittle her by pointing to her stint as a beauty queen, but it is clear that Palin's background in sports, more than any other experience, is what has made her the existential threat to liberal feminism (and possibly the Democratic ticket) that she is today.

In a basketball-crazed state, Wasilla was and is a basketball-crazed town. Palin, the Anchorage Daily News wrote when she was running for governor, was "practically canonized" for her role on the 1982 state championship team. It is a story she repeated often to the Alaska media as she made her name in politics: The Wasilla Warrior girls were the underdogs coming into the state tournament that year. Nobody thought they could win. But they beat squads from much larger Anchorage schools to capture the big prize.

As a candidate in Alaska, Palin sold herself unselfconsciously as a chick jock. In one op-ed, she went out of her way to set herself apart, as chick jocks like to do, from the supporting actors who are nonetheless the highest link in the high-school-girl food chain: the cheerleaders. She has never, she wrote, "been coordinated, peppy or dramatic enough to have ever been on a pom-pom squad."

"I know this sounds hokey," she told an interviewer in 2006, "but basketball was a life-changing experience for me." The problem for today's feminists is that the life lessons Palin learned from basketball have made her their biggest nightmare.

Instead of turning her into a gender-obsessed, hair-trigger enemy of the patriarchy, basketball taught Palin a different set of virtues: To insist on equal opportunity, not equal results. To know herself and what she is capable of. And to never, ever see herself as a victim.

Like a good politician, Palin pays lip service to Title IX, but the law that she supports is Title IX as it was originally written--a grant of equal opportunity for girls and women--not the quota law it has become.

Instead of teaching her to view the world through the prism of gender, as feminists would have it, sports taught Palin the opposite lesson. "Sports taught me that gender isn't an issue," she said shortly after becoming governor. "In fact, when people talk about me being the first female governor, I'm a little absent from that discussion, because I've never thought of gender as an issue."

The modern feminist theory of girls and women in athletics is that we are all lingering victims--even in 2008--of the patriarchy. The theory explains away girls' and women's lower interest in athletics with the assertion that years of being shut out of athletics (never mind that the years in question were four decades ago) have conditioned females not to like sports as much as men.

It's not that we don't like to play sports as much as the guys, it's just that we don't yet know that we like to play sports as much as the guys. We need to be educated about our interests, and it is the government's responsibility to ensure that schools create women's teams--and/or eliminate men's teams--until we come to our senses and behave just like the boys.

Palin takes this theory of the victimized female, prisoner of false-consciousness, and drives a stake through its heart. She didn't need anyone to teach her that she was an athlete back in the seventies, and she won't allow anyone to call her a token female today.

For all their talk of the sameness of the sexes, what feminists want for female athletes today is preferences, quotas mandated by the federal government and handed out by schools. But what Sarah Palin has achieved no one has given her; she has manifestly earned it.

It's difficult to overstate how entrenched--and how male--was the political culture that Palin upended in Alaska. The state's governing Republican troika of Senator Ted Stevens, Congressman Don Young, and Governor Frank Murkowski (known simply as Ted, Don, and Frank) together had more than a century on the public payroll--in a state less than 50 years old--when Palin challenged Murkowski in the Republican primary in 2006. For decades, they had relied on the not-unpersuasive argument that failing to return them to Washington would be fatal to a small state like Alaska with only three snouts in the federal trough.

But it turns out that playing basketball taught Sarah Palin the importance of a quality more valuable than seniority: competitiveness. Instead of shrinking before the political machine that was responsible for delivering billions of federal dollars to the residents whose votes she sought, Palin challenged it head on. Not content with exposing her own Republican party chairman for ethics violations, she defeated a sitting governor of her own party and called the FBI investigation of Stevens and others for official corruption an "embarrassment" to Alaska.

"Competition defines and refines a person," she wrote in 2004. "Character is revealed. It's really nothing to be afraid of."

But liberal feminists are, in fact, afraid of Sarah Palin. For the first time, they face real competition in their claim to speak for women. For decades, feminist groups have insisted they are the voice of American women, when in fact they are the voice of a narrow, liberal fringe. It's an argument that has convinced the media and has cowed politicians of both parties. And it's an argument that Sarah Palin is busy blowing clean out of the water.

If she wins, that hissing sound you will hear will be the air wheezing out of modern feminism. And even if she doesn't win, she will have given America--and, more important, American politicians--the example of a female former athlete who knows who she is and what she wants and doesn't need Big Brother to protect her from the old boys network.

And to think it all began in a gym in Wasilla.

Jessica Gavora, a native Alaskan, is a writer and speechwriter.

Male, female, or pitbull, Sarah Palin is impressive.

She's tough, but that doesn't mean she's a loner.  She played as a member of a team.

So let's recruit another woman to help her whip the radical liberal "feminists," who have for decades smuggled an ideology that has nothing to do with "women" in the name of "feminism."

Kirsten Powers is an analyst for Fox News.  She is a proven liberal.  But it turns out she is no friend of the N.O.W.

During the 5 September 2008 broadcast of the Fox News program "Hannity and Colmes," Kirsten Powers said this:

It's not the National Organization for Women, right?  But it's not.  It's really the National Organization for Liberal Women.  It's not the National Organization for Women, because she's a woman.  And they put out a statement saying, "Not all women speak for women.  Sarah Palin doesn't speak for women."  Well, look; this woman, when I look at her - even if I don't support her, you know, a lot of her policies, she is the embodiment of what feminism was all about.  She's a mother, she's successful, her husband helps with the children.  You know, we should be exited about this, even if you don't support her.

Alan Colmes then said:

If you support someone just because they're a woman, and the National Organization for Women supports anybody whose a woman,then you're saying we're just supporting them because they're a woman, and you're not being discerning at all.  So you can't have it both ways.

And Kirsten Powers responded:

I would agree with that if they had any kind of actual moral authority, but they don't, because they don't ever support any women who don't support their very narrow agenda.  So they should just rename themselves and say what they're really for, and stop pretending like they really care about the advancement for women.

I believe it's becoming clear that the convoluted "feminism" of the N.O.W. is in trouble.  If it dies tough, successful, intelligent and independent women like Sarah Palin and Kirsten Powers will have been the ones that killed it.

It is an established fact that students of Delhi school of Economics find more solace sitting on the tree platforms behind Dipu's dhaba than their respective classrooms. The setting is perfect, green and breezy, for debates on economic policy, incest taboo and the like. For company we have undergraduates from neighboring colleges, (notably Stephen's, after Nescafe was brought down) getting used to the goodness of Dipu's iced tea and masala coke.

Imagine our horror then, when one fine afternoon all the liberal debate was interrupted by someone who rarely found a mention in that wood. God! Yes, a middle aged man got onto one of the platforms, held up a pamphlet and urged us all to see the light! Jesus didn't gain any followers that day but the man courted a fair amount of controversy with his outburst.

Among the cross questioners was a wee lad who wondered that if homosexuality was forbidden by the Bible, will violators of Article 377 go to hell? The man had no answer and tried to get by with a," God is the judge." His response was met with extreme disapproval and made his conviction in his own argument sound shaky, but it sure got me thinking.

