Subject: Free Clue!!

From: "Rev. Magdalen" <magdalen@subgenius.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Thu, Nov 14, 2002 7:39 PM

Being forced to keep your face and body completely covered up and only being
allowed to see visitors approved by your husband is NOT a sign of respect!
Neither is having your clitoris removed and your labia sewn shut!

You're welcome!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Free Clue!!
From: talysman <talysman@globalsurrealism.com>

"Rev. Magdalen" <magdalen@subgenius.com> writes:

> Being forced to keep your face and body completely covered up and only being
> allowed to see visitors approved by your husband is NOT a sign of respect!
> Neither is having your clitoris removed and your labia sewn shut!

it's a good thing "feminist muslim" gets no google hits!

http://muslim-canada.org/pickthall.htm

it's an essay from 1927 about the qur'an and women's rights.
specifically, the author criticizes the mistreatment of women
in muslim areas of India as being contrary to the shari'ah.

[ from the essay ]

Women have equal rights with men before the
Shari'ah, and the Qur'an proclaims that they are
equal with men in the sight of God. In the Holy
Qur'an, God says:

"I suffer not the work of any one among you,
whether male or female, to be lost. One is
from the other." [Qur'an 3:195]

The heathen Arabs thought women were a separate
and inferior race. The Qur'an reminds them that
they are all one race, one proceeding from the
other, the man from the woman and woman from the
man.

There is no text in the Qur'an, no saying of our
Prophet, which can possibly be held to justify the
practice of depriving women of the natural
benefits which Allah has decreed for all mankind
(i.e. sunshine and fresh air and healthy
movement). And there is no text in the Qur'an, or
saying of our Prophet which justifies her
life-long imprisonment in her home. This
imprisonment, in turn, has lead to death by
consumption or anaemia to thousands of women, and
God knows how many babies, every year in this
country! Decency and modesty is enjoined by the
Qur'an, the circle of a woman's intimate relations
is prescribed by the Qur'an. The true Islamic
tradition enjoins the veiling of the hair and
neck, and modest conduct - that is all.

and then there's ...

http://www.maryams.net/text/index.html

heck, there's a muslim women's forum! maybe you can try your
theory that islam is evil out on them! and there's a whole
slew of articles there about how muslim feminists feel about
wearing a veil.

but before you go laying any WESTERN feminism on them, maybe
you should read about how western feminism has been used as
a tool of colonial oppression in the middle east:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,796213,00.html

[ from the article ]

The Victorian male establishment, which led the
great imperialistic ventures of the 19th century,
fought bitterly against women's increasingly vocal
feminist demands and occasional successes (a
handful going to university; new laws permitting
married women to own property); but at the same
time, across the globe, they used the language of
feminism to acquire the booty of the colonies.

The classic example of such a coloniser was Lord
Cromer, British consul general in Egypt from 1883
to 1907, as described in Leila Ahmed's seminal
Women and Gender in Islam. Cromer was convinced of
the inferiority of Islamic religion and society,
and had many critical things to say on the "mind
of the Oriental". But his condemnation was most
thunderous on the subject of how Islam treated
women. It was Islam's degradation of women, its
insistence on veiling and seclusion, which was the
"fatal obstacle" to the Egyptian's "attainment of
that elevation of thought and character which
should accompany the introduction of Western
civilisation," he said. The Egyptians should be
"persuaded or forced" to become "civilised" by
disposing of the veil.

And what did this forward-thinking,
feminist-sounding veil-burner do when he got home
to Britain? He founded and presided over the Men's
League for Opposing Women's Suffrage, which tried,
by any means possible, to stop women getting the
vote.

[ ... ]

Ahmed writes: "Colonialism's use of feminism to
promote the culture of the colonisers and
undermine native culture has... imparted to
feminism in non-western societies the taint of
having served as an instrument of colonial
domination, rendering it suspect in Arab eyes and
vulnerable to the charge of being an ally of
colonial interests."

