Comments on: Let’s Talk about Love — Saudi Style

By: Zeynab

Zeynab — Mon, 19 May 2008 19:21:00 +0000

Uh…anonymous? Have you looked at our other posts? We have critiqued Middle Eastern media representation on occasion. Since we’re all located in North America, that’s where the bulk of our media exposure lies. If you want to send us something from the Muslim world (along with a translation if it’s not in English), we’d be happy to tear it apart. We also try to critique our own cultures (both North-American and diasporic). There is no one way to “be an acceptable embodiment” of a Muslim woman; media in the west often represents Muslim women as monolithic and homogenous, and so we call them on it. I’m glad we could give you a sarcastic chuckle, but I suggest you nose around a little further.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 19 May 2008 17:58:00 +0000

As a Muslim women, I just have to laugh at your blog. One thing you for sure, Imagination is our kingdom. You see white people; The West and America are incapable of writing anything without subconscious racist intent. And as Muslims we will endeavour to see it anywhere and everywhere.I have been on occasion a radio commenter. Recently we had an issue to discuss regarding hijabs. I caller rang in and called me a racist, imperialist neo-con. The fact that I was a brown sister did not matter. The only way I could be an acceptable embodiment of an anti occidental, imperialist threat was to state clearly the niqab has made me free, The Jews are pigs and Everyone in the West is racist, immoral and sexually deviant (And to bring up the fact that I live here and would not consider living anywhere else is racist in itself).

By: Saudi Amber

Saudi Amber — Sat, 17 May 2008 20:56:00 +0000

What a coincidence, I read this article in saudiamber six days ago!!!!

By: Forsoothsayer

Forsoothsayer — Fri, 16 May 2008 03:04:00 +0000

i know it’s a prevalent idea…I live in the Muslim world. my point was that THEY think so, and it’s not her place to offer her private views of the matter in reflecting the lives of saudi women.the most that journalist could have done about the stranger hearing your voice thing, would be to tack on some comment about how she was referring to the wahhabi (or saudi, or whoever it is) belief that it is haram. only enough to explain the remark: she shouldn’t enter into discussions of theology. she is merely reflecting Saudi society, not explaining why they do things.

By: Zeynab

Zeynab — Thu, 15 May 2008 16:41:00 +0000

Forsoothsayer, I disagree with you: I think it’s the journalist’s job to contextualize things to her audience instead of presenting an incomplete picture. When you give someone in incomplete picture, he’ll fill in the details himself and usually come to a biased onclusion: i.e., that Muslim women aren’t supposed to talk. This is where the “silent, oppressed” stereotype comes from, in part. I think it’s irresponsible to further than stereotype through reporting full of holes. The reporter could have offered different schools of thought on whether it’s forbidden for a stranger to hear one’s voice, because I don’t think that many Muslims think this way. Also, the idea that homosexuality is a Western evil is a fairly prevalent idea among some people in the Muslim world. This is what Melinda was referring to.

By: Forsoothsayer

Forsoothsayer — Thu, 15 May 2008 12:02:00 +0000

i think you are being far too defensive. although generally the generation faithful series is insanely stupid, this particular one is not as offensive as the rest.the issue of photographs is a tough one, because after all not many saudi women want to e photographed for a newspaper. probably she had to work with what she could get. i agree about the caption, tho.”Really, do the sofas, drapes, and “ornately-covered” tissue boxes have anything to do with the lives of teenage Saudi girls?” journalists have to set settings. if this is the setting, what can she do? people want to see what it’s like inside a saudi house, and she described it.”Women are characterized as children. They “falter,” “sway slightly on high heels,” “totter,” and “nod earnestly, dark ringlets bouncing”” All women falter and sway on high heels. why can’t we say these ones are? just because they’re Muslim it’s weird?and she didn’t say that the possibility of speaking to a man drives every Saudi woman to nervous collapse: she just said that these particular ones giggled and shrieked. so what. maybe they giggled and shrieked.”Nineteenth-century British romance is presented as an impossible ideal, the kind of thing Saudi women can only long for.” this, from all accounts, is the truth. i spent 16 years in Kuwait, a more liberal country than Saudi Arabia, and this was pretty much the case with Kuwaiti girls. most of them, anyway. and saudi is much, much more restrictive than that.as for the homosexuality, the woman is mrerely paraphrasing what her interviewees think. if that’s what they think, that’s what they think. you want her to editorialize further and talk about the “reality” of homosexuality? that’s not what it’s about. “This does an excellent job enforcing the (false) idea that not only is homosexuality a choice, but it’s specifically a product of Western liberal society.” what a ludicrous conclusion to make from the one incidence of neutral journalism she undertakes. “Zoepf quotes Tukhaifi as saying “Islam forbids a stranger to hear your voice,” and she never explains further.” this is not her job. she is not a scholar, but is a reporter.

By: Sakura Kiss

Sakura Kiss — Wed, 14 May 2008 23:32:00 +0000

Yeah, I was kind of disappointed with the article, because I happen to like the NYT. It’s good you pointed out the class issue that’s involved here.

By: Anjum (barsaat)

Anjum (barsaat) — Wed, 14 May 2008 18:03:00 +0000

interesting review! thx for writing it. I hadn’t even SEEN the NYT article on girls – just saw the guys one. sigh – its kind of like, 2 steps forward, 5 steps back.

By: Zeynab

Zeynab — Wed, 14 May 2008 16:18:00 +0000

DAMN, lady. I couldn’t have written it better myself; barikallah!