iOS app Android app
Clicking Follow Back will add user to your friends list and may allow access to your Social News timeline..

HuffPost Social News

Badges:
Your Badges and the Badge Module will be removed from your profile

tyg00enr's Comments

View Comments:   Sort:
Sarkozy: Full Veil Not Welcome In France

Sarkozy: Full Veil Not Welcome In France

Commented Jan 15, 2010 at 12:15:45 in World

“From what I've read the law does not only target burqas but in fact does target the hijab.”
Sarkozy: Full Veil Not Welcome In France

Sarkozy: Full Veil Not Welcome In France

Commented Jan 15, 2010 at 12:07:36 in World

“I'm an agnostic woman and I believe in the right of all people to practice their religions as they see fit so long as it does not negatively affect me. Religious freedom is a cornerstone of democracy. I have many female friends who were a veil or cover their hair for religious reasons. They don't see their decision to do so as oppressive and neither do I, any more than I see a Jewish woman who covers her hair, or a Catholic Nun who wears a habit.”
Sarkozy: Full Veil Not Welcome In France

Sarkozy: Full Veil Not Welcome In France

Commented Jan 15, 2010 at 11:27:29 in World

“The comments about the law possibly being a goal to deter criminals &/ or to keep religious practice private was a response to an earlier post, not my own assertion.

Further, Hasidic Judaism is a fundamentalist approach to the Jewish faith that includes modest dress and requires that most of a woman's body is covered, going to far as promoting that their women wear a wig so that their real hair is covered in public. Their women are subject to many of the same limitations as their Muslim counterparts. Targeting the Muslim woman's veil but leaving the Hasidic Jews tichel, scarf or wig where the purpose of both are similar seems to ignore the practices of one fundamentalist religion while attacking the other. A similar argument could be made about the Catholic Habit.

To believe that specifying "Islamic Veil" is not meant to alienate Muslims is nieve. The differentiation between covering ones head from her face is marginal and only meant to further target one group over the other and limit the effects of the law to only Muslims. In fact if it were not limited to the Islamic Veil it would be wide enough to include Hasidic Jews and Catholic nuns.

The best thing they could do is provide better education in the poorer Muslim neighborhoods and work to reduce discrimination and the lack of inclusiveness in workplaces. But making them dress like us will certainly reduce their fundamentalist fervor. . .”
Sarkozy: Full Veil Not Welcome In France

Sarkozy: Full Veil Not Welcome In France

Commented Jan 14, 2010 at 23:31:16 in World

“If France was worried about potential criminals they would outlaw all face covering, including ski masks and face paint. If they were worried about keeping religious practices private they would outlaw all religious paraphernalia, including necklaces with a cross and Hasidic rekel and tichel. If it was to elevate the status of women within society they would educate their young girls better and enforce law that protect women more, such as working to end human trafficking ( a problem growing in all countries world wide and largely effecting young girls as sex slaves).

These things are not the goals of this effort to outlaw Islamic Veils. The goal of this effort is to alienate Muslims and deepen racial and religious tension. This law spreads ignorance about the practice of wearing a veil, Muslim women's sexuality and women's role in the Muslim religious community. It is a sign of anti-diversity and anti-inclusiveness and makes a mockery of Democratic ideals of religious freedom and racial equality.

There is nothing about forcing a women to uncover her head that is less controlling than forcing her to cover her head. A women should be allowed to chose how to practice her religious beliefs without the government interfering. Most women in the west who cover her head do so because they want to. In fact I've met several women who feel that being covered is empowering and makes them feel sexier.”

overcat on Jan 15, 2010 at 06:00:36

“"If they were worried about keeping religious practices private they would outlaw all religious paraphernalia, including necklaces with a cross and Hasidic rekel and tichel."

It's not about keeping religious practices private, and the only one saying that is you.

"The goal of this effort is to alienate Muslims and deepen racial and religious tension."

That may be a byproduct, but I hardly think that it's the "goal". Don't forget that there are an estimated 6 million Muslims in France, roughly 10% of the population. It's far more likely that the unspoken goal of this proposal is pushback against an increasingly religiously assertive minority of conservative Muslim fundamentalists and the trappings of their regressive ideology. If wearing a face covering veil in public is not an option, then neither is there the possibility of women being made to do so against their wishes. Chances are good that one can't just walk down the street in a French city in a ski mask without drawing negative police attention.

"There is nothing about forcing a women to uncover her head that is less controlling than forcing her to cover her head."

It's not about head coverings, it's about face coverings. That's explicitly stated in the article. Given that, your point comes across as disingenuous.”
Pamela Anderson's Banned PETA Stripping Ad (VIDEO) (NSFW)

Pamela Anderson's Banned PETA Stripping Ad (VIDEO) (NSFW)

Commented Sep 9, 2009 at 09:51:50 in Green

“While I do not take offense to the nudity in and of it's self, I do take offense to the degradation of women through sexualization within the contexts of social justice and animal rights. It's very hard to see PETA's strong line for respecting animals when it doesn't seem to have much for our own species. No one has ever looked at a sexualized woman and said to them selves, "Wow, I really respect that woman and would listen to what she has to say and perhaps even follow her suggestions regarding my consumption habits."
I have left PETA's support network over these ads. They have lost their credibility with me, as a woman who supports the ethical treatment of animals I start with my own species.”

jneems on Sep 9, 2009 at 13:30:40

“I have to agree, too. This video was meant to shock. It does. But not in a constructive way. Not in a way that furthers the cause of animal rights.