So being judgmental about homosexuals was tough even for a fanatic. Then why is the issue being brushed under the carpet and what are the repercussions? On getting home I got hold of a copy of ‘Time Out' magazine and found out that the popular lifestyle magazine had a fortnightly ‘Gay and Lesbian' column. In this particular issue the writer mentioned the Pride March, the Queer fest and numerous internet groups that provided a platform for homosexuals (almost exclusively men) to get to know each other, or more often just act as ‘meat market.'

The membership of one such Delhi based group was over 4000! Alongside there was a list of 7 events and resource groups meant for promoting sensitivity, confidential advice, talks, seminars, screenings, protesting article 377 and even a weekly running/walking club! So the minority definitely wasn't beneath notice anymore and the issue shrieked for attention.

On Sunday I agreed with Inderjit Hazra's views on the Hindustan Times editorial page, who thought that the Law minister had mixed up his suppositories for his suppositions when he opined that lifting section 377 will open the floodgates for the sexual abuse of children! He summarized the law as aiming against "whosoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal."

The punishment can be in form of imprisonment and a fine. He further added that viewing all gay men as potential rapists of boys is actually keeping us from formulating laws to specifically address child abuse, I couldn't agree more.

The issue however goes deeper than presumed pedophilia. Anil Divan, a senior Supreme Court advocate quoted Sujatha Rao, the Director General of the National AIDS Control Organisation (NACO), in The Hindu, as having said that, "Section 377 places a huge constraint on Government's HIV/AIDS programme ... if you criminalise any behaviour you increase the chances of it going underground. We are hoping to change that."

In the factually enlightening piece he added that The American Psychological Association has opined that "despite historical views of homosexuality, it is no longer viewed by mental health professionals as a `disease' or `disorder.'" Furthermore the English who introduced section 377 in 1860, in India, outlawed it in England over 40 years ago in 1967! So what are we waiting for? The brilliantly researched editorial piece is full of examples, from around the world, of courts ruling in favour of petitioners who moved the court against criminalizing homosexual practices between consenting adults, in private, all from past decades.

Yet our legislators have decided to turn a blind eye to something staring at them in the face!

Face it people! The law is archaic. It should find a mention in history books rather than the constitution. Even if we, the conservative people, are apprehensive of legitimising homosexuality there's no excuse for being a roadblock on the path to eradicating HIV AIDS and bringing into force anti child sex abuse laws.

I rest my case.

Harsh Vardhan Sahni

M.A.(P) 2008-09

Catching up on news this weekend after a hectic first week of school. Watching John Stewart interview Newt Gingrich made me smile.

And this piece on Palin is something I'm using in my journalism classroom this year.

Great stuff

In fact, a 2001 Unicef report said that the United States teenage birthrate was higher than any other member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The U.S. tied Hungary for the most abortions. This was in spite of the fact that girls in the U.S. were not the most sexually active. Denmark held that title. But, its teenage birthrate was one-sixth of ours, and its teenage abortion rate was half of ours.

They also provide an accompanying graph on teen birth rates.

FEMINISTS are arguing for Sarah Palin to be taken seriously as a candidate. We're busy discussing her politics, the issues, what she stands for - the mainstream media is discussing her possible extra marital affairs, her daughter's pregnancy, her pregnancy, can a 'Mom' work in the Whitehouse, and...VPILF:

Sydney Morning Herald Screenshot today?

The writing chopped off that should be seen running across the bottom of the picture:

Cocktail of Cleavage and Authority - Sarah Palin is having a remarkable effect on the conservative male

The pic leads to an Annabel Crab article, whom normally I love, but occasionally get shitted by - for the laughs she will dilute or skate right over the top of the issues that are the basis of the article.

Today we got a run down of men's infatuation with Palin and Thatcher, including a "rough translation" of a Silvio Berlusconi quote that Thatcher was a 'nice piece of pussy'. We get:

It's something more; a compelling cocktail - authority plus maternalism, with a hint of cleavage.

Matron's back.

And she's hot.

And she's armed.

Call it the dominatrix effect; it's the same element that used to turn grown men into fawning, wobbling supplicants before the former British prime minister, Margaret Thatcher.

She makes the quick point that Clinton was never discussed in these terms* (that's right, and it deserves more than the one small paragraph it got - perhaps a look at the implications of this bullshit misogyny) - before attention turned to the *FAIL* by feminists to 'deal elegantly with Palin'. Jeez, sorry we're not being elegant, we're busy discussing her stance on the *issues*.

So anyway, what's Crab's *evidence* of this humongous *Failure of the Feminists*?? Oh yeah. That the National Organisation for Women won't back her play - that's right the National Organisation for Women is busy fighting for women's rights and choices. They aren't going to back an anti-choice, anti-equality, anti-sex-ed candidate just because she's got tits. In Crabbe's books it's a FAIL!!!! FAIL N.O.W, FAIL ALL FEMINISTS EVERYWHERE ON THE BACK OF JUST ONE QUOTE!!! FAAAAAAAIIIIIIIILLLL!!!

She sees this *failure* to back Palin/a woman,any woman, as a diminishment of the National Organisation for Women. I see it as standing for the rights of women to make choices, that's right, the rights of the women whom Palin's government would like to deny their choices, AND for the rights of Sarah Palin. We're not denying her her *right* to stand for office, we're excercising our right to say "She is NOT a friend of women's rights to choose when/how they reproduce, whom they love - we wish her success and gainful employment, but we do NOT endorse her as a political candidate".

The National Organisation for Women should NOT be backing a candidate simply because she ís a woman. Or because she is a mother. Or because she is a hot mother/woman. Or because she is a hot and able to shoot mother/woman.   

I expected better from Crab. Not 'because she is a woman' because Miranda Devine is a woman (and by the way I would still fight for Devine's rights to choose her lifestyle, to not be subject to harrasment) but because she can write well, and because she has the facts at her disposal - why did she not mention the explosion of feminist blog posts keeping an eye on the sexism of the media's treatment of Palin, why did she not acknowledge WHY N.O.W would not endorse an anti-choice, anti-rights-for-same-sex-partners, anti sex-ed candidate?

*It's true that for all the sex scandal surrounding Clinton, we'd never run a headline about his intoxicating "Cocktail of COCK and Charm". 

Pada tahun 2004, pemerintah Perancis sempat mengeluarkan larangan pemakaian jilbab dan atribut agama ke sekolah. Kebijakan ini lalu ditentang oleh banyak orang di banyak negara, tidak hanya oleh kaum muslim, tapi juga para aktivis HAM.

“Lha iya kalau yang dibagiin terus mau pake jilbabnya, kalau nggak?” komentar saya pertama kali. Teman saya yang membaca koran berbeda namun dengan berita yang sama hanya tersenyum. ”Aneh-aneh aja ya...” komentarnya singkat.

