It's quite interesting to read in the link below from dailykos all about how the righgtwing neo-cons are going berserk over the fact that the winner of the Miss USA pageant is an Arab-American Muslim from Detroit who apparently has very liberal views on social issues.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/5/17/867091/-Muslim-crowned-Miss-...
How dull.
If it gets the right all hot and bothered then it's anything but dull.
If it gets the "left" all hot and bothered because Muslim women can believe that insurance companies should include contraceptives under their health coverage (read as 
Muslim women like to have sex ), perhaps they aren't too much to left of the right after all.
IS the left all hot and bothered?
Apparently this isn't the first contest she's won...
http://www.tmz.com About third artical down.
Her little stumble on stage was classic as well.
IS the left all hot and bothered?
Seems so. For some reason supporting free contraceptives is being bandied about as some kind of remarkable paradigm shift for beauty pagent contestants.... special menion to for being in the "muslim" and "Arab" category, here as well. Wow! Just think of how radical this all is!
Muslim.Woman.
Unveiled.
Likes to fuck.
Seems all just so fitting doesn't it Snerk? How, having subdued the Arab Muslim menace with our military might, we now have an example of the prize we have liberated from the sexual enslavement of her tyrannical masters and can now elevate her to the very pinacle of sexual objectification... and... best of all she like to fuck.
Is this all happening someplace you could point to? You're the first person I've seen saying such things.
Here: Orientalism.
So it is happening someplace: in your mind.
I did. It describes a concept called "Orientalism", but it doesn't demonstrate that "the left" is engaging in it in this case. So I ask again, where is the left saying anything like what you're saying?
Or is the truly ominous part that they're [i]not saying it at all[/i]? Because people often don't say odious things that they think, ergo that's almost certainly what's happening here, yes? The silence screams.
Maybe things will go on in your mind someday, too. The red part of the post links through to more reading material. Just click on it. You can start there, but I am warning you the road will be a very long and difficult for you.
Ideology is not what we argue about at the party. Ideology is what we don't argue about at the party. It is the accepted undelying construct of the way we see the world. The ideological fabric of discourse is only disturbed when someone says something that stands out from the things we don't know we know. It is the silently accepted conceptual norm.
In this case, the silence does scream.
How dull.
Apparently you don't find it dull at all since you have posted seven times in this thread! If I didn't know any better I would assume that you find this Miss USA pageant to be the most fascinating issue in the world today!
I am doing my best to make your thread interesting, relevant and possibly useful. You could cut me some slack for trying.
I have to go get lunch now. Any chance you could remove all the words you put in our mouths long enough for me to eat? I'm sure you'll put them back afterward.
I'm not entirely sure what this thread is about, but I will say that this:
Ideology is not what we argue about at the party. Ideology is what we don't argue about at the party.
is one of the best definitions of ideology I've ever read, and I think I'm going to use it from now on, if I may.
Ms Fakih was demonstrating her social consciousness by advocating the inclusion of birth control in health insurance plans.
Nowhere, to my knowledge, has she indicated that --to quote these babblers ' vulgar language-- she "likes to fuck". What is it about certain people (who I presume are males, probably white, who consider their brand of "sexual liberation" universally acceptable), that leads them to trivialize women or to use false reasoning to reduce serious expressions to the level of a crude joke? Yes, the rightwing creeps are saying that, but why do some babblers want to repeat it with such adolescent relish?
What predisposes you to say "What is it about certain people (who I presume are males, probably white, who consider their brand of "sexual liberation" universally acceptable), that leads them to trivialize women or to use false reasoning to reduce serious expressions to the level of a crude joke?"
If you had substituted that for any other racial or gender group, you would rightly be considered a racist and sexist. No form of that should be acceptable. Just deal with individuals as individuals, not as a stereotype for a racial or gender group. Your comment, Hoodeet,is that of a racist.
Wow. Lots of attempts to intellectualize and argue the term "likes to fuck." In the spirit of "a picture is worth a thousand words", here is one of the official Miss USA pictures of the winner. If this image isn't trying to convey that of a woman who "likes to fuck," it's doing a pretty good impression.
http://www.missuniverse.com/missusa/members/profile/445096/ag:1/ap:1/
Ill retract that and see where this is going.
I'm not entirely sure what this thread is about, but I will say that this:
Ideology is not what we argue about at the party. Ideology is what we don't argue about at the party.is one of the best definitions of ideology I've ever read, and I think I'm going to use it from now on, if I may.
That is my paraphrasing Foucault.
For me this thread is about looking at the kinship between what is accepted ideologically between what is posed as right wing and left wing, and trying to encourage Snert to look at what the "left" and "right" are not arguing about; What they accept in the narrative of the "beauty pagent", without arguement:
Muslim.Woman.
Unveiled.
Likes to fuck.
I summarized this in the context of current "western" views of the "orient", in particular Muslims and Arabs, and the "clash of civilizations", in which the liberation of Muslim women has figured as a central cause. What has been the chief object of focus for the liberation? Veils, Niqab and Chador.
