عن خطورة "تسييح" القضية

Original link

عن خطورة "تسييح" القضية

بعد أسبوع من هلّق بيوصلوا جماعة إيغلتا للبنان. وقبل ما نحكي عن أسباب امتعاضنا من الحدث خلّينا نقول، ومن كل كل كل قلبنا، ١٠٠ أهلا وسهلا بكل واحد من إيغلتا. طول عمرنا منستقبل ناس من مجموعاتنا ولّا مش من مجموعاتنا لمّا يجوا عالبلد، ومنرحّب فيُن كضيوف وأهل البيت بالتبنّي. والله والله ما عنّا مشكلة معن ولا مع رغبتن إنن يعملوا سياحة وينبسطوا ويحبّوا وينحبّوا ويعيشوا ويصرفوا المصاري اللّي مطلعينن من عرق جبينن.

On the Crisis of Scientifically Studying Homosexuality

Crossposted, Original Link

Unless addressing HIV, AIDS, or sexual health, queer communities, at least in Lebanon, often disregard scientific interferences in our issues. Even though it is understandable, this hatred is still misleading, disturbing, and damaging to our movement. At the heart of my article is my scientific side trying to analyze and explain how scientists fucked up when they pointed their microscopes towards our identities.
If you bring up most scientific research talking about the genetic, psychological, or hormonal origin of our identities, you are most likely to get rolling eyes for a response. In some cases, you could harshly be reprimanded for being self-hating or naïve.
This scientophobia, if I may call it that, is a direct result of our bitter history with unethical or biased scientists trying to prevent us from accepting, or to heal us from, our identities.
In this article, we will not go over theories and studies that discuss biological and psychological origins of homosexuality. For those, you may find a well-referenced discussion about the subject on Wikipedia.
Scientific flaws permeate most of these research papers: The first being that they often study small groups of “homogenous” homosexuals. The studied homosexual is usually the stereotyped homosexual, white, cute, HIV+ and effeminate man.
There are rarely any mentions of other sub-communities, of lesbians, bisexuals, non-effeminate gay men, or transgender individuals. Perhaps, including everyone in one study would be too much of a hassle – I understand.
But here’s the catch: When you limit the scope of your study, you limit the scope of your conclusion. When you study a very specific population of homosexuals, you clarify the profile of that population.
After all, when science brags about finding an origin for homosexuality, and after looking at one sub-group in the queer community, random fucks, and their random assumptions about me, are legitimized, when in fact, science has barely ever studied people like me!
Of course, there are also issues of methodology that surface with some of the research. LeVay’s research* for example had a small sample of 7 homosexual men who died of AIDS. A sample of 7 is not enough to draw any conclusions whatsoever; the margin of error would remain too large. The differences observed could have resulted from sample artifacts, random population drifts, pure luck, etc.
Needless to say, these findings always fail the fundamental scientific test of replication. The laywoman may not know this, but for any scientific quantitative research to be acknowledged and for the scientist behind it to be accredited, it needs to be verified by another research team, while studying a different sample of the same population. If the conclusions fail to conform, then the theory is dropped.
The analysis of the results is also problematic. Scientists are allowed and encouraged to draw conclusions, as long as they, on one hand, keep their assumptions within the limits of reason, and on the other hand, they ought to clearly state they are speculating.
In addition, scientific research was always plagued with the overlap between causality and correlation, and that often led to numerous cruelties concealed behind the veil of science. As a biologist, there is nothing that shames me more. When we speak of causality, it means that A causes B, sticking a knife in someone’s skin causes a wound. Correlation on the other hand, means A is highly common when B is highly common in a specific population, for example, IQ results are often low in African American populations in the United States of America. Correlation may indicate causality, but scientists must be extremely careful when making a conclusion for a scientific research. Because s/he will steer the public opinion based on her/his research.
The African American IQ studies for example were disastrous and shameful for the scientists who performed them. Because of their racism and blunt bias, they frauded (they plea innocence on the basis of ignorance, but I personally refuse to let them off that easily) the results. Instead of drawing attention to some fundamental social problems affecting a minority’s ability to integrate the school system, such as language barriers, they chose to stigmatize the African American population and formulating correlation in the guise of causality.