Saya merasa ada salah paham dalam hal jilbab berjilbab ini. Pertama, untuk peringatan hari jilbabnya itu. Bagus memang, dilakukan untuk memperingati hak azasi manusia dalam berperilaku sesuai keyakinan masing-masing. Setahu saya, hak azasi manusia itu adalah hak yang individual. Artinya, setiap orang memiliki hak untuk mendapatkan atau melakukan sesuatu. Salah satunya adalah hak untuk memeluk agama. Konsekuensinya adalah hak untuk beribadah, bertutur, dan berperilaku sesuai agamanya tersebut. Pelanggaran terhadap HAM jika ada sebuah sistem atau golongan yang tidak menghargai hak tersebut. Contohnya ya kebijakan di Perancis itu. Peringatan International Hijab Muslimah Solidarity lalu dilakukan untuk menunjukkan kepedulian terhadap kebebasan beragama serta mencegah terjadinya pelanggaran-pelanggaran serupa di kemudian hari.

Dari situ saja sudah berbeda tujuannya. Yang satu sisi memperjuangkan bagaimana agar setiap orang dihormati atas segala perbedaan dan kebebasan yang dimiliki, kok ya di sisi lain (dalam aksi 1000 jilbab itu maksudnya) malah memperjuangkan berdirinya sebuah nilai. Malah promosi keseragaman.

Saya coba analogikan. Misalnya, pada suatu pemilihan walikota, saya tidak diperbolehkan mencalonkan diri. Setelah ditelusuri, alasannya ternyata karena saya kidal, dan ke-kidal-an tidak bisa diterima di kota saya karena dianggap tidak sopan. Setelah perjuangan mati-matian, menggalang massa, melakukan negosiasi segala macam, akhirnya saya lolos seleksi. Mungkin setelah itu akan diperingati Hari Kidal di kota saya. Nah, apakah peringatannya adalah dengan mengajak semua orang untuk bisa menulis dengan tangan kiri? Tentu tidak. Bayangan saya, bentuk peringatannya adalah dengan menekankan: hormati hak-hak orang kidal, orang kidal juga punya kesempatan sama. Saya tidak bisa memaksakan orang lain untuk jadi kidal juga. Hak setiap orang untuk kidal atau tidak kidal. Itulah hak azasi manusia.

Saya jadi teringat ketika saya mengobrol di suatu sore dengan teman-teman Youth Forum yang masih berseragam putih abu-abu. Beberapa teman perempuan mengenakan jilbab hanya di sekolah, karena memang peraturan di sekolah demikian. Ada sekolah yang mewajibkan (karena memang sekolah berbasis Islam), ada yang ’menghimbau’ dengan tekanan-tekanan tertentu dari guru. Dan itu terjadi di sekolah negeri! Sekolah yang notabene milik umum, siapapun, mau Islam, Hindu, Jawa, Sunda, kidal.

”Iya mas, kita kalau tidak pakai jilbab biasanya diceramahi guru ’udah dikasih kuping, dikasih mata, tinggal pake. Eh disuruh pake jilbab aja susah!’ Disindir-sindir gitu. Kalau yang non muslim sih emang nggak disuruh pakai jilbab.” Berbeda 180 derajat dengan kasus di Perancis. Di sana, ada siswi mendapatkan kekerasan dengan dilarang memakai jilbab ke sekolah. Sementara di kota ini, banyak siswi yang justru mendapatkan kekerasan karena tidak memakai jilbab! Jika kasus yang pertama kemudian menang atas nama hak azasi manusia, lantas bagaimana hak azasi manusia diterapkan untuk kasus siswi-siswi sekolah negeri yang ’diwajibkan’ berjilbab? Untuk kasus pertama berarti negosiasinya adalah, meskipun berjilbab, juga bisa bersekolah dengan nyaman. Nah, untuk kasus kedua, meskipun tidak berjilbab, bisakah bersekolah dengan nyaman?

Salah paham kedua soal jilbab berjilbab ini adalah penafsiran atas agama Islam yang masih bias dengan budaya Arab (entah berapa kali saya menyinggung soal ini). Kita tentu tahu bagaimana orang Arab berpakaian. Lantas itu yang banyak orang Islam tiru. Sepanjang pemahaman saya, kewajiban berhijab pada awalnya diperuntukan bagi istri-istri Nabi Muhammad. Saya kutip tulisan Siti Musdah Mulia yang memang lebih berkompeten soal urusan Islam dibanding saya:

-- Satu-satunya ayat Al-Qur’an yang secara eksplisit menggunakan istilah jilbab adalah ayat 59 surah al-Ahzab: “Wahai Nabi, katakanlan kepada para isterimu dan anak-anak perempuanmu, serta para perempuan mukmin agar mereka mengulurkan jilbabnya. Sebab, yang demikian itu akan membuat mereka lebih mudah dikenali sehingga terhindar dari perlakuan tidak sopan. Sesungguhnya Allah Maha Pengampun dan Maha Penyayang.”

Para ulama sepakat bahwa ayat tersebut merespon tradisi perempuan Arab ketika itu yang terbiasa bersenang ria. Mereka membiarkan muka mereka terbuka seperti layaknya budak perempuan, mereka juga membuang hajat di padang pasir terbuka karena belum ada toilet. Para perempuan beriman juga ikut-ikutan seperti umumnya perempuan Arab tersebut. Kemudian mereka diganggu oleh kelompok laki-laki jahat yang mengira mereka adalah perempuan dari kalangan bawah. Mereka lalu datang kepada Nabi mengadukan hal tersebut. Lalu turunlah ayat ini menyuruh para isteri Nabi, anak perempuannya dan perempuan beriman agar memanjangkan gaun mereka menutupi sekujur tubuh.

Memakai jilbab bukanlah suatu kewajiban bagi perempuan Islam. Itu hanyalah ketentuan Al-Quran bagi para istri dan anak-anak perempuan Nabi, dan semua perempuan beriman di masa itu untuk menutup tubuh mereka atau bagian dari tubuh mereka sedemikian rupa sehingga tidak mengundang kaum munafik untuk menghina mereka. Jadi illat hukumnya adalah perlindungan terhadap perempuan. Jika perlindungan itu tidak dibutuhkan lagi karena sistem keamanan yang sudah demikian maju dan terjamin, tentu perempuan dapat memilih secara cerdas dan bebas apakah ia masih mau menggunakan jilbab atau tidak--

(http://www.icrp-online.org/wmprint.php?ArtID=524)

Beberapa kalangan, terutama dari arus feminis, menganggap jilbab adalah salah satu bentuk kontrol atas tubuh perempuan. Lagi-lagi dalangnya adalah budaya patriarki. Para patriark ketakutan jika perempuan tidak menutupi tubuhnya, banyak laki-laki yang akan tergoda. Lha... yang nafsu siapa, yang jadi korban siapa.