What could be more opposite to Veils, Niqab and Chador other than a Bikini contest?
In this light I posed the paegent as a triumphalist celebration of victory and conquest and the "liberation" of a Muslim Woman, (indeed being stripped of her veils right down to a Bikini) and then being made the official sex object of the United States, in the manner of so much booty.
Indeed the "left" is overawed with her "liberal" views on contraceptives. Focus of subject: "hassle free sex". Derived meaning: she likes to fuck: "Mission accomplished."
This subtext slipped by the ideological censors without so much as peep, either from the "right" or the purported "left".
Snert's mission was to look at where the underlying concepts of the "left" and "right" agreed, so that he could see more clearly how they were ideologically aligned, in most respects, but he went to lunch instead complaining of too many words.
Does anyone here NOT "like to fuck"?
The sort of leftist that would applaud this event and outcome as a yet another seminal moment for inclusive progress will most likely be counted among those who will reaffirm their commitment during round two of Obama's hope and change campaign the next time around.
Does anyone here NOT "like to fuck"?
Better question: who here approves of greater accessibility to birth control? Because that PROVES you like to fuck.
The sort of leftist that would applaud this event and outcome as a yet another seminal moment for inclusive progress will most likely be counted among those who will reaffirm their commitment during round two of Obama's hope and change campaign the next time around.
Is it OK to applaud the fact that it's got the right all up on their hind legs? Because I think that's all that's been applauded. I don't see anyone declaring the end of racism or anything.
re LimeJello, post No. 18. Thank you.
I stand corrected. What I said in haste certainly came across as racist. I certainly would not want to intimate that I consider sexism to be any more or less prevalent among white males (or females) than among persons of colour.
Is it OK to applaud the fact that it's got the right all up on their hind legs? Because I think that's all that's been applauded. I don't see anyone declaring the end of racism or anything.
For those who consider it acceptable to appropriate the systemic objectification of women to use for their own merriment, I suppose it would be just fine.
re LimeJello posting No. 20.
It is really unfortunate, isn't it, that the sluttish stereotype fashion has been foisted on even the nicest, most serious young women. I'm sure you know a good number of such women who (in my grandfather's lingo) dress like whores, and I certainly do (many students who show up in class or around the library in the middle of the day looking as if they were headed for the nearest streetwalking gig). Fashion designers and marketers will continue to impose their vision of the "feminine" on young women who want to "feel good about themselves". No need to jump to conclusions, therefore, about this particular contestant in one of the most degrading shows on earth, as she herself may not, in your still vulgar lingo, particularly "want to fuck".
For those who consider it acceptable to appropriate the systemic objectification of women to use for their own merriment, I suppose it would be just fine.
*shrug*
Not much I can do about a beauty pageant hosted by another country (other than, I suppose, to not watch it, which I didn't).
But since it happened and there's nothing any of us can do about that, I'm happy to see any right wingers who dislike the outcome stewing in it. Kind of a consolation prize.
Appropriate the systemic objectification of women to use for their own merriment
Is it OK if I use that bloated pile of rhetoric for my own merriment?
I see. So, because she is a woman, she like the ones who as you and your grandfather say, "dress like whores", have had their personal choices "foisted" on them. It's not because they consider it fun, that it's a natural facet of youth, of both sexes, to do things to attract the opposite sex, because all animals, including humans, have an instinctive sexual urge and self-exploit it because they find it pleasurable. I suppose Ms. Fakih, knowing she lives in a society that affords privilege to the famous and to those who are widely recognized to be attractive, is knowingly utilizing (and successfully) the culture she's a part of.
Naw, it's all because these people are too uninformed to recognize their victimization by the capitalist, in your words, "males, probably white" because we all know women who don't share your attitudes couldn't possibly be smart enough to think for themselves and were brainwashed by the evil western capitalist machine.
For the record, I think beauty contests are pretty stupid too, but I don't feel compelled to tell others engaging in harmless nonsense what they should or shouldn't be able to do.
I'm not entirely sure what this thread is about, but I will say that this:
Ideology is not what we argue about at the party. Ideology is what we don't argue about at the party.is one of the best definitions of ideology I've ever read, and I think I'm going to use it from now on, if I may.
What about the old standard: "Ideology is what the other guy has"?
heh.
For the record, I think beauty contests are pretty stupid too, but I don't feel compelled to tell others engaging in harmless nonsense what they should or shouldn't be able to do.
Not the issue. In this case the issue is what the institutions around the person are doing.
Like those teabagger-types honking and beeping? Excellent, yes? Haven't had this much fun since Janet Jackson showed her nipple on television for 0.002 seconds and half the population south of the Mason-Dixon line soiled their Laz-boys.
Did Ms. Fakih mention world peace at all?
[ed.] I followed one of the links in the article linked to in the OP: a blog by someone named "Debbie."