Similarly, when scientists speak of homosexuality, they often speak of correlations with subtle phenomena such as unhealthy family dynamics, or a succession of older female siblings, and so on. They often fail to bring the social into the scene: After all, when parents notice that their son may be homosexual in a homophobic society, they often turn aggressive, if not violent.
You can also notice how some scientists, mainly genetic engineers, conduct certain “gay mice and homosexual flies” types of research and manipulation. It sounds interesting, that’s for sure, but when you think about it, what on earth do we have in common with mice? And flies? To top it off, the definition of a “homosexual fly” is one that just sticks its genital organ into another male. The same goes for mice. Such populations do not “choose partners” and have no preferential attitude towards anyone in the population. Give them a 100 mates and they will fuck 100 mates. I believe that the queer populations, throughout the different sub-communities, agree that what we define as sexuality is far more complicated.
Some argue that we look at animals in order to counter the normalcy argument. A comparison with insects and rodents is irrelevant for this purpose, because our social structures are fundamentally different from theirs: Drinking human blood is not rendered normal because mosquitoes ingest blood, is it?
If we need to better understand the evolutionary advantage our sexuality and identities present to society, then we can study animals that are socially closer to us, maybe primates. For such populations, non-heterosexual romance and sexual practice have been observed for as long as these animals have been observed.
For this, we also need to clarify, or maybe remember, that the concept of “normal” is void by definition, humans are normal, our non-conforming identities and orientations are by definition normal because a human being feels them, if these feelings were not “normal”, we wouldn’t be able to feel them. Psychological problems and illnesses are normal, they usually occur as a coping mechanism against stressful environments. Why do we treat them as illnesses? Because they pose a handicap to the individual’s life, hinder their ability to resolve the source(s) of stress, or causes danger to those around them. The same is not true for being queer. Rape, murder, violence, infanticide, pedophilia, necrophilia, and other unacceptable behavior have been observed and documented throughout history and across the ecosystems. This does not mean that we want to legalize them or defend pedophile rights, does it?
If we were to point out the patriarch of all scientific mistakes regarding homosexuality, it would be the desocialization of a deeply social matter. If you want to study homosexuality you need to know that you are stepping into an intricate field, where identity collides with a deeply heteronormative and homophobic society. You also need to understand that, whether or not you have a problem with homosexuals, and most modern societies have a problem with them, and that problem has a name, homophobia.
Unlike members of ethnic minorities, we are often born into heteronormative families, our persecution starts in our cradles. Such a struggle stains our whole life, it influences how and if we come out, it influences how we identify and how we interact with scientists, and other professionals. So the question cannot be what makes a man physically incapable of tolerating a pussy. The question is more complicated, I personally don’t know how to define it, and until you absolutely know what you are looking for, don’t venture into a world that you can’t even understand.
Just a friendly reminder, please stop mixing up gender identity, sexual orientation, and socially prescribed gender roles. A girl who likes to play football can be a person with an alternative gender identity or simply a child that likes to play football. She is not a homosexual, and the word “pre-homosexual” is one of the most disturbing and unscientific words I have ever come across.
And for all the queer folks out there, don’t fear science, dive headfirst and grab the beast with its horns. A PhD in neuroscience gives a white middle class man no advantage against you. Biology is a simple natural science, argue!

* LeVay, S., A difference in hypothalamic structure between homosexual and heterosexual men. Science 253:1034-1037 (1991)

كاستر سيمينيا”… أو نكتة الجندر”

Original Link

بعض الأحداث الي سبقت وتلت مباشرة بطولة العالم في برلين قد انتهكت حقوقي، ليس فقط كرياضية، ولكن أيضاً حقوقي الأساسية منها والإنسانية، بما في ذلك حقّي بالكرامة والخصوصية.” كاستر سيمينيا

من حوالي السنة، ربحت كاستر سيمينيا سباق الـ٨٠٠ متر بالألعاب الأولمبية. سيمينيا عداءة جنوب أفريقية اخترقت الساحة العالمية من كذا باب عريض، إن برضاها ولّا غصباً عنّا، حسب الباب اللّي عم نحكي عنّو.