Saya dulu punya kucing. Nalurinya kucing ya kalau ada ikan, mesti langsung diembat. Mana dia mau mikir itu ikan buat siapa. Tiap ada ikan saya sembunyikan. Tapi kok ya dia tau saja di mana saya menyimpannya. Ditaruh di atas lemari, si kucing naik. Ditutup pakai tudung saji, si kucing bisa membuka dengan kuku-kukunya. Beruntung kalau saya sembunyikan dalam lambung, si kucing tidak mencakar-cakar perut saya. Akhirnya daripada pusing mikirin gimana memperlakukan ikan, saya lebih baik melatih si kucing. Tiap dia mendekati ikan yang bukan miliknya, saya jewer kupingnya. Begitu terus. Lama kelamaan, cukup dengan menujukkan tanda jeweran, si kucing diam tak berkutik. Oya, saya juga harus memastikan perut si kucing selalu terisi jadi dia tidak perlu repot-repot mencari cara mendapatkan makanan lewat nyolong ikan.

Saya tidak bermaksud merendahkan perempuan dengan menganalogikannya dengan ikan. Sungguh. Perempuan bukan pemuas nafsu seperti ikan, nasi, atau semacamnya. Fokus cerita saya lebih pada sang kucing. Tentu tidak ada juga laki-laki yang terima begitu saja disamakan dengan kucing. Kecuali kalau memang masih butuh jeweran untuk mengendalikan nafsu kita.

Do I think it's exciting that we have people representing minority groups running for president and vice-president, OF COURSE! However, we should vote on the issues. Our future is too important not to. And even though both parties will inevitably play the race/gender cards in hopes of garnering more votes, neither minority group wants to be patronized in this manner. As a woman and a mother, I want someone to be elected on merit!

Hillary Rodham Clinton has no intention of becoming a Sarah Palin attack dog — but has no qualms going after John McCain, people close to the former first lady say.

“She’s not the answer when it comes to winning conservative women — she never was — and we’re not going to be anybody’s attack dog against Sarah Palin,” said a Clinton insider. “To be fair to Obama’s people, they haven’t asked us to do that.”

Slamming Palin to win back women already hostile to Obama is pointless, the insider said, because Clinton’s most loyal base is working-class voters, not women in particular. “Attacking Palin is checkers, attacking McCain on the economy is chess.”

Clinton will continue to yoke McCain and Palin to President Bush on pocketbook issues. But sources say that Clinton, who supports abortion rights, isn’t likely to criticize the Alaska governor for her anti-abortion stance. She may, however, question Palin’s record on equal-pay issues.

The Obama campaign, alarmed by Palin’s instant popularity, has given Clinton’s staff a proposed fall campaign schedule in economically distressed battleground states — including Ohio and Pennsylvania — where she did well during the primaries, according to people familiar with the situation.

The former first lady, who is due to appear at an Obama event in Florida on Monday, hasn’t gotten back to them yet. When she does, she’s likely to add a few stops of her own — fundraisers, including at least one in Texas to help her repay more than $20 million in debt incurred during the primary.

“They probably don’t want her in Texas, but, hey, that’s where the money is, so that’s where she’s going to go,” said a source familiar with travel planning.

The past few days i spent lying in my bed thinking very hard. Between dreams and blackness my mind found time to think of my future in all its respects. Where will my gender go? What impact will that have? Where will my degree get me? What can i do? It is really a time to define who i am so that i can live out my life as that person.

I see myself as a cloud of uncertainty. It would be egotistical of me to say that i am a cloud of potential, but the potential can be for both bad and good. I branch out and try things too see if my cloud will fit that mold. I feel that i need to settle into a shape before i can properly live out anything from study to relationships. I fail at everything if i am not a real shape. Clouds just drift unhappily through life till they break and fall on someone.

After an inordinate amount of reading and talking to those that know, i have come to several conclusions about my situation. I do not feel the same way about myself as most post-op women that i know. They knew all the way along. They had no doubts. They didn't hide their femininity, they just thought it was the norm. When i was young i was very aware that i had to hide what i felt for fear of ridicule. They didn't feel the purges and lapses that i get so often. I one day i want to be a woman so much that it hurts. Another day i will feel so uncertain about the whole thing that i will just sit and cry.

I cannot hope to transition until i either sort this out, or accept that i will never full be a woman and that i should be a male. I can explore the boundaries of my gender, but from the male side of the Great Divide.

I also know that the female feelings inside of me will never die even though they are not as strong as a fully trans woman's. In response to this i will feel compelled to crossdress from time to time but not as a horny transvestite. I have no desire to sit in a bra and panties and jerk off to porn. I am still a woman; just not full time. When presenting as Alice i will still expect to be treated as a woman even though we all know that it is a temporary arrangement.

I have taken a liking to the term 'gender illusionist'. Being a totally normal male but having the ability to transform into a woman at the drop of a hat. A convincing one at that. I do not wish to be in the closet. If i am not to be a full time woman, i will not hide what i do. It is a part of me and always will be.

I am not dashing my hopes of a full transition, i am just laying a safety net for myself should i fall. The idea of getting rid of my shame between my legs is still rather appealing. The difference between me and girls that have transitioned, is that i don't mind being a boy; i would just prefer being a girl.

I always have the future to transition should i decide that it is appropriate. I am saddened that the older i get, the less time i will have spent as who i am. The older i get, the less successful my transition will be, but i can't live as a cloud. I will try and enjoy my life as described above, but should it fail i have the option to transition later. Make the most of now so that i don't regret my time as a boy if i decide to change.

Well, sorry for such a long post. I got carried away. Just a quick thanks to people on here that comment and encourage me to write more. Lynn Jones for her advice and sharp mind. Alison for her balanced arguments and breadth of knowledge. Snowdropexplodes for always being there reading. And everyone else for reading about me. This blog keeps me going.

xx

Ohio.  Florida.  Michigan.
We are about to get Roved worse then we got Roved before...back when sane and reasonable people said, "THIS ain't ever happening again."  Back when a National Guard shirking smirking chimp buffoon portrayed a decorated veteran as weaker on national security.  Back when the GOP neocon fucks conned America into electing a prevaricating imbecile one more time.

2008.  Experience.  Abortion.  Gender.  WTF???

Experience.  She has more than Obama.
Abortion.  Sarah Palin chooses life.  Obama murders baby Trig.
Gender.  No pithy, clever or sarcastic line required.  This one's a gimme.

He's a Christian as far as I know...but he wants to raise your taxes and take away your guns.
He's NOT a POW.
Politics as WWE wrestling.  Palin hunts and fishes.  Obama says one thing in Scranton and another in San Francisco.  Who you gonna trust, America?

I don't care if he ever fucked a pig.  I just want to make the sonuvabitch deny it.

This election is just getting warmed up.  I expect the Obama camp has been waiting for this and are well prepared with measured, incisive, vicious and cutting counter-points - the conduct of the Clinton wars brooks no other perspective.
Still and all, though...I have some lines for you guys. 
For a small fee, I'll tell you what they are.  They're GOLD, Jerry...GOLD!

I know McCain's speech was weak and poorly delivered.  What torture, watching Senator Mumblefuck struggle to hit the in toe neigh shun on sim pull sent an says my friends.  Fuck the speech and fuck Gimpy Mumblefuck.  LOOK at the faces of the assembled.  They are not going to let an elitist negro take over their country.  Just...no.