Indeed, many Muslim women are suspicious of
western-style feminism for this very reason, a
fact which it is crucial for feminists in the west
to understand, before they do a Cromer and insist
that the removal of veils is the route to all
liberation. The growing Islamicisation of Arab
societies and the neo-colonial impact of the war
on terror has meant that, according to academic
Sherin Saadallah, "secular feminism and feminism
which mimics that of the west is in trouble in the
Arab world".

But just because Arab women are rejecting
western-style feminism, it doesn't mean they are
embracing the subjugation of their sex. Muslim
women deplore misogyny just as western women do,
and they know that Islamic societies also oppress
them; why wouldn't they? But liberation for them
does not encompass destroying their identity,
religion or culture, and many of them want to
retain the veil.

guess you have your work cut out for you!

also, seeing as you and your new best friend, george bush, want to
whip some liberation on Iraq (which oppresses the fanatically shi'ite
muslims who demand the burqa, by the way...) what are you going to do
about the palestinian women's groups who are protesting violence in
the middle east? seems they are a little distrustful of the west,
since NO WOMEN WERE ALLOWED in any of the western-sponsored middle
east talks, despite the fact that palestinian women were staging
non-violent protests en masse, demanding an end to the occupation.
instead, only men with a history of violent protest were allowed
to participate.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Free Clue!!
From: "Rev. Magdalen" <magdalen@subgenius.com>

"talysman" <talysman@globalsurrealism.com> wrote in message
news:wkfzu3r3om.fsf@globalsurrealism.com...

> Decency and modesty is enjoined by the
> Qur'an, the circle of a woman's intimate relations
> is prescribed by the Qur'an. The true Islamic
> tradition enjoins the veiling of the hair and
> neck, and modest conduct - that is all.

That alone is plenty enough opression to justify my rage. It's really
funny how men are so content to say that women are liberated if they are
allowed free speech and education and jobs. What about a woman's right to
flaunt her titties and enjoy raw, sleazy drunken sex??? Women have the
RIGHT TO FUCK COMPLETE STRANGERS EVERY NIGHT OF THE WEEK AND NEVER FEEL
GUILTY ABOUT IT! And you can cite as many internet chat boards as you want
with happy little women saying they love being Muslim but I tell you again,
that doesn't count, because how the hell would THEY know what they're
missing? Until the right to fuck strangers without guilt is restored to
Islamic women, I will never stop crusading against their brutal opression!

I never said Islam was bad and Christianity was good, or that modern Muslims
are bad and Victorian Englishmen are good. Just because I say Islam
opresses women, which it does, that does not mean that I think it is the
ONLY religion, nation, scheme, or system that does so. Duh!

> also, seeing as you and your new best friend, george bush, want to
> whip some liberation on Iraq

I knew there had to be some reason why so-called SubGeniuses would balk at
mocking such an over-ripe target as Islam. I mean, a religion that puts
sacks on women's heads? A religion where people have to pray five times a
day? Where whole nations have been swallowed up in religious government?
What could be a better target for our well-honed ridicule! Yet except for
me and iDRMRSR, you're all in lockstep defending it.

Because you don't want to be seen publicly hating the same thing that
President Monkeyboy hates. If HE hates it, then you're going to support it,
no matter what. Even if it violates the most basic tenets of SubGeniusdom,
even if it keeps millions of people in Slackless bondage, YOU'RE not going
to speak out against it, because then people might mistake you for someone
who LIKES GEORGE BUSH! And THEN where would your counterculture image be??
How many walnut pancakes and organic pies would you have to make to get back
into the good graces of the l33t kids THEN??

Way to be nonconformists, d00ds.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Free Clue!!
From: friday@fridayjones.com (Friday Jones)
Newsgroups: alt.slack,alt.friday

As a SubGenius, I will enjoy ALL THE GUILT I WANT!

I will walk around with my hair uncovered AND FEEL GUILTY ABOUT IT!

