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.

You're right, as a man I should not be allowed to express my opinions, due to my purported "privilege".

I'm sorry. Women are superior.

Do you feel better now?

As your boyfriend hates such women, we should hate such women, too.

There is no room for compromise. Continue your ethnic tourism.

Your not addressing any of the points in my last post while referring to me with ad hominem epithets makes me wonder about your prejudices.

Marriage is about the state controlling family life and about children. Historically, it has had little to do with individual rights.

That women cavil about the government not providing them with aid (see additional article in BS) while fighting against joint custody and for single "motherhood by choice", marriage may become irrelevant for women of childbearing age in this generation.

That's not to say that their children might not look at their mothers' lives and in response try to live out their married lives in a more balanced, less selfish way.

Andrea Dworkin-fat, with overalls, a rough-hewn bob haircut, sausage-sized fingers and a torrent of constant complaints and moans coming out of her mouth about her level of oppression.

No cooking, cleaning, fashionable clothes or makeup.

Ahhhhhhhhh.

"ickiness of the older man-younger woman dynamic"

Not icky at all.

Househusband = good

Housewife = bad, oppressive, "Stepford wife"

The king is dead - long live the king.....

Actually, SMontgomery, people should be allowed to do what they want.

Every hear of freedom of choice, and get your nose out of folks' private lives?

"Civic duty" my ass - that's just more ideological feminist social engineering.

There is no "Indian pill".

FDA is not in the mood for something new and risky.

Men have a huge motivation to back a male pill. The child support industry is accountable to no one and has nothing to do with supporting children.

What a revolutionary concept....openminded, individualist.

Why is this so hard for American feminists to appreciate?

9) If that is how they truly want to live, (not being forced by husband/family/society) and they don't try to force it on anyone else, what's the problem? True freedom means being able to make choices other folks wouldn't make. Conformity takes many disguises! Like it or not, in past ages there were lots of people who lived very different lives than we live today - and were happy doing it.