Sure there were empty seats, and Obama had 80,000.  Big margins in the gimme states.
This election is just now being sorted out, and being smarter, more qualified, more inspiring, more erudite, more nuanced, more thoughtful, more beloved, more suited, more more...doesn't mean a goddamn weak stream of piss in a soft breeze.

If I were ever within arms reach of Karl Rove he'd never forget the encounter, but the slimy bastard knows how to win elections.

Amy Holmes | Bio
CNN Political Analyst

McCain has a strong woman? Well, the Obama campaign wants voters to know they’ve got one, too, and they’re going to deploy her to crush the moose hunting hockey mom from Alaska. In a strange twist of logic, the Obama campaign is touting the woman they passed over as the woman they need to beat the woman the other guy picked.

The New York Times reports that “Mrs. Clinton’s campaign event in Florida, her first for Mr. Obama since the Democratic convention, will serve as a counterpoint to the searing attacks and fresh burst of energy that Ms. Palin injected into the race with her convention speech on Wednesday, Obama aides said.”

So, let’s get this straight. They didn’t choose her and her 18 million voters to put on the ticket. They gave the VP spot to Joe Biden. But now that Sarah Palin has arrived on the political scene, they’re promoting Hillary as the female answer to the Republican VP nominee. Awkward, to say the least.

And as one female Democratic strategist tells me, don’t think that Hillary hasn’t noticed.

A week ago, most Americans had never heard of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. Now, following a Vice Presidential acceptance speech viewed live by more than 40 million people, Palin is viewed favorably by 58% of American voters. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 37% hold an unfavorable view of the self-described hockey mom.

The figures include 40% with a Very Favorable opinion of Palin and 18% with a Very Unfavorable view. Before her acceptance speech, Palin was viewed favorably by 52%. A week ago, 67% had never heard of her.

The new data also shows significant increases in the number who say McCain made the right choice and the number who say Palin is ready to be President. Generally, John McCain's choice of Palin earns slightly better reviews than Barack Obama's choice of Joe Biden.

Perhaps most stunning is the fact that Palin's favorable ratings are now a point higher than either man at the top of the Presidential tickets this year. As of Friday morning, Obama and McCain are each viewed favorably by 57% of voters. Biden is viewed favorably by 48%.

There is a strong partisan gap when it comes to perceptions of Palin. Eighty-nine percent (89%) of Republicans give her favorable reviews along with 33% of Democrats and 59% of voters not affiliated with either major party.

She earns positive reviews from 65% of men and 52% of women. The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows that Obama continues to lead McCain among women voters while McCain leads among men. The Friday morning update, the first to include interviews conducted after Palin's speech--showed the beginning of a Republican convention bounce that may match Obama's bounce from last week.

Fifty-one percent (51%) of Americans believe that most reporters are trying to hurt Palin's campaign, a fact that may enhance her own ratings.

The Palin pick has also improved perceptions of John McCain. A week ago, just before he introduced his running mate, just 42% of Republicans had a Very Favorable opinion of their party's nominee. That figure jumped to 54% by this Friday morning. Among unaffiliated voters, favorable opinions of McCain have increased by eleven percentage points in a week from 54% before the Palin announcement to 65% today.

Fifty-one percent (51%) of all voters now believe that McCain made the right choice when he picked Palin to be his running mate while 32% disagree. By way of comparison, on the night after Biden gave his acceptance speech, 47% said that Obama made the right choice.

Eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans say that McCain made the right choice while just 69% of Democrats said the same about Obama.

Among unaffiliated voters, 52% said that McCain made the right choice for his running mate and 45% said the same about Obama.

Forty percent (40%) now say that Palin is ready to be President, if necessary. That's up from 29% last week. Forty-nine percent (49%) say the same about Biden.

However, following the Wednesday night speech, voters are fairly evenly divided as to whether Palin or Obama has the better experience to be President. Forty-four percent (44%) of voters say Palin has the better experience while 48% say Obama has the edge. Among unaffiliated voters, 45% say Obama has better experience while 42% say Palin.

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of voters say that Palin's speech helped McCain's chances of becoming President while only 10% believe it hurt those prospects.

While Palin's numbers are stunning today, it remains to be seen how the Alaska Governor's numbers will hold up through the next two months. She has made a tremendous first impression, but the country will get to know her a lot better between now and November.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it's free)?????? let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

This national survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted by Rasmussen Reports September 4, 2008. The margin of sampling error for each survey is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

Despite being a self-proclaimed Feminist, Palin’s stances on key issues like abortion and sex education say otherwise.

Palin’s oldest daughter, Bristol, has now been thrust into the political limelight as the poster child for what happens when your mother becomes a vice presidential candidate with intentions of overturning Roe v. Wade. Had McCain not chosen Palin as his VP, it is possible that Bristol would not be on her way to becoming a wife at the ripe age of seventeen. But her mother, who stands for ethics and family values, cannot have an illigitimate grandchild when she’s touring the country as our potential vice president (or president should McCain drop dead in office – not an unlikely possibility).

Perhaps the pregnant teen would not be an issue at all if her mother promoted sex education, but no. As a devout evangelical Protestant, Palin does not approve of contraception, nor in educating children about anything other than abstinence. Even though absintence-only education programs have been proven to fail time and time again as a method to stop teen pregnancy, Palin and the majority of her party hold tight to this stance. Being a woman who bears the brunt of the situation should a pregnancy come about, it is unfortunate that Palin remains anti-sex education.

Both stances can be seen as anti-female on several counts. Considering that women in politics, specifically national politics, are the faces of American women both here and overseas, Palin represents a detriment to the rights the majority of us have been fighting for for decades. Should McCain be elected, it is possible that our right to choose will be taken from us, and abstinence-only education will proliferate into more and more schools, only serving to multiply the amount of unwanted teen pregnancies annually. How is this a Feminist approach to government?

Do we really want the first woman VP to be a woman with a small amount of political experience on a state level, none on a national level, whose claim to fame might be the beauty pageant she placed second in in high school? Pardon me if I am wrong, but I thought the glitzy, air-headed visage of a pageant queen is exactly what women are trying to rid themselves of in order to be taken seriously, especially in the political arena. Palin is bringing it back on a national stage, however, showing the country and, perhaps, the world that a pretty face lacks what it takes to lead with the so-called “Big Boys”. Like I said, another step back for the Feminists.

Whether or not McCain is voted into office, bringing Palin with him, this November, the damage to a large extent has already been rendered.

The Social Farce
By Ayesha Siddiqa, Dawn, September 05, 2008

Source

ALTHOUGH Pakistan’s attention seems completely diverted towards the upcoming presidential elections, there are other equally important things happening in the country such as the burying alive of two women.

The words of Baloch Senator Israrullah Zehri has angered a lot of people. The politician believes that such acts cannot be condemned as they are part of the local tradition of not allowing women the freedom of selecting their partners without the consent of their parents or guardians. Those trying to challenge authority, hence, must be punished according to tribal norms.