كاستر خلقت سنة ١٩٩١، بجنوب أفريقيا، من عيلة سودا مؤمنة وفقيرة، وربيت بضيعة بقلب شمال البلد، سادس ولد بعيلة ٧ بنات وصبي. بحسب إمّها، كانت كاستر “بنت مهذّبة، لطيفة، شغّيلة، صبورة، وطموحها كان إنّو تلعب بالمنتخب الوطني لكرة القدم”. (مرجع)

أكيد الحياة ما هوّنت مسيرة سيمينيا، من عمر زغير فهمت إنّو النجاح مش سهل، وما في كتير طرقات بتوصّلها. سيمينيا اختارت الرياضة، التزمت بالتدريبات وحقّقت أرقام خيالية. بالشهور اللّي سبقت الفوز بالألعاب الأولمبية، كان أداءها عم يتحسّن بشكل ملحوظ.

كاستر كانت عم تحصد أتعابها، عيلتها رافعة راسا فيا وضيعتها مكيّفة.

الإتحاد الدولي لألعاب القوى ما عجبه الموضوع وفرض على سيمينيا الخضوع لفحص تأكيد الجندر، يعني فحص تيشوفوا إذا البنت بنت ولا صبي. من الأوّل أكد الإتحاد إنّو المشكلة مش إذا سيمينيا عم بتغش ولّا لأ، هنّي بس خايفين يكون عندا حالة طبية نادرة بتعطيا أفضلية غير عادلة ضد باقي المنافسات، لأنّو أكيد الذكورة أفضلية!

بأقل من شهر، الدنية كلّا عرفت عن الفحص، وبأقل من شهر الدنية كلّا سخّفت، حقّرت وتمسخرت على كاستر سيمينيا. الإعلام أخد قضية سيمينيا على إنّها نكتة. من الناس يلّي بلّشت تناقش بكل حرّية نظرتها لدرجة أنوثة (أو بالأحرى ذكورة) سيمينيا، عن حجم عضلاتها، عن تكوين كتافها، عن الشي اللّي بيشبه الشوارب، عن الشعر تحت باطا مرجع)، وحتّى عن شكل الشورت بين إجريا (في كتير ناس قالت إنّو سيمينيا عندا عضو ذكري). وصلت وقاحة البعض إنّن ينكتوا على إسم سيمينيا (“سائل منوي” بالإنكليزي: semen).

بهالفترة كانت الأوساط المتحوّلة والنسوية الغير بيضا عم بتراقب بحسرة بنت الـ١٨ عم تخضع وتنكسر بوجّ تهكّم مجتمع الشهرة القاسي بحشريته اللّي ما بيعرف حدوده. لمّا الناس بتنتهك خصوصية ناس متل ليندزي لوهان، أو لايدي غاغا، ما بمتعض، مش لأنّو بوافق عالحشرية المفرطة اللّي بيخضعولا، بس لمّا الناس بتبني حياتها وثروتها على الشهرة الإستعراضية، بعدين الشهرة الإستعراضيةرح تعضّن بطيزن. بس سيمينيا ما سعيت للشهرة الإستعراضية، هيّي عدّاءة من الطراز الأوّل.

