Femmetarian

About

Hi Everyone! I'm a 24yo blogging about my favourite fandoms and cute stuff. I love West highland white terriers, feminism, Harry Potter and gelato.
Plug for my serious blog: www.takealookatyourlife.com

Following

"One wonders: what part of Islam requires fucking your dead wife?"


-

Andrew Sullivan, commenting on the news that Egypt’s lawmakers recently passed legislation that will allow husbands to have sex with their wife’s corpse up to six hours after death.

I don’t really have anything to say about this.  It kind of speaks for itself.

(via letterstomycountry)

Given that he’s responding to Mona Eltahawy’s essay by quoting the Daily Mail, I think there’s a lot to say about it.

From CSM: Egypt ‘necrophilia law’? Hooey, utter hooey.:

Today, Egypt’s state-owned Al Ahram newspaper published an opinion piece by Amr Abdul Samea, a past stalwart supporter of the deposed Hosni Mubarak, that contained a bombshell: Egypt’s parliament is considering passing a law that would allow husbands to have sex with their wives after death.

It was soon mentioned in an English language version of Al-Arabiya and immediately started zipping around social-networking sites. By this afternoon it had set news sites and the rest of the Internet on fire. It has every thing: The yuck factor, “those creepy Muslims” factor, the lulz factor for those with a sick sense of humor. The non-fact-checked Daily Mail picked it up and reported it as fact. Then Andrew Sullivan, who has a highly influential blog but is frequently lax about fact-checking, gave it a boost with an uncritical take. The Huffington Post went there, too.

There’s of course one problem: The chances of any such piece of legislation being considered by the Egyptian parliament for a vote is zero. And the chance of it ever passing is less than that. In fact, color me highly skeptical that anyone is even trying to advance a piece of legislation like this through Egypt’s parliament. I’m willing to be proven wrong. It’s possible that there’s one or two lawmakers completely out of step with the rest of parliament. Maybe. 

But extreme, not to mention inflammatory claims, need at minimum some evidence (and I’ve read my share of utter nonsense in Al Ahram over the years). The evidence right now? Zero.

There was a Moroccan cleric a few years back who apparently did issue a religious ruling saying that husbands remained married to their wives in the first six hours after death and, so, well, you know. But that guy is far, far out on the nutty fringe. How fringe? He also ruled that pregnant women can drink alcohol. Remember, alcohol is considered haram, forbidden, by the vast majority of the world’s Muslim scholars. Putting an unborn child at risk to get drunk? No, that’s just not what they do. Whatever the mainstream’s unpalatable beliefs (there are plenty from my perspective) this isn’t one of them.

It’s important to remember that the structure of the Muslim clergy is, by and large, like that of a number of Protestant Christian sects. Anyone can put out a shingle and declare themselves a preacher. The ones to pay attention to are the ones with large followings, or attachment to major institutions of Islamic learning. The preacher in Morocco is like the preacher in Florida who spent so much time and energy publicizing the burning of Qurans.

Stories like this are already a reminder of the downside of the Internet. It makes fact-checking and monitoring easier. But the proliferation of aggregation sites, newsy blog sites, and the general erosion of editorial standards (and on-the-ground reporters to do the heavy lifting) also spreads silliness faster than it ever could before.

(via mohandasgandhi)

66 notes misinformation media representation racism
Reblogged from postmodernismruinedme

grrrlvirus:

From Voice of the Women’s Liberation Movement pamphlet, 1968

feminism female representation media representation
Reblogged from postmodernismruinedme

sonic-hip-attack:

wheretheweedstakeroot:

renosweeney:

Lea and Dianna: Real bodies vs. their Photoshopped counterparts

Here’s a comparison of two photos of Lea and Dianna: one was the photo taken of them in the studio, and the other the final Photoshopped photo scanned from a magazine.

Lea, Glamour,December 2011:

  • Eye makeup was adjusted
  • Eyebrows were trimmed
  • Some skin spots removed
  • Wrinkles on nose removed
  • Wrinkles on wrists removed
  • Tone added to legs and arms
  • Breasts accentuated
  • Waist and back made dramatically smaller

Dianna, Cosmopolitan,September 2011:

  • Wrinkles from dress removed
  • Elbow has been reshaped
  • Mouth tension erased
  • Armpits are smoother
  • Arms are skinnier and more toned
  • Collarbones less noticeable
  • Nose reshaped
  • Breasts augmented
  • Stomach made smaller (it’s cropped out from this picture, but her waistline is at least 3 inches smaller)

post coming with feelings about this

I… I really love that people are posting a lot more of these before/after shots, but then it makes me so fucking sad

these women are gorgeous and it’s still not enough

Fuck these magazines. Fuck the magazines that are targeted TOWARD women BY women and pull this shit.

You are EVIL.

27,533 notes feminism media representation love your body
Reblogged from yellow-dress

takealookatyourlife:

mustardhat:

edman:

lemuffinmistress:

Neil deGrasse Tyson, why are you *so* quality?

Neil DeGrasse Tyson is just the best.

true facts.

This reminds me of the time that our lecturer told all the girls in my class that “no one wants to hear two housewives screeching at each other” which is apparently why women get less airtime in radio.

Women should be seen and not heard!

103,016 notes neil tyson narrator female feminism women should be seen and not heard misrepresentation representation media representation
Reblogged from takealookatyourlife