The feminists, in particular, view it as an issue of women’s rights. However, this problem is a subset of the larger issue of the lack of social and political development and the gradual militarisation of society. It should be viewed in this context.

While analysing the issue, let us differentiate between reality and the response to it. The social reality is what was expressed by the Baloch senator, according to whom honour killing is part of the local culture and traditions. His statement angered many but I would prefer Zehri over others of his kind — like one particularly prominent, foreign-educated and seemingly liberal female politician who many years ago made a similar claim during a private conversation. I was perturbed how she hid her feudal character under the garb of western sophistication. Such elements are difficult to catch and protest against.

Over the years, especially during the past couple of decades, society has become more militarised which means that what is defended as local culture is actually a greater distortion of religion and local traditions to enhance the power of individuals. The power play that we see in the country amongst politicians on a larger scale is actually an extension of a similar game that is played at the micro level in society. Women get punished as well as men because they don’t have a similar power status. This is the norm of a feudal, tribal and militarised society.

Surely, Mr Zehri did not know any better. He, like many others of his kind, has only seen the exercise of naked power. The senator was only trying to defend what he sees as a symbol of power that is his ultimate goal and that of others strutting about in the corridors of power. Balochistan is not alone in this. Such savage acts are presented as custom in other parts of the country as well. Recently, when I expressed my concern to a Sindhi journalist regarding the opening up of new madressahs in interior Sindh as a means to influence the Sufi traditions of the region, his response was that what was a matter of greater concern were incidents of honour killing — all defended in the name of tradition.

Can honour killing stop without debating the structure of society and without wanting to change it? The answer is in the negative. Protests against individual acts of violence will certainly provide relief to a few but will not root out the problem. The religious clerics led by the feudal/tribal leaders (or the other way around) will keep arguing that women have fewer rights than men. But their claims and counter-claims are all a farce until people begin to address the issue of restructuring the culture which is the basis of such crimes.

And one has to be realistic in understanding two critical points. First, feudalism and tribalism do exist in the country. For those, who believe that feudalism is no more in this country, the answer is that the institution has morphed into newer shapes. It might have ended from the perspective of the mode of production, but its socio-cultural forms exist. In fact, the institution has deepened its roots.

Second, the militarisation of society has influenced the process of morphing so that individuals, groups or institutions who represent the non-feudal class behave like them as well. For instance, there is no real difference between Senator Zehri and Pervez Musharraf who not too long ago had claimed that women get raped to get Canadian visas. The underlying sentiment is similar — gender rights or human rights are not possible because it challenges the power of those at the top who will then choose to treat issues of rights as cursory and one to be ignored and brushed aside as minor problems, even non-existent matters.

Let’s be very clear that such acts of brutality have nothing to do with religion or morality, otherwise such brutal rules would be applied elsewhere too. I am reminded of a tragic incident in a village in south Punjab where a young girl, who had sought shelter at a shrine after running away from her stepmother, was gang-raped. Ultimately, she was imprisoned on charges of adultery because the culprits had greater access to the local pir who was a member of parliament as well. The victim did not represent his constituency while the culprits did. The power structure was clearly tilted against her and so was the local standard of morality.

Interestingly, similar norms were not applied to some of the female members of the pir’s family known for morally dubious practices. Even the orthodox mullahs of that area have never ventured to punish the immorality mentioned above or issue fatwas. In fact, moral turpitude is a reality in all closed spaces. Peep inside any closed household, especially those that claim to be the spiritual saviours of the people, and there will be a number of stories, the protagonists of which go unpunished due to their higher social background.

The social system says that money and power determine whether or not one is punished for an act of immorality. These two aforementioned attributes make it convenient for many to hide their sins and escape honour killing or jail sentences. More important, the menfolk of such families are not even expected to hide their immoral acts. In many cases, being a mullah or a pir is sufficient licence for anything otherwise condemnable.

So, while we agree that Mr Zehri has correctly projected honour killing as a local tradition, could we also ask him to see the circumstances in which such practices are born? Burying men or women alive or killing them for honour is not about religion or tribal morality but about the ability of some individuals to exercise naked power.

The question is that is it social imbalance that Zehri and others like him were elected to defend or will he see the real purpose of his and others political existence? Furthermore, closed spaces and unequal power will always breed moral corruption. The current power structures have to be broken if morality is to be restored to our socio-political space.

The writer is an independent strategic and political analyst.

But yesterday, I was handed a piece of paper listing the breakdowns of the upcoming seasons being presented by 13 major NYC theaters.  I wasn't a participant at the event where this breakdown was discussed, and I won't name the event because I'm not sure if they want to publicize it like that, but I've got no qualms about publicizing it here.  I'll start with the general overview stuff, then break it down by theater at the end.

According to this paper (and it doesn't cite the quoted stats, so I can't tell you where the demographic info comes from), New York City's ethnic breakdown looks like this:

Non-Latino Whites = 35%

Latinos = 27%

Blacks = 26.6%

Asians = 9.8%

Other = 1%

You can probably guess where this is going already.

The paper goes one step further, adding that Non-Latino White MEN make up 14% of NYC's population.  So my question to you dear reader, is if white men make up 14% of NYC's population, what percentage of plays in the 2008/09 NYC not-for-orofit theater season do you think are written by white men?

EXACTLY!  80%.

There are fifty productions written by living American playwrights cited by the paper.  (As best as I can tell, this list excludes productions created by groups--like Nature Theater of Oklahoma's Rambo Solo at Soho Rep--and plays by dead and/or foreign playwrights--like Sarah Kane's Blasted at Soho Rep.)  Of those fifty, FORTY are written by white men.  Six are written by white women.  Three are written by Black women.  One is written by a black man.  Seriously.  Look at that list again:

White Men = 40

White Woman = 6

Black Women = 3

Black Men = 1

Latino Men = 0

Latina Women = 0 (although I question this statistic, as I believe Lisa Loomer, who has a play at Roundabout, is Latina)

Asian Men = 0

Asian Women = 0

Other Men and Women = 0

As I said recently when I dropped the door hook on my face and cut my nose open at four am in Chicago: Really?

Now, as the note above points out, I haven't compiled this list on my own, and there may be some particular ethnic situations that could be somewhat clarified to reshape this list a bit, but the point remains--there is a serious gap at work here.  No theater--NO theater--in New York City is doing more than one play by any American person of color.  Only Playwrights Horizons is doing more than one play by American woman.

I'm not necessarily blaming theaters here.  Choosing a season is difficult, and there are many factors to consider.  Ethnicity is one small piece of the puzzle, as is gender.  These theaters have cultivated relationships with many artists, and many of those artists happen to be white men.  I understand all that.

I also understand that many of my favorite New York writers aren't being represented in the New York theater at all, nor are the cultures that make New York the proverbial "melting pot."  And I look at other theaters in the US, and I see that it can be done.  And while it's possible that good old LAByrinth will come through and diversify things up a bit, that (a) won't change the overall landscape and (b) shouldn't fall to any one company.

The writers are out there.  They are deserving.  Why aren't they being done?

