Well, Asehpe, where to start. TCF's article extrapolates from the Saudi Wahhabist, extreme orthodox Islam to the rest of the Muslim world. Gubash's original article (at least her last name is Arabic - the only Gubash I know is Lebanese) does the same in part, but at least talks about Palestinians, as well.

How about some context other than a non-Muslim, non-Arab privileged white woman writing secondhand about an article she read about on the web. "Muslim" (Shiite? Sufi? Sunni? Ahmadiyya?, etc...) and "Arab" cultures are not homogeneous, yet again and again we hear college-educated white feminists make sweeping generalizations about them.

Normal Muslim spouses I know treat each other like...normal spouses from any other religious group. Ta -daaa!

The couples I know are mostly Lebanese and Iranian (Iranians are not Arabs, for those of you who do not know), and they are very moderate in their religious beliefs, much like moderate Jews or Christians.

I realize these are revolutionary statements for many of BS' readers.

Would it be too much to ask for TCF to point out that the Saudi government and religious police oppress EVERYONE in Saudi Arabia. Women are not the sole victims of oppression in Saudi Arabia.

But getting back to my point - how many more white feminists need to opine about other groups as though theirs is the last word?

Where is the outrage in the white feminist community for their own provincial bigotry, a bigotry that crops up again and again?

TCF's generalizations are part and parcel of a lot of the same bigotry we hear from feminists these days.

What comes to mind in this regard is the offensive racist imagery in Jessica Valenti's book "Full Frontal Feminism".

The in-your-face racism of Geraldine Ferraro's comments about Barack Obama, echoed by the "PUMAs" who persist in torpedoing the Democrats' chance for the Presidency.

The blatant PC sexism of the many, many feminists in the press who crucified the Duke Lacrosse Team, effectively denying them due process in the court of public opinion. Then, when proven wrong, preventing discussion of the issue on any of their sites/blogs (try commenting on the case on Pandagon, for instance).

Meanwhile feminists cloak themselves in the mantle of victimhood and virtue, ignoring the de minimis sentencing of female child molesters, pretending family court bias does not exist and perpetuating the myth that boys in our schools are doing fine, and please don't give them any money that will take away from girls' programs...Why should anyone remain silent in the face of such dishonesty and blatant bias?

Just take a look at BS' blogroll. What kind of tolerance is to be found at many of those sites? No tolerance for dissent whatsoever. In fact, many of those sites are rife with generalizations about men, Muslims, and other groups which American feminists love to slur and disparage.

If BS is so freethinking as you imply, why does it endorse such bigoted, close-minded sites? TCF's holier-than-thou blurb and her ignorant generalizations about the Arab world and men in general in this and many other articles exemplify the chauvinism found in much of American feminism.

The sooner that chauvinism is stamped out, the better.

"All Saudi husbands are not nice"? You think this is fine?

Here's an equivalent excerpt for you:

Noor is a babe, but, more important, she is a loving and supportive wife who allows her husband to pursue his passions and a career outside of the home. In an interview with NBC, men's activist Dr. Farouk Abu Khalid explained: "[Saudi men] haven't seen such a sensitive, passionate, giving personality. It is the first time men have a role model for female beauty and passion and can compare her with their wives. It is the first time they found out their wives are not nice, that they are not being treated the way they should be, and that there is an option outside." Indeed, 24-year-old Hamdi Hamdan, a man in Amman, Jordan, told the Associated Press that he lectured his wife: "Learn from her [Noor] how she treats him, how she loves him, how she cares about him."

As for taking the high road, let's see a mainstream American feminist do that. There are fewer more intolerant places than a feminist discussion. The next time someone talks about "all women" in a negative way, maybe you could graciously take the high road.

Oh did you read that Mary Winkler got custody of her kids after murdering her husband? After her children told the press they were afraid of her? Women are so oppressed....

Well, Asehpe, you just have to look at the feminist vitriol directed at anyone who paints "American women" with a similarly broad brush as TCF did with the "Arab world" to see how, for some reason, that counts as "sexism" according to feminist diktat.

But making expansive assumptions about any other group that does not consist of white, privileged American female feminists seems okay.

Sweeping, fact-free generalizations about men are commonplace on feminist boards such as this, as are generalizing comments that treat "Africans" or "Asians" or "the Arab world" as homogeneous.

Why, then is it acceptable for feminists to make comments about people who occupy an entire subcontinent and often similarly smear half of humanity (all males), but it's "sexist" to generalize about women?

Maybe some intellectual rigor and standards out to be part and parcel of feminist discourse. That would be an unprecedented 180-degree shift compared to the bias feminists currently accept wholeheartedly, but deny exists.