بنفس الوقت بِقدر قول إنّو نحنا، ذوي/ات الهوية الجنسية والجندرية الغير تقليدية منعرف اللّي عم تقطع فيه سيمينيا. بالنهاية كل نزلة عالطريق، كل نزلة عدكّان، كل قعدة مع رفقا أو عيلة، هيّي معركة، وممكن بأي لحظة تتحوّل لدفاع مرّ عن الذات، عن الهوية، عن الكرامة. ما منعرف أمتين منضطر نقعد ونسمع الناس عم بتشرّح درجة أنوثتنا، أسباب بشاعتنا، أوقات منضطر نسمع أحاديث عن “هرموناتنا” والظروف المأساوية اللّي وصّلتنا لنصير “هيك”، وبتتحوّل لحظات قوّة وفخر من تاريخنا الشخصي لسبب مؤسف ومخزي لـ”عدم طبيعيّتنا”، متل وقتا بتبرّر إمّنا منظرنا بإنّو “حرام، اضطرّت تحمل مسؤولية عزغر”، كأنّو هلّق صار مفروض إندم على حس المسؤولية اللّي كتير بنات بتبرهنه.

وبذكر هوني وقت بلبنان تجرّئت مجموعة من النسويات إنّو تعترض على ذكورية الأغاني الـ”حديثة”، فكان رد أحد هالمغنّين، محمّد اسكندر، إنّو هاجم المنظّمات واتّهمهن بالبشاعة وقلّة الأنوثة، وإنّن لو لاقوا شباب يحبّوهن ما كانوا بيطلعوا هالقد معقّدين.

بس كل مرّة حدا بيقلّي “شكر”، أو “بنت بإير” عالطريق بتعزّى بفكرة إنّو أنا إلي ٥ سنين عم نمّي ثقتي بنفسي كمرا قوية، مش ربحانة جميلة أنوثتي ومش ناطرة إذن أولياء الذكورية تإنزل عالشارع. وأنا بطّلت بنت ١٨ قادرة لطشة تحطّمني… بس سيمينيا كانت بنت ١٨، وما بقي حدا بالعالم إلّا ونكّت وناقش اللّي بين إجريا وموقعها بالحياة.

أكيد طلعت بعض الأصوات النسوية والعابرة للجنادر اللّي حاولت تدافع عن حق سيمينيا بتقرير الهوية (مرجع) بس أكيد الصراع الكبير وإحتمال إنّو تنحرم من ميداليّتها وإنّها تنمنع بحياتها ترجع تلعب وفكرة إنّو قرطة رجال بيض يقرّروا هوّيتها الإجتماعية… كل هالعوامل كان إلها وقع كبير على كاستر، لحد ما انهارت أعصابها، اضطرّت تقفّي فحوصاتها والبعض حكي عن أفكار إنتحارية. (مرجع 1، مرجع 2)

واللّي زاد الطين بلّة إنّو أكتر الناس اللّي كان ممكن يدافعوا عن سيمينيا، زميلاتها بالركض اللّي بيعرفوا الضغط اللّي بتخضعله النسوة الألعاب الأولمبية، هاجموها وصاروا يركضوا تيأكّدوا اللتلتة الإعلامية وما طلع إلّا جيني ميدوز اللّي تجرّئت تنتقد الوكالة والأوساط الأولمبية للطريقة اللّي تعاملوا فيها مع سيمينيا والقصة كلّا سوا. (مرجع 1، مرجع 2)

بس كيف وصلنا لهون؟ ووين صار الغلط؟

بالمختصر المفيد، مشكلة سيمينيا مرتبطة بعدد من المشاكل الواضحة والمخفية. الجزء الواضح من القصة إنّو سيمينيا كانت عم تحقق نتائج هائلة، ومتل كتار من الرياضيّات، ما كانت القوالب التقليدية للأنوثة أولوية سيمينيا، فبطبيعة الحال، في كتير ناس برّرت نجاحها برجوليتها. وهون أوضح ارتباطات القضية بالسياسة. لحد سنة الـ١٩٩٢ كانت الوكالة بتفرض فحص لتأكيد الجندر  على كل المشتركات بالأولمبياد، لأنّو بفترة الحرب الباردة كان عدد الميداليات الأولمبية دلالة على كبر البلد، وبالتالي كانت كتير من الدول بتحقن نسوانا بالتيستوستيرون.