6094_013.jpg

Cargado originalmente por abenyusuf

También debemos llamar la atención sobre uno de los rasgos más característicos de la poesía árabe, que es el sensualismo, la voluptuosidad, la aspiración a los goces materiales, gusto que dominando en la poesía clásica de los anteislamitas, apenas fue moderado por la moral laxa del Corán. El sensualismo afea con demasiada frecuencia la poesía y literatura árabe; el amor rara vez se encuentra pintado en su idea más noble y pura; a cada paso nos hallamos en el tesoro poético de los Árabes andaluces con obras tales como la titulada El Intérprete de los deseos, colección de poesías críticas casi lascivas escritas por un xeque, dado por otra parte a los estudios teológicos (nota: Sidi Mohieddin Alarabi, que murió en 638-1240).

Fracisco Javier Simonet, El Siglo de Oro de la literatura arábigo-española: Discurso leído ante el claustro de la Universidad Central, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, 1867, p. 47.

http://www.myspace.com/atkm

Except that I wasn't a man - I was still me, still female - but was trying to pass as one to friends and family.

At first, it was no problem. I was actually quite impressed with how I was doing. In my real life, I have cross-dressed several times and ended up hating my own performance. My masculine side, Carl, feels he needs to constantly prove his masculinity and does so in ways that I don't like. He is, naturally, the cumulative creation of my own views of masculinity, which is neither nuanced nor realistic; it seems to arise from the most heartless, macho concept of masculinity that one can imagine. He is the product not of my view of men but of my view of the stew of social influences that we call masculinity; I do not consider "men" and "masculinity" to be interchangeable.

But in the dream, I wasn't performing the caricature that Carl is. I acted male, not masculine, which I would consider a much more subtle notion. I talked to people - both men and women - as though they were human beings. I recognized in my own act the men that I have seen around me in life, who are decidedly male in their behavior but human beings about it.

And then it started to fall apart. I thought someone had realized I was really a woman, and the thought snowballed. My confidence was shaken. I found myself hitting on a girl, but analyzing every sentence I spoke and finding the female faults in them. She didn't seem to notice. That didn't reassure me. Why did I ask a question rather than make a statement? Isn't that something a woman would do, not a man? I remember thinking. Is my voice getting higher?

And I began to worry what violence might befall me if any of the men nearby discovered I was actually female.

My alarm went off then, but I drifted in and out of sleep, trying to recapture the dream and find the meaning in it.

Now, women in modernized countries usually enjoy better privileges than in the past; in less developed countries like Iraq and Africa, however, women usually have no say in their rights. There is a particular society that is interesting to note, that although it is one of the most modernized country in the world, gender inequality still plays a big part in their society. That country is Japan.

Japan is known for its efficiency and diligence in their work. They are one of the world’s leading manufacturing country (especially in cars), and also in electronic gadgets like television, handphones and even the internet. Workers are dedicated to what they do, and swear total loyalty to their company. Once a man enters a company, he stays there for his entire working years. He is whom we call the breadwinner of the house. He will work from morning till night, and when he reaches home, he expects to be tended by his wife.

 The wife is the housekeeper who looks after the house, the kids, and also the husband. With so much tasks in hand, it is not shocking to know that almost 80% of women in Japan quit their jobs once they get married. However, in recent times, the culture of Japan is changing. With the need of a bigger workforce to cope with the expanding economy, the women of Japan started to work as well. By working and earning their own income, it undoubtedly gives them more financial security and thus more power in dictating their own future. Now, many choose to not marry or marry late because they do not like being tied down to domestic responsibilities and staying at home all day.

Despite their new found power, women in Japan are still at the disadvantage in their society. In traditional Japan, they believed in the Confucius teachings, where they believed that the men should be educated and working while the women should stay at home and tend to the domestic work in the house. Even though times have changed, this Confucian teaching is still deeply entrenched in their society. Women, unless in a self-started businesses, usually do not or never get high positions of rank. Also, their average pay is lower than of the men. They even have terms for these men and women who work. Women who work in the office are called Office Ladies, while the men are named Salarymen. Just by giving this term to them, we can already see the gender roles that they are expected to perform to. The men are the ones who must bring home the money. Office Ladies are selected for their looks and the most that they do are administration work.

Sometimes it’s interesting to wonder why the women won’t speak up for themselves, like what the Americans have done. I have read a book that says Japanese people don’t express their wishes as an act of humbleness. Instead, it is the other party’s job to actually pick up every expression and tone of the speaker’s movement to guess what the speaker actually wants. “The worst thing a man can say is that he has to tell his wife what he wants”. Maybe it is this ‘value’ of theirs that prevent the Japanese women from speaking up. But it is also increasingly noticed that they are resisting silently. Many women choose not to get married, despite them being called “wagamama” or selfish in Japanese as a whole. Also, although being a divorcee carries a stigma, the rates are still rising. Many of these divorces are initiated by women who are tired of being in a loveless marriage, which is so common because the husband has to work very long hours and is rarely at home to accompany them.

Sure, majority of Japanese women are still traditional – they quit their jobs after getting married and look after the house. However, with the recession and the lack of trust in the government, Japan’s once strong mutual bond as a community is starting to break down. The new generation X has their own new values, and it will not be surprising to see the women gaining their stand and having more rights in the Japanese society.

Which begs the question: do they still have a gender?

It's an interesting problem. Socially, gender is assumed through assessment of a person's physical body, their voice, mannerisms, clothes and so on: but strip away all these things - remove even their possibility - and what is left? Is the brain (we'll call it Sam, a neatly androgynous handle) gendered depending on the sex of its original body? Is it possible for a 'female' brain to wind up ensconced in male flesh, or vice versa? If one accepts that homosexuality is more often an innate predeliction than a conscious choice (certainly, I believe, it can be both or either), what role does the physical wiring of our brain play? Is it the only factor? Does nurture always prevail over nature in matters of sexuality, or vice versa? Is it a mixture? If so, does the ratio vary from person to person? Why? And so on.

Let's lay some cards on the table. When it comes to sexual orientation, my two rules of thumb are: 

(a) mutual, intelligent consent; and

(b) the prevention of harm to others.

In a nutshell: all parties have to agree to what's happening, and no bystanders can be hurt or unwillingly drawn in. While this doesn't rule out BDSM (provided, of course, it keeps within the bounds of said rules), it definitively excludes rape and paedophilia, which, really, is common sense. Anything relating to homosexuality and transexuality, however, is fair game.

A few more points, in no particular order:

1. Life is often unfair.

2. Life is often weird.

3. Insofar as evidence is concerned, human beings are still shaky on the definitive origins of personhood (souls v. genes, or possibly a blend of both), but most people will agree that brains and gender play a more important role in this than, say, knees and elbows.

4. Original notions of gender roles developed in the context of reproduction and childrearing, but provided both these things still occur in sufficient numbers to ensure the survival of the species, there is little harm in broadening or questioning their parameters.

5. People have, or should have, a basic right to assert their identity. Reasonably, there must be some limits of credulity - there was only ever one Napoleon,  mankind are distinct from dolphins - but within the recognised sphere of human gender and sexual orientation, it seems counter-intuitive that appearance should dictate black and white rules for what is, quite evidently, an internal and subtle determination.

