Saudi Cleric Pummeled On Twitter For Claiming Driving Damages Women's Ovaries 408
An anonymous reader writes "CNN reports, "Sheikh Saleh Al-Loheidan's widely derided remarks have gone viral ... 'If a woman drives a car,' Al-Loheidan told Saudi news website sabq.org. 'it could have a negative physiological impact. It would automatically affect a woman's ovaries and that it pushes the pelvis upward.' ... 'We find that for women who continuously drive cars, their children are born with varying degrees of clinical problems.' The controversial comments were widely interpreted throughout Saudi Arabia as an attempt to discourage women in the country from joining a popular online movement urging them to stage a demonstration by driving cars on October 26. 'This is his answer to the campaign,' Saudi women's rights activist Aziza Yousef told CNN. 'He's making a fool of himself. He shouldn't touch this field at all.' Al-Loheidan's words have been ridiculed mercilessly via social media. An Arabic Twitter hashtag called '#WomensDrivingAffectsOvariesAndPelvises' was quickly created to make fun of Al-Loheidan — underscoring just how widely the call for Saudi women to defy the driving ban has resonated thus far. And while numerous conservative voices have supported Al-Loheidan, many Saudis believe this was an extremely clumsy way of trying to counter the popularity of the October 26 campaign.'"
WaitWaitDon'tTellMe (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Where to start with this one...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget the obvious: RIDING in the car, but not driving it, is apparently fine for the ovaries.
Try and wrap your head around that!
Fundamentalist Religions: Oppressing Women Forever (Score:5, Insightful)
Fear and Freedom don't mix well. Let's all be a little more brave and learn to tell all the batshit religious crazies to fuck off. I don't care if they do raise hell and blow stuff up - eventually there won't be enough left of them to matter.
Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
Twitter is nerdy .... right? (Score:1, Insightful)
This is news for nerds because of Twitter! Twitter is all technical and stuff, with the computers and the social media buzz.
Seriously, WTF? What's next? Baseball scores?
Re:It is true (Score:5, Insightful)
This. The Middle East has no monopoly on ridiculous ideas about female physiology. Some American politicians, pundits, and religious leaders are downright scary in this regard.
Correlation != Causation (Score:5, Insightful)
You might be able to say that women who drive a car get damaged ovaries, but you missing the intermediate step where the woman is dragged from the car and beaten.
Re:Fundamentalist Religions: Oppressing Women Fore (Score:2, Insightful)
If Sarah Silverman had said it, people would be calling her a genius.
funny how the moral relativists come out of the wood-work to scream about a sudden universal right and wrong once their pet issue is involved.
also, you are racist for criticizing their culture.
If Sarah Silverman had said it, she wouldn't be serious, much less trying to control lives with the statement. It's called "humor." Also, see "sarcasm." And "entertainment." You may as well consider the movie "Star Wars" to have been a documentary, if you equate her saying this with a Saudi cleric saying it.
Moral relativism is a total non-issue here; this is a Saudi cleric...a religious leader of a famously oppressive culture...with regard to whether or not there should be gender discrimination with regard to something incredibly useful and entirely non-gender-related. Whether women should be allowed to drive is not, in the eyes of pretty much the entire human population, a tough moral issue. I'm not sure whose "pet issue" this is, since out of a world of billions of billions of people there are so few places left where women are prohibited from driving cars. That'd have to be a pet with a LOT of owners...
And this is neither about race (but laws), nor is "Saudi" a racial group. Lern 2 definez, plz. :)
Re:you know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Except there's data to support that helicopter example. There's no data to support what this cleric just pulled out of his ass.
Re:WaitWaitDon'tTellMe (Score:5, Insightful)
..."In other news, a fatwah has been issued against tweeting."
Yes, because getting "pummeled on Twitter" is really going to have an impact on this guy.
Re:Where to start with this one...? (Score:5, Insightful)
And its not dangerous at all for testicles.
Even though they're sat on, bounced around on. etc.
Does Slashdot have to embrace this crap? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the Kardashian model of what makes news worthy. Any idiot saying or doing anything shocking to most of us becomes a media sensation. Just because it was on Twitter doesn't make it relevant to this audience. I'm hoping this trend of dumping crap here skimmed off TMZ headlines doesn't continue.
Re:Where to start with this one...? (Score:3, Insightful)
My genitals are always HUGE when I'm driving my car.
Love this...the more we talk about Huge genitals the better!
Re:Where to start with this one...? (Score:5, Insightful)
As crazy as this sounds, it's not too far off from what some ultraconservatives apparently believe.
Re:you know... (Score:4, Insightful)
As crazy and wrong as this guy is, his claim isn't completely out of left field.
Wrong. His claim is completely out of left field because he just made this shit up. It's not without precedent, but that is a very different thing, not least because the assertion is that all automobiles will damage all ovaries.
I stopped reading after the first sentence (Score:4, Insightful)
First sentence says "Saudi Cleric" claims something is so. Why would anyone with any sense read any further? What are you guys, masochists? Do you intentionally look for things to irritate you? Surely you were aware than nothing beneficial or insightful can follow in anything beginning with "Saudi Cleric claims..."