بس لمّا طلبت الوكالة من سيمينيا إنّا تخضع لفحص تأكيد الجندر ما كانوا شاكّين بإنّا عم تغش، كانوا شاكّين إنّو تكون ثنائية الجنس (إنترسكس). وبرأيُن إنّو ممكن المستوى العالي من التيستوستيرون يكون عم يعطيها أفضلية غير عادلة ضد باقي العدّاءات. بس الفكرة إنّو معظم النقاش تمحور حول مظهر سيمينيا ودرجة استحقاقها لعرش الأنوثة، وما تم ذكر نسبة التيستوستيرون إلّا من باب المسخرة على هـ”البنت المسترجلة”.

والقلال اللّي حكيوا عن تأثير مستوى الهرمونات على أداءها، كتار منّن شدّدوا على إنّو نسب التيستوستيرون المذكورة مش ممكن تأمّن لسيمينيا أفضلية ظالمة، وبدليل إنّو رجع الإتحاد سمحلها تتنافس مع النساء.

وما زالنا عن نحكي عن أفضليات غير عادلة، ليش ما منحكي عن أفضلية الجنسية. أنا بالزمانات كنت أركض وحتّى إنّو إطلع عندي ميدالية زغيرة، نسبة لإنّو ما صرلي إلا سنة وحدة تدريب، وإنّو ما كان عندي حذاء ركض، كنت إركض بصبّات بلاستيك. بس أكيد لمّا غيّرت مدرسة بعد سنة، وقّفت ركض لأنّو مدرستي الجديدة ما فيا نظام تدريب عالركض. فمع إنّي كنت مهووسة بالركض، ما كان ممكن بالنسبة لبنت لبنانية من الطبقة العاملة إنّو تتدرّب. لو كنت أنا بنت أوروبية أو أميركانية، كانت ممكن القصة تتغيّر، شو يعني؟ يعني إنّو الأوروبيي والأميركان عندن أفضلية غير عادلة مقارنة بأهل العالم التالت، فلمّا بدّن يحكوا عن الأفضليات، ليش ما بينظروا لأفضليّاتن؟

بس ما فينا نمنع النّاس تحكي، ولو فينا مش لازم يكون هدفنا. عتبنا فعلياً عالإتحاد الدولي لألعاب القوى، هنّي اللّي بموقع مسؤولية، بتوقع على عاتقهن مسؤولية حماية خصوصية سيمينيا. ما بعرف كيف تم تسريب المعلومات عن إجبارها للخضوع لفحص تأكيد الجندر؟ وما بعرف كيف معقول إنّو ما تم تحديد مين سرّب المعلومات للصحافة، أو إنّو ما تمّت محاكمة الإتحاد للضرر النفسي والمادّي لسبّبوه لسيمينيا. والأسوأ إنّو كمان لمّا طلعوا نتائج الفحوصات، كمان مرّة تسرّبت النتائج للإعلام.

وهون كمان ممكن نحكي عن جهل عنصري لواقع كاستر. بالنهاية بالوقت اللّي كانت قضية سيمينيا بنص معمعة تأكيد الجندر، كان غيرها عم بيخوض معركة قضائية أمَر، محاكمة قتلة سيميلاني، قائدة الفريق الجنوب أفريقي للفوتبول، يلّي قبل بسنة تم إختصابها بشكل جماعي وطعنها ٢٥ طعنة، ليش؟ إغتصاب تصحيحي، يعني لمّا بيشك البعض بإنّك سحاقية أو في شي غلط بدرجة أنوثتكِ، بيغتصبوكِ تيشفوكِ، لأنّو إنتِ أكيد مش ملاحظة روعة إنّو يجبرك رجّال إنّك تتلقي ثمرة جنسانيته (مرجع). بيشتهر الجزء الجنوبي من أفريقيا بهالممارسة الشنيعة، بس فعلياً هيّي منتشرة بكل العالم، اللّي حاضر فيلم “غود بويز دونت كراي” بيعرف عن شو عم بحكي.

