Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Medicine Government Social Networks Transportation Twitter Politics

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 '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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Saudi Cleric Pummeled On Twitter For Claiming Driving Damages Women's Ovaries

Comments Filter:
  • by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Monday September 30, 2013 @10:50AM (#44992029) Homepage Journal

    well.. the saudi cleric would probably comment that standing next to the stove is the only safe place for women.

    why he bothered with such a lie I got no idea. maybe he thought he was talking to some 4 year old kids or something... definitely sounds like a guy who's surrounded by extremely "yes" men.

  • Re:eh... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 30, 2013 @10:59AM (#44992117)

    When you actually look at the demographics [], the Tea Party crew are actually more educated than the average American. They aren't lacking in logical abilities, but the impression that they do comes from televised news, which in its frenzy for ever-more-senationalist stories to generate ad revenue likes to focus on the fringe that staple tea bags to their foreheads and carry around signs reading "GIT LARNED SUM ANGLISH FUR YALL COME TO DIS COUNTRY" (hint: the more mainstream Tea Party members concern themselves with economic issues like taxation, not so much immigration).

    This one Saudi cleric, however, is clearly on the fringe of even Saudi religious authority. So, you're right if you want to compare this guy to the kind of looney fringe of the Tea Party that you'll see on TV, but not if you want to compare him to the average Tea Party member.

  • by SJHillman ( 1966756 ) on Monday September 30, 2013 @11:16AM (#44992319)

    I've had numerous bad driving experience with:
    - Women in general
    - Asians
    - College students
    - Old people
    - Teenagers
    - Men in general
    - Animals
    - Bicyclists
    - Prius drivers
    - Lexus drivers
    - BMW drivers
    - Chevy drivers
    - And one helicopter on the Thruway

    It ain't just one demographic that makes driving a bad experience in general.

  • Meanwhile (Score:3, Informative)

    by TheSkepticalOptimist ( 898384 ) on Monday September 30, 2013 @11:20AM (#44992383)

    The Pope says stupid shit all the time and is lauded for it.

    Actually I would have to say this current Pope is a little more forward thinking, he is choosing to ignore the issues rather than outright dismissing them based on 2000 year old dogma. Given another 2000 years a Pope might finally say something intelligent and original based on current science and facts.

  • Re:It is true (Score:4, Informative)

    by squiggleslash ( 241428 ) on Monday September 30, 2013 @11:59AM (#44992813) Homepage Journal

    Uh, whut?

    Akin didn't say that getting pregnances due to rape were uncommon. He said that rapes rarely result in pregnancy, because the female body has a way to "shut down" pregnancies in such circumstances.

    So no, there was never a germ of truth in what he said, especially as, for reasons yet to be explained, there is actually statistically a higher chance of getting pregnant if you've been raped than if you've had normal sex.

  • Re:You can't judge (Score:5, Informative)

    by jmhobrien ( 2750125 ) on Monday September 30, 2013 @12:03PM (#44992863)

    Perhaps you could enumerate these statements so that they can be chiseled onto stone tablets?

  • Re:eh... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Trailer Trash ( 60756 ) on Monday September 30, 2013 @01:44PM (#44993985) Homepage

    So, what is the role of government? I'll answer that:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men...

    There you have it. The purpose of government is to secure your natural, unalienable rights.

    I always love this part where tea partiers are lunatics. You know who I think is a lunatic? Well, how about the guys who increase our federal spending by 10 or 20% in a year even though we started out with a huge deficit? That's looney. How about those who insist that giving money to rich campaign donors through "bailouts" or "stimulus" funds is going to help the economy? Yes, LOONEY. Okay? It's just more common.

    Looking through the "contract from America", there's little I can dispute:

    1. Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does (82.03%).

    This should have been part of the original Constitution.

    2. Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. (72.20%).

    Agreed. Although technically C&T should be about economic incentives.

    3. Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification. (69.69%)


    4. Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words – the length of the original Constitution. (64.9%)

    Well, I would argue about the word length possibly. But, yes, we should have a simpler tax system.

    5. Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities. (63.37%)

    Again, this should be obvious and should have been done before now. It's time to roll the government back to a legal size.

    6. Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%).

    Only problem with this is that a WWII kind of screws it up. But putting provisions for that into law simply makes another case for our current endless war strategy.

    7. Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Defund, repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (56.39%).

    How about come up with a replacement and go from there?

    8. Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation. (55.5%).

    I think we're doing pretty well on this so far. We also need to remove subsidies and tax breaks to various industries as part of this.

    9. Reduce Earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%).

    How about just outright get rid of earmarks? They're used for nothing but graft.

    10. Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend permanently the George W. Bush temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011. (53.38%).

    Again, good idea as long as we can keep revenue up.

    Sorry, little of that looks like lunacy to me or most people for that matter.

  • by alexander_686 ( 957440 ) on Monday September 30, 2013 @03:43PM (#44995153)

    That’s not quite the “ultra conservatives” position.

    The “Pro Life” (anti-abortionist) fall into 2 camps. The first wants to ban abortions expect for “rape, incest, or medical reasons. The second camp wants to ban all abortions for 2 reasons. If life begins at conception, then you can’t execute the fetus just because the father is a bad person. They view the first camp’s position as a dangerous concession. The second reason that the 2nd camp gives is that there are very few conceptions from forcible rape from a stranger – a.k.a. “real rape” – as opposed to date rape, drugged rape, etc.

    These arguments don’t carry any water with me but let’s try to get the oppositions position correct.

Kill Ugly Processor Architectures - Karl Lehenbauer