(Actually, except for Church events, my hair usually is covered, because of
men who express their appreciation of it by grabbing a handful and yanking
me backwards down stairs).

I will NOT have sex with random women AND I WILL WALLOW IN GUILT ABOUT!

BATHE IN GUILT!

Take off your pants and ROLL IN YOUR GUILT!

PULL THE GUILT OVER YOUR OWN EYES!

Guilt the HELL out of it, get over it, priase "Bob", tithe, sleep, amen.

Bitterness... true bitterness... takes years to cultivate. A careful
blending of the grapes of many disappointments and deceptions and
heartbreaks, it must be bottled up and put away in a dank, dark cellar,
where it slowly ferments and finally finds comes into its own as a dark and
full-bodied, poisonous wine, full of bile and seething with contempt.
- poster JimmyOlsen, Fark

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Free Clue!!
From: "Rev. Magdalen" <magdalen@subgenius.com>

Well yeah, that too. But the LAW should have nothing to do with it, it
should be a woman's right to choose -- guilt or no guilt with her sleazy one
night stands!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Free Clue!!
From: "Dave White" <dave@i-one.at>

It's been a while since I read Prometheus Rising; let's see if I can do
this from memory:

Cicuit I: Food and Nourishment.

Most religions feature one or more of the following means of control:

*) Dietary restrictions
*) Communal eating as part of religious services

Circuit II: Territory and Security

Nearly every religion ends up part of a people's definition of territory.
This can either come in the form of the religion sanctifying (or even
being) the local rulers, as well as the well-known tendency to holy war.

Circuit III: Speech and Intellect

Religion makes itself present here through a number of means, including
but not limited to:

*) Restrictions on words or artistic images *) Systems of "mystical"
thought that usually involve intensely repetitive and hypnotic
manipulations of words, geometric forms, music, and dance

Circuit IV: Sex

Religions tend to regulate and control sexual behaviors.

So, RAW had four more circuits; Bliss, a/k/a The 'Frop Channel (V),
Metaprogramming (VI), Genetic Memory (VII), and Cosmic Consciousness
(VIII). To quibble with the model provided in "Prometheus Rising", I'd say
it should actually be Bliss (V), Genetic Memory (VI), Metaprogramming
(VII) and Cosmic Consciousness (VIII), since this arrangement lets the
mark view the four "higher" circuits as the imaginary counterparts to the
real "lower" circuits, thus giving this arrangement:

Physical Slack: I + Vi
Territorial Slack: II + VIi
Intellectual Slack: III + VIIi
Cytorspastic Slack: IV + VIIIi

I would suggest that future excursions into comparative theology use this
framework to measure the relative Slack content of various teachings. For
instance, the SubGenius has:

'Frop, the Industrial Diet, and BAD THINGS
Patriopsychoticanarchomaterialism
Bulldada and Breakmind
Oozsquirt and Sexhurt

A Christian is stuck with:

Agape and Communion
Initiation and Community
Faith
Marriage

So, obviously, WE WIN.

Further comparisons relevant to this discussion are left as an exercise
for the reader.

std::
"Taking Jokes Too Seriously Since 1970"

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Re: Free Clue!!
From: Whose TITAN Elbow <crgre00+usenet@newsguy.com>

"Rev. Magdalen" <magdalen@subgenius.com>schreef in
berichtnieuws...news:GVZA9.356377$121.9939133@twister.austin.rr.com:

> Because you don't want to be seen publicly hating the same thing that
> President Monkeyboy hates.

Who do you think gave him his play money to start his failed oil company?
No, they don't hate moslems, they just like hate, your hate, as a means to
an end.

--
``Although xylitol has a relatively long organic chemical history, the
first half of this century was rather eventless from xylitol's point of
view...'' -- Professor Kauko K. Mäkinen

Back to document index

Original file name: Free Clue!! - converted on Monday, 21 July 2003, 13:45