Stop intentionally finding things to piss yourself off. You'll live a healthier, and probably longer, life.
Re:Where to start with this one...? (Score:5, Insightful)
What an idiot.
Now, now... At least he's not suggesting that humans herded dinosaurs sometime in the last 6,000 years, and is insisting that this fantasy be taught to all the children Texas public schools.
Anyone who turns to a cleric, of any religion, for medical/scientific advice deserves everything that happens to him/her.
Re:Where to start with this one...? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or in other words; when reality and their believes are in conflict, it is reality that must have gotten it wrong. Yes, that sounds about right.
Re:Fundamentalist Religions: Oppressing Women Fore (Score:3, Insightful)
I seem to recall various atheist countries that were afraid of their people getting loose used Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong Il, and others to control their people.
I seem to recall Marxist Feminism being born as a way to control women, convince them that they were oppressed by men and thus enter the work force, doubling the workers. It did not bring equility, it merely burdened women. It did not bring the choice to the family of which parent would raise the child, but instead normalized the method of human reproduction by having children raised by the state. Radical Feminism was born by adding to Marxist Feminism the idea that oppression was Patriarchal in nature [wikipedia.org]; New-wave / 3rd wave / "mainstream" Feminism adds to these the idea that males can also be harmed by Patriarchy, and extends their narrative to all issues of gender -- All without any unbiased, peer reviewed evidence. All are examples of Marxist us-vs them divisionism applied to gender. Hilariously, a new Feminist theory of Kyriachy says that it is the elite rulers in power which cause the oppression... It is plain-jane Marxism! ha ha... oh, it would be funny if it weren't so sad, that this ideology is in control of nearly every political debate. Few speak out against it because they are labeled as villainous women haters. Womens Rights does not need Feminism, or any other ideology for that matter.
G.P. says, "Fear and Freedom don't mix well." Well, if that's true then why is it that fear of rape, abuse, and oppression of women are prominently used by Feminists in world governments to control the dialog of "gender equality" with no push back from those who would seek freedom from fear? Painting all men as potential rapists is as egregious as painting all blacks as murderous thieves simply due to crime stats. Even more egregious in the case of Feminism since they ignore the troves of evidence that men are over 90% the victims of violent crimes, and that women are as aggressive or more aggressive than men. [csulb.edu], the Feminists in the CDC have even redefined rape to exclude male victims and female perpetrators, saying that only penetration can be rape so vaginas can't rape (tell that to the guy tied to the bed with a q-tip shoved is his penis) -- Since most rapists and abusers have been victims of such abuse themselves this means the feminists are actually creating more female victims in the next cycle of abuse... Yet, speak out against them in order to fight for equality of both men and women, and reduce abuse, and you find yourself skewered by the ideologists for challenging their world views.
The ideologies care not for freedom, but perpetuating fear to further their fanatical and financial support. Ideologies are primarily the same in that they preach fear of harm coming to our women, and have no evidence to back their claims. From Islamic fundamentalists to Feminists, this holds true. For instance: Feminists harp on about equal pay, but there is no "wage gap", it hasn't existed for a very long time. Never married men make the same money as never married women... [ncpa.org] (and this has been true since the 70's). As a sexually dimorphic race women and men simply make different life choices, and men don't give birth. Additionally, ideologists cry out for "equal representation", but equal isn't 50% men and women. It's X% women vs men in at the bottom == X% women vs men out at the top. If the jobs are available to all, but 40% of women vs men apply for the bottom rung jobs then women should percolate up to the top jobs at a rate of 40%, eh? Same for 30%, 20%, 10%, even 0%. Women should be allowed to make different life choices, and not shamed for not being a stressed out workaholic CEO, in the same way we don't shame them for not being Coal Miners or Janitors or Game Developers -- the latter is i
Naturally (Score:4, Insightful)
Over the centuries, science has continually reaffirmed that women's health is severely impacted by such stressful activities as reading, writing, voting, driving, owning property, having a job, leaving the kitchen, or thinking.
Re:Where to start with this one...? (Score:2, Insightful)
Except that "ultraconservatives" aren't using this as a justification for rape? Nor do they have the backing of the state government when they say it?
It might not be rape, but using bullshit physiological explanations as justification for requiring a trans-vaginal ultrasound before abortion is pretty heinous. I guess they want to make government so small it can fit in a woman's uterus.
I know, let's have medicare stop paying for anesthesia when they go in to get their colonoscopy. Maybe then they'd sing a different tune.
Re:Where to start with this one...? (Score:5, Insightful)
A fertilized zygote won't turn into a human being "by itself", either - it requires a host to actively sustain it. If your argument is that it's only a human being when it's self-sufficient, then you should be perfectly fine with early abortions. On the other hand, if that is not your criteria, then it is not at all clear what makes fertilized egg any different from unfertilized one - both merely have the potential to grow into a self-sufficient human being, but aren't one.
Of course, in practice, your kind uses various logical fallacies to attempt to justify what is ultimately blind religious faith (ironically, a fairly recent one - Christians of old did not believe that soul was imparted at conception; in fact, there were oft-quoted Biblical passages to support the position that soul only came with the first breath).