هلّق سيمينيا خلّصت من هالخطر، بلدها استقبلها استقبال الأبطال مع عودة البعثة الأولمبية. بلدها بيفتخر فيها، وهون السؤال بيبقى، ليش نفس المجتمع اللّي قتل سيميلاني احتفل بسيمينيا كبطلة وطنية؟ يمكن لأنّو سيميلاني كانت مثلية رافعة راسها بإختلافها، بينما سيمينيا ما بحياتها جذبت الإنتباه لحياتها الشخصية. أو يمكن لأنّو المعتدي على سيمينيا كان أوروبي أبيض، بالوقت اللّي المعتدين على سيميلاني كانوا أفارقة سود.

ما حدا بيعرف، بس اللّي منعرفه إنّو سيمينيا طول عمرها كان عندا طموح، ولمّا كانت زغيرة كانوا أهلها يشجّعوها، بحسب بعض المصادر، بيّا هوّي الجندي المجهول بقصة سيمينيا، هوّي الرجّل اللّي وراء الإمرأة العظيمة. مع إنّو المجتمع كان دايماً يدل على سيمينيا ويمزح، ولا مرّة أهلا جبروها تغيّر شكلها، ودايماً كانوا يشجّعوها تتخطّى الحواجز الإجتماعية تتوصل مطرح ما بتحلم توصل.

ومن ناحية تانية، جزء كبير من الإنتقاد لـ”أنوثة” كاستر كان على أساس مظهرها، شي مرّة سامعين بفكرة إنّو كل الصّينيي بيشبهوا بعض؟ السبب هوّي الفوارق الإثنية/الثقافية. اللّبناني اللّي بيربى بالصين ما بيشوف كل الصّينيي متل بعضن. ولمّا الأوروبيي بيجبروا بنت أفريقية تخضع لفحص تحديد الجندر بناءً على إنّو شكلها ما عجبن ولأنّا أبهرت العالم بسرعتها… أكيد رح نشم ريحة عنصرية، لأ؟

وللأسف، ما كتير انطرحت الأسئلة اللّي مفروض هيك وضع يطرحها. متل مثلاً معضلة النظام الثنائي للجندر. بالنهاية فحوصات تأكيد جندر سيمينيا استغرقت حوالي السنة. مع إنّو الإتحاد الدولي لألعاب القوى كان مبدئياً عتلان هم إحتمال يكون مستوى التيستوستيرون عالي بشكل مش عادل، بس فعلياً اضطرّت كاستر تخضع لمجموعة واسعة من الفحوصات البدنية والنفسية لتحديد الجندر.

مع إنّو البعض كان عم بينكّت إنّو كاستر مش بنت، بس إذا كانوا مستويات التيستوستيرون عالية مش يعني إنّو سيمينيا صبي. بيقدروا جماعة الإتحاد الدولي يعملوا كل الفحوصات اللّي بدّن ياها، ويدّعيوا الإحتراف المطلق ولكن شاء من شاء وأبى من أبى، الطبيعة آخر همّا نظامنا الجندري الثنائي، وما في حد فاصل بين الرجال والمرا. وبالتالي الفصل على أساس الجندر هوّي فكرة غبية. بالألعاب الأولمبية بيفصلوا بين الرجال والنساء بشكل أساسي لأنّو المرا مش ممكن تنافس الرجال بالرياضة البدنية، بمعنى تاني، الألعاب الأولمبية مجهّزة للصبيان مش للبنات. الفكرة بحد ذاتها مزعجة ما هيك؟

بالنهاية، انسمح لسيمينيا ترجع تتنافس مع النساء ورجعت عودة العمالقة للمنافسة ورجعت تكسح الساحة بسهولة. للأسف، ومتل ما قالت جيني ميدوز، شبح تأكيد الجندر رح يضل يلاحق سيمينيا طيلة مسيرتها الرياضية، رح تضلّ الصبايا بدلّ عليا وتتمسخر. سيمينيا من أبطال التحرّر الجندري غصباً عنّا، بحياتها ما كان بدّا تكون مثال على ليونة الجندر.

