This article on Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Laila Lalami has prompted a reply from a reader, Suhail Shafi:

“Ms Lalami’s article… [takes] a firm stand against the oppression of women in any way shape or form… Believing in equality for women without insulting or vilifying anybody’s religious sentiments… strikes as being far more constructive than the factually questionable (at best) rant of the likes of Hirsi Ali. Yes, ‘eminently brilliant’ is quite an appropriate label for Ms Lalami’s work.”

Setting aside the matter of Lalami’s “eminent brilliance”, an obvious problem springs to mind. It seems rather difficult to “take a firm stand against the oppression of women in any form” without challenging the specific religious ideas and specific religious laws that are used to justify and perpetuate the oppression one is supposedly taking a stand against. How, for instance, does one deal with the “respected” Andalusian imam, Mohammed Kamal Mostafa, whose book, The Islamic Woman, advises Muslim men on how to beat “rebellious” women without leaving visible signs of injury, in accord with Muhammad’s teachings? How, exactly, does one challenge Mostafa’s assertions – and the assertions of others like him – without also challenging the “sacred” ideas that are invoked as an unassailable religious mandate? And how does one take “a firm stand” without suggesting, at least by implication, that those “religious sentiments” are wrong and disgusting on very important issues?

“Believing” in the equality of women is very easy and conveniently vague, especially if one is unwilling to challenge the means by which cruelty and coercion are perpetuated, justified and enforced. Unless one is prepared to address the theological nuts and bolts of the matter, and prepared to risk offending some religious “sentiments”, it’s hard to see what kind of “firm stand” has actually been taken.

Elsewhere, Tim Blair highlights the flummery of some multicultural “feminists” when confronted with female genital mutilation. One particularly conflicted soul says, “It would seem to me counterproductive to have loud denunciations of [FGM] – the key thing should be to convince people it is wrong.” Quite how one makes a compelling and realistic argument while studiously avoiding “denunciation” of any kind isn’t exactly clear. Apparently the words “barbarous” and “stupid” are frowned upon. But again, it isn’t obvious how such practices can be challenged in any meaningful way if one is obliged to flatter the “sentiments” of those who wield the clitoral scissors.

Update: Some of the comments are quite illuminating. Related: this.

Joi Lansing is trapped in the web of love. Bird cages, cannibalism and a switched-on blonde. // If the volume of crap in your inbox has dropped recently, this could be why. “Soloway could face decades in prison.” Being punched, one hopes. // The world’s, erm, greatest album covers. Bow ties, bikinis, sweater girls. (H/T, Warren Ellis.) // Via Bloody Scott, the rules and history of Victimhood Poker. // Flags of the world by colour usage. Guess, then click. (H/T, Coudal.) // Sketchfighter! Blast those ladybugs to atoms. // Venture. The plug-in 3-wheel tilting hybrid. Did I mention it tilts? // Pop-up pulp dioramas. Cowboys, detectives, sirens and boxers. // 70’s shoe designs. Pop art platforms, 11-inch heels. // Platform footwear of the 1600s. // The virtual shoe museum. // The time fountain. Strobes pulse, causality defied. More here. // The Moon and Saturn. An illusion of proximity. // Robert Spencer on America’s “tiny minority” of 300,000 people. // World history. All of it, just about. // The evolution of speech balloons. From 300AD to the 20th century. // The Acme Catapult. Hurls fridges, cookers, dryers, most large appliances. // Jacket cuff lights. Find keyholes, fight crime, look dramatic. You know you want them. // If apes could jive.

Readers may recall previous posts on Jeff Han’s impressive multi-touch interfaces. Today Microsoft unveils a new toy.

More at Popular Mechanics and ZDNet. Art world please take note.

I first encountered Marjane Satrapi’s comic book memoir, Persepolis, back in 2003. The book recounts the author’s childhood in and beyond revolutionary Iran, with Satrapi’s faux-naïf illustration luring the reader into unexpectedly adult territory. Through the eyes of a nine-year-old girl we see the collective hysteria of Islamic fundamentalism and its intimate, coercive evils, contrasted with smaller, more personal, acts of rebellion. As when a pair of black market Nikes, an ABBA recording or an inch of visible hair become gestures of truly hazardous proportions. Some four years later, Persepolis has been remade as an animated film, directed by Satrapi with Vincent Paronnaud. A recent screening at Cannes, where Persepolis shared the Jury Prize, upset the Iranian authorities, prompting the obligatory accusations of “Western bias” and claims that the film is “an anti-cultural act” and “an unreal picture of the outcomes and achievements of the Islamic revolution.” Audiences will be able to decide for themselves when the film is released later this year. Though not in Iran, methinks.

More at Satrapi’s blog.

I thought I’d highlight a piece from Friday’s ephemera by Christina Hoff Sommers, on what she calls the “fecklessness of American feminism.” Sommers notes the silence of so many “vagina warriors” on matters of gender oppression in Islamic societies: 

“If you go to the websites of major women’s groups… or to women’s centres at our major colleges and universities, you’ll find them caught up with entirely other issues, seldom mentioning women in Islam. During the 1980s, there were massive demonstrations on American campuses against racial apartheid in South Africa. There is no remotely comparable movement on today’s campuses against the gender apartheid prevalent in large parts of the world…

Many feminists are tied up in knots by multiculturalism and find it very hard to pass judgment on non-Western cultures. They are far more comfortable finding fault with American society for minor inequities (the exclusion of women from the Augusta National Golf Club, the ‘under-representation’ of women on faculties of engineering) than criticizing heinous practices beyond our shores. The occasional feminist scholar who takes the women’s movement to task for neglecting the plight of foreigners is ignored or ruled out of order.”

As, for instance, when the “post-colonial theorist” Gayatri Spivak denounced Martha Nussbaum’s critique of postmodern feminism and her reference to Islamic misogyny as mere “flag waving” and advancing some (no doubt wicked and rightwing) “civilizing mission.” Sommers also casts an eye over the intellectual contortions of those who equate cosmetic surgery and a tolerance of pornography with acts of jihadist terrorism – an equation that renders those who mouth it trivial, pretentious and morally absurd.