Witness, then, the idea of transgender couples, in which one partner may undergo a sex change without ending the relationship. Witness, then, the case of Aurora Lipscomb, born Zachary, who identified as a girl from the age of two and was removed from her parents when they refused to forcibly contradict her. These are just two examples that buck the trend of traditional gender ideas, and rather than making us squirm, they should make us think. When and why did certain socio-cultural ideas of gender develop, and how do they change? Consider, for instance, the well-documented and widespread instances of winkte, berdache and two-spirit people in Native American culture, compared to the deep-seated fear of these concepts in western traditions. Look at the long-standing tradition of male homosexuality in Japan, particularly among samurais, and the role of Sappho in ancient Greek lesbianism. Think of hermaphrodites.

Point being, there's a wealth of diverse and fascinating history surrounding the ideas of gender, sexuality and male/female roles, to the extent that many legal restrictions now placed on non-heterosexual couples and individuals are faintly ridiculous. Throw in the question of child-rearing, and there's a tendency to reach for the nearest pitchfork. Personally, I find debating my views in this matter difficult, if only because debate is meaningless without a modicum of mutually accepted middleground, and where my opponents object to homosexuality and transsexuality as an opening gambit, it's well-nigh impossible to discuss the matter of non-heteros breeding, adopting and/or applying for surrogacy without both sides resorting to instant moral veto of the contrary position.

Still, it's always worth trying, and the whole issue fascinates me. Socially, I marvel at where the next hundred years could take us, and cringe at how far we might also fall. But in the interim, I return to the question of brains in vats, and how, within the parameters of such a hypothetical, gender is determined. Is it innate, biological, genetic, spiritual, chosen consciously, chosen unconsciously, socially conditioned, random, nurtured, culturally selected; or can the glorious gamut of human existence countenance the possibility that these options simultaneouly coexist as true, contributing on an individual basis, in individual ratios? Or is that too confronting a thought?

"You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all...God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how whe went about doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him" (Acts 10:36, 38).

As Luke transistions from narrating the ministry of Jesus to narrating the ministry of the early church, he emphasizes the continuity between them. What Jesus began to teach and to do--the good news of the kingdom and his healing ministry, that is, heralding the reverse of the curse and implementing that reversal, continues in the early church. What Jesus began the church continues. The church teaches and does what Jesus taught and did.

Peter's rehearsal of the story of Jesus before Cornelius summarizes what he taught ("good news") and what he did ("doing good and healing all"). It is a synopsis of the Gospel of Luke itself. Should a reader of Acts 10 want to know more of what Peter means within Luke's narrative one would only need to read the first volume, the Gospel of Luke. Or, one could read my previous post.  :-)  Probably better to read the Gospel of Luke itself.  :-)

It seems that disciples of Jesus should also proclaim the "good news of the kingdom" and "do good," does it not? Indeed. That is exactly what we find in Luke's second volume, the Acts of the Apostles, or better the Acts of the Holy Spirit through the Church.  Just as Jesus was anointed with the Spirit and then pursued the kingdom ministry, so the small community of God in Jerusalem was anointed with the Spirit and then pursued a ministry to the "ends of the earth."

"You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth" (Acts 1:8).

"Philip went down to a city in Samaria and proclaimed the Christ there...evil spirits came out of many, and many paralytics and cripples were healed. So there was great joy in that city...when they believed Philip as he preachaed the good news of the kingdom and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women" (Acts 8:5, 7, 8, 12).

The mission of Jesus is the mission of the church.  The church is a witness to the reality of the kingdom of God in the person of Jesus. The church continues that witness--it began in Jerusalem, but it continues to the ends of the earth.

Philip is a good example in the book of Acts.  He proclaimed "the Christ" in Samaria, that is, he announed the "good news of the kingdom" and how that "good news" comes to reality in person of Jesus the Messiah. The Messianic mission of Jesus, as Luke 4 noted, is "good news" for the poor, oppressed, imprisoned, diseased, and disabled. Philip teaches and heals; he follows Jesus by pursuing his mission.

Philip, coming from Judea, preaches the Messianic reality of the kingdom of God in Samaria--it is a reality that breaks down the ethnic/religious/nationalistic/geographical barrier between Samaria and Judea.  It is good news; it announces that the old distinctions disappear when the kingdom of God comes near.

Luke also calls attention to, as his habit is in both the Gospel and Acts, the inclusion of women in the kingdom reality.  It is good news for women as well as men!  Oppression, in all its forms, is trumped in the kingdom of God.  Both men and women becomes disciples of Jesus; both male and female prophesy (speak the word of the Lord) in the kingdom of God (Acts 2:17-18; 21:9).

This brief story epitomizes the mission of the church as the continuation of the mission of Jesus.  What Jesus began to teach...the church continues to teach. The church is called to declare "the good news of the kingdom"--and if we doubt what that phrase means, we need only look to Luke's own definition in Luke 4 where he uses the phrase in 4:41. The "good news of the kingdom," according to Luke, is not a narrow message about individual forgiveness through the cross of Christ.  It is the Messianic mission of "good news" for the poor and oppressed. The good news is that the reign of God has come near. It is about curse reversal.

What Jesus began to do...the church continued to do. The church is called to pursue a healing and reconciling (including ethnic and gender reconciliation) ministry in the world as witness to the presence of the reign of God in the world. The mission of the church, as the mission of Jesus, is to reverse the curse--to participate in the divine agenda to heal what is broken, reconcile what is divided, and release people from oppression (whether political, sexist, racial, etc.).  The disciples of Jesus do this as Jesus did it--through suffering, peace, forgiveness, seeking, etc.

"...complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me--the task of testifying to the gospel of God's grace. Now I know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again" (Acts 20:24b-25).

"Boldly and without hindrance [Paul] preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ" (Acts 28:31).

Paul was also a witness, just as the whole church is a witness to the reign of God in the world.  He was given the task of "testifying" to the good news of God's grace.  The appearance of the Messiah in the world is the display of God's favor--Jubilee for the creation!  It is divine grace. 

Paul characterizes his teaching ministry as heralding the kingdom (the word "preached" in the above texts is to "herald" or "announce")--it is announcing the reign of God in the world through Jesus the Messiah who is the Lord of creation itself.  Jesus reigns over all as Lord. 

The reign of Jesus is a reign of peace, grace, healing and reconcilation.  This is the message of the church. It is not a message of violence, nationalism, patriotism, segregation, and discrimination. It is a message about forgiveness and justice (righteousness).  The reign of God destroys all the fallen barriers that divide humanity; the reign of God unites all nations, peoples and genders into a new humanity, a new creation, living in harmony with God's good creation. The ministry of Paul extended to the imperial courts of Rome rather than remaining in the temple courts of Jerusalem.

In the history of the church, unfortunately, we have heard more about forgiveness than we have justice. But to proclaim the kingdom of God, we need to hear both because the reign of God announces and enacts both.