This is gold, pure gold:
Yup, what a great thing it’ll be for Donald Trump and his pageant if they pick the candidate who supports–and is supported by–several Islamic terrorists and terrorist groups, to be the next Miss USA. They’re idiots that they let her get this far. Trump could have expelled her the way he did with Miss California.
Can agree for the most part cue, however, I think your tense is off.
They are holding her up as an example of what could be, should the western world prevail...
The sort of leftist that would applaud this event and outcome as a yet another seminal moment for inclusive progress will most likely be counted among those who will reaffirm their commitment during round two of Obama's hope and change campaign the next time around.
Exactly. And although Cueball started out a little aggressively, he makes the same point. This is Amerikan triumphalism at its most brutal: We can conquer their countries and seduce their women too.
Hey! What is agressive about pointing out that American propaganda schtick is fundamentally "dull".
You have a point there too, the conquering hero, has so been done to death, that it takes a dull person to follow that schema.
I believe beauty pageants were held in a number of "formerly communist countries" in the early 90s and hailed as signs of freedom. I think the comparison is relevant but don't have time right now to explain myself - I trust it's obvious!
Woo hoo! Helena Guergis, only Muslim! This changes *everything*!
Arab-Americans were elated by the victory of Fakih, who was born into a powerful Shiite family in southern Lebanon and whose family said they celebrate both the Muslim and Christian faiths.
"With all the stigma that goes around - especially after 9/11 and how people portray Muslims and Arab-Americans - it's just a great way to knock down all those barriers," said Dewnya Bakri-Bazzi, 22, a Muslim law student from Dearborn, Mich., who uptated her Facebook status to read, "woot woot who knows maybe I can be the next Miss America?"
Abed Ayoub, the legal director for the Washington-based Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee, called the win significant. "It shows our country's diversity and the opportunity it offers all citizens."
Woo hoo! Helena Guergis, only Muslim! This changes *everything*!
*clap*clap*clap*clap*
On a pharmacist's discussion thread, here's what they're saying:
During the interview portion, Fakih was asked whether she thought birth control should be paid for by health insurance, and she said she believed it should because it's costly."I believe that birth control is just like every other medication even though it's a controlled substance," Fakih said.
(FYI, in the US, a "controlled substance" would be a narcotic.)
Reply to above:
OMG, I chucked a throw pillow at the TV when I heard that. She would be really surprised to find out it would be in the same class as cocaine, etc. No matter how pretty she is, she is still a complete moron.A smarter, though somewhat dumbed-down audience appropriate answer would have been: Eliminate the double standards. If health insurance covers Viagra (which is more costly than most generic birth control) then they should cover birth control
Does it really cover viagra?
OMG, I chucked a throw pillow at the TV when I heard that. She would be really surprised to find out it would be in the same class as cocaine, etc. No matter how pretty she is, she is still a complete moron.
Trans. Like, oh my god; I at least learned something sitting in those grody lecture theatres.
Exactly. And although Cueball started out a little aggressively, he makes the same point. This is Amerikan triumphalism at its most brutal: We can conquer their countries and seduce their women too.
How can she win? Either she's some poor benighted and oppressed waif bound up in a burkha, or the moment she's not that she's almost literally a whore to American culture.
Exactly. That is the precise framing of her role, as spun through the media/propaganda lens of our war with Islam.
Does it really cover viagra?
Virtually every drug plan does, indeed, cover viagra. As they should since erectile dysfunction is a legitimate medical condition. Whether oral contraceptives should be covered is a valid question but I think it's disingenuous to compare it to viagra since not being able to get an erection indicates that you are sick and need treatment while being able to get pregnant does not. Really, it's a question of money for the insurance companies. A small percentage of men ever require viagra whereas the majority of women will take oral contraceptives at some point in their lives. Furhter, most men who need viagra are older whereas women on contraceptives are younger so it'sa question of employers not wanting to pay for it and often never having to worry about viagra at all.
Erectile disfunction? Ok, but my sense is that most erectile disfunction, is really a matter of getting old, and therefore part a of a natural process, not some special medical condition. Really, for most men viagra is an elective solution for natural processes, not a cure for a condition.
Not necessarily. I'd imagine that most people taking Viagra are not in their 80s. Probably late 50s to mid-60s on average, e.g. still healthyenough for and interested in sex. Also,people who've had prostate cancer will often be unable to get an erection, sometimes diabetics or people with various circulatory system conditions will not be able to get an erection. It's an entirely legitimate medical treatment in the vast majority of cases. Whereas oral contraceptives are considered a "lifestyle decision." Interestingly, some women get around that by having certain birth control pills prescribed for secondary uses, i.e. getting a scrip for the pill in order to treat menstrual cramps or to treat acne, as pills will. And, hey, if they can have sex and not get pregnant while treating their acne, that's just a "bonus feature".
CNN coyly suggests Miss USA is a Muslim spy
The allegation has since been removed from the CNN website, but not before some bloggers got hold of the images used.