What we see here is a militant, over-sexed, half-dressed woman physically attacking those who disagree with her. With a little gratuitous nudity thrown in.

PETA seems more interested in advancing it's own image these days than in actually helping animals.”

JShankel on Sep 9, 2009 at 12:25:10

“** No one has ever looked at a sexualized woman and said to them selves, "Wow, I really respect that woman and would listen to what she has to say" **

Speak for yourself. I have a great deal of respect for both men and women who earn a living with their sexuality, whether they're models, actors, adult entertainers or sex workers.

Just because society has a depraved attitude toward sexuality doesn't mean sexualized individuals don't deserve respect.

That said, this ad is silly.”

Redeemer777 on Sep 9, 2009 at 10:59:16

“"Wow, I really respect that woman and would listen to what she has to say and perhaps even follow her suggestions regarding my consumption habits."

Actually, thats the first thought that comes to my mind.”

ask0 on Sep 9, 2009 at 10:53:38

“does a naked woman . body offend you. Nakedness isso natural. And when the body is maintained its is also beautiful.

How are they degrading woman?”

resub2 on Sep 9, 2009 at 09:58:05

“Well said and I agree.”
How I (and Other

How I (and Other "Pro-Life" Leaders) Contributed to Dr. Tiller's Murder

Commented Jun 3, 2009 at 17:59:02 in Politics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey

The Planned Parenthood v. Casey case, which is more recent than R v. W and therefore precedent on the issue of abortion, does in fact allow states to regulate abortion based on trimesters. It also lowered the standard of review for what types of regulations could be put on abortions.

"The plurality recognized viability as the point at which the state interest in the life of the fetus outweighs the rights of the woman and abortion may be banned entirely "except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother".”

DeWayne on Jun 4, 2009 at 12:32:49

“Another arguement might be, what problem do you see origin and cause for the number of abortions done in America today.

What causes a baby to begin, what causes a female to conceive, what in society leads this often to pregnancies. Might the problem be that people today concentrate to often on resolving the symptom rather than the cause?”
huffingtonpost entry

Don't Put Down Your Flag: America in Flux

Commented Nov 5, 2008 at 23:35:40 in Politics

“But I also know what good we are capable of and that we have the ability to make our country better. I have seen that ability in the activism of people I have worked next to and served with. I can see our goodness in how much we donate goods, time and money to others, in the amount of volunteer work we do and in the service we provide.
And I know what our country is able to do. We have the ability, the rights, the freedoms to change our nation. Small groups of people make enormous ripples here more than anywhere else in the world and what our nation does as a people effects the entire world. That's powerful. It's also a huge opportunity to make large scale, long lasting change not only here but everywhere. I can't think of any other nation where one individual has that much power.

We just elected an African-American to be our President. This is something to be proud of and something that has never happened in any westernized country. It is also a sign that in fact we can do good and when given the right circumstances most of us will not fail to do so.”
huffingtonpost entry

Don't Put Down Your Flag: America in Flux

Commented Nov 5, 2008 at 23:35:28 in Politics

“One of my British friends let me borrow No Logo. That was it for me. I had never heard anything about most of the issues discussed in that book. I wanted more and I read as much as I could about us as a country. As I learned about what we had done to other peoples countries I was also learning how other Americans saw those same actions and how other people outside of the US saw us for them. I started paying serious attention to what we did as a nation and seeing how it effected other people. It was a huge transition for me and is the drive for the work I am pursuing now in international human rights efforts.
I found my patriotism through learning not only what abuses we have committed unto the world but also what services we have provided to the world. I found it in learning about our political system and learning the systems of other nations. I know that while we have many problems we also have many more strengths. I recognize the terrible things we have done to many nations; funded terrorism, funded coups, turned our eyes from genocide, supported dictators, invested in fraudulent business schemes .... and so on.”
huffingtonpost entry

Don't Put Down Your Flag: America in Flux

Commented Nov 5, 2008 at 23:33:22 in Politics

“When I moved to Spain our nation was considering invading Iraq and by the time I left we had in fact invaded it. I had never lived outside of the US on my own until then and had never been exposed to politics or any sort of international issue beyond what was covered on Fox News.

I had not gone to Spain with any American program and didn't know any Americans in my area so I became friends with people from elsewhere. One of the most influential of them was a man from Morocco. His neighborhood in Casablanca had a bomb dropped on it by us, the US, after a bomb was thought to have gone off near our embassy. He couldn't understand why our country would do that to civilians and honestly I didn't even know it had happened at all. He started asking American tourists and students he met at the bar we worked at about their opinions regarding the invasion, terrorism and our perspective on the 9/11 attacks. He wanted to understand us better because he didn't just want to be angry.”