ويمكن اللّي لازم نتذّكروا هوّي إنّو نحنا كناس خارجات/ين عن أطر القوالب الإجتماعية والجنسية، إنّو سيمينيا مش منّا، هيّي مش من “الكوميونيتي”، ويمكن أسوأ شي ممكن نعمله بيكون إنّو نقعد نتحزّر إذا هيّي “بتحب البنات ولّا لأ”، قضيّتها بتتشارك مع قضيّتنا بالقمع الذكوري لمفهوم الأنوثة، لا أكتر ولا أقل.

وهون خلّينا كلنا نكرّر دعوة فليب فلوبينغ جوي (مرجع) لنضوّي شموع ونصلّي ونغنّي وإرسال كل ما عنّا من الحب لسيمينيا

I need to get this out of my system!

So a couple of days ago, Pastor Jones declared he won't be burning the Quran anymore (I guess he's expecting a medal now for being a bit less lame then he was 2 weeks ago?).

And of course, people are easier to get offended then they are to move on, or to understand. I remember when 9/11 happened, without going into boring details, what struck me back then is how letters of condemnations from various Islamic references were just not enough to convince people that, it just was not a Muslim thing.

Yes there is frustration, yes it's painful, and yes there were people celebrating, but a religion simply cannot be reduced to the action of some believers.

So in addition to frustration I felt when I saw so many people so violently opposed to the Cordoba mosque, I was so perplexed by this Terry Jones insisting to burn the Quran.



And I remember my mom, when she was briefing me about what's going on around in her world, she asked me about this Jones idiot (yes she called him an idiot), she was like "Why? Why would he do such a thing? If he doesn't like Muslims, why doesn't he just avoid them? Even we didn't do that in Lebanon."

By that she was referring to the civil sectarian war(s) in Lebanon, where the whole country kept splitting in sectarian groups and subgroups and more or less randomly killing people based on their religious/political affiliation. Now during the civil war, places of worship were targeted. If you go to towns strongly affected by the war, you can still find mosques or churches that were brought down.

But what my mother means is that it was never anyone's objective to attack places of worship, the exact "objectives" of the war are debatable, but that's a whole other conversation.

So Terry Jones is just stupid and lame. But then again he had a strong argument: I'm free to do whatever the fuck I want!

This whole situation reminds too much of the Danish cartoons issue, back then a lot was said about how disgraceful and hurtful and how it should be banned. I thought it was stupid and disrespectful, but then again, so are most people/things.

Most of the time, whenever people meet, they build their social bond over ridiculing/disrespecting others, if not each other ya3ne. Why should religious books/figures be exempted?

And by this I am not saying that I would want to participate in such acts, I try to respect everyone/thing (it doesn't always work, but I'll keep trying till I get there). What I'm saying instead is that, we should understand the limits of our authority on others. When an idiot insults me on the street, I don't burn his street, or anyone that shares anything with him. It is my right to be respected, but if he doesn't, this will not justify any act of hatred toward any group.

I say this specifically because when the Danish cartoons issue broke out, Muslim zealots attacked not only embassies, but also churches and Christian citizens. Why? If a Danish cartoonist bothered you, go sort it out with him, not me (and I say me because after all my papers clearly say I am a member of a minority group in the Middle East).


I also say this because the reactions in my part of the world to Jones' stunt were terrifying. Even though Christians condemned his act, and even when Jones declared he doesn't feel like burning holly books anymore. People in the so-called Muslim world voiced their opinion that they believe the problem is that we are not "scaring" the West and that's why they dominate us this way (that is just an example of what people are saying).

Two people were killed already in Afghanistan just to avenge the Quran (even though it was not burnt). And honestly, I didn't want to talk about religious people's concerns, I don't have the energy to make sense out of what they say/think, it's like analyzing the reason why we have 5 fingers instead of 6.

Crossposting - السوق “المثلي”: أموالنا مقابل ماذا؟

Originally posted in Bekhsoos

مش كل مين أخد أمي صرنا نقلّه عمّي، ومش كل مين بني مصلحته على مصريات المثليين صار مقام لمثلية أو محب للمثليين. وانما بظل الظروف الاجتماعية الصعبة اللي بيعيشها المثليين كثار مستعدين يدفعوا اللي فوقن واللي تحتن تيشتريوا وهم القبول. واللي بيزيد الطين بلّة، التواطؤ الحكومي.

أولا في الترانسفوبيا بالاماكن المثلية او القابلة للمثلية، بالنهاية المراة الترانس بتروح على مطارح ما بيروح عليها المثليين/ات، والاماكن المثلية بتفتش على حجة تتشحط النساء الترانس. ليش؟ إذا منشوف قشور الموضوع منقول انو النساء الترانس عندن صيت انن لما بيضهروا بيكونوا رايحين يلقّطوا زبونات.

Book Review: Beloved

Yesterday, I finished reading "Beloved" for Toni Morrison. The end of every book is sad and painful, especially if it is a novel, not a short story. You feel anxious and wish there was still a few more pages. This is what I felt when I was done with Beloved.

International Gay and Lesbian Rights Commission Expresses Outrage at Human Rights Abuses After Military Coup

As someone involved in LGBTQ activism in a homophobic environment such as the Middle East, the issue of "International intervention" is always... well, an issue.

It is not that we don't cooperate with International organizations, or that we don't want to cooperate with others. Now some activists on controversial topics are often afraid to shake hands with internationals. It's always safer not to, just pretend that you don't know them.

And really it is the safest thing to do. After all, International LGBT organizations will not take a bullet for you. They will just wait for you to die and then lament your death or wave their american fingers in the face of your government. And then your beloved government will go giggle with your murderers (if it didn't kill you in the first place). And no, I am not exaggerating.

I always was the devil's advocate and thus, in my Lebanese LGBT community I was the one that would defend the "international aid efforts" after all we do need to cooperate with them so why not give them credit for it?

Until one day, I was cornered. I was indirectly involved with a case of un-official assylum. Lebanon does not provide political assylum to anyone (it usually usually exports war criminals to enjoy a nice asylum life in Europe). But an Arab LGBT activist was threatened with death among other things. So we, as individuals helped her leave her home to come to Lebanon and then to go somewhere else.

Of course she asked for help from "International organizations", be it organizations that specialize in LGBT rights, emergency cases, or both. They didn't move a finger. Not only did they not attempt to garantee an asylum case to some place where thugs didn't run after her to kill her. They also "ignored" our calls for financial aid to help her leave the country and get settled anywhere else.

Nothing I tell you!

That is what I know of "international help". It's more like "please die so we feast on your corpse" kind of thing. This woman's story will be forgotten, she doesn't want to be remembered though she was a pioneer in her own country and region. She will be forgotten, because she did not give "internationals" the media attention that they wanted. She preffered to save her own life instead.

A similar thing happened with the case of gays in Iraq. Reporters have been covering "heart breaking" stories about the poor effeminate iraqis that are just waiting to get kiled by virtually anyone on the streets of Iraq. And then what? Yes, of course the Human Rights Watch sent a commission their and published a report. Thank you very much, we will glue that to their corpses, right next the famous hate messages that the murderers carved on their skin.

Which brings me to the latest invention, of IGLHR's outrage that was expressed over the transphobic attacks on LGBT individuals in Honduras. Oh wow, thanks, I bet that was so painful to write, and oh so dangerous! I salute your courage, looking for people struggling for their existence in order to write reports about them that not many people read and don't inspire the few who read them to move a finger.

Wait there's more. IGLHRC even allowed themselves to preach about democracy. Of course they know who has been elected fairly and who wasn't. Ah, the label of democracy, it can justify anything. Of course, IGLHRC knows what's best, they live in a democratic world after all. We the LGBTs of third world countries wouldn't know shit about it. Even if we invented "democracy" as it is applied today a few thousand years ago, but still we are not as democratic as people writing their outrage in NYC.

Thank you very much, when we published Bareed Mistajil, you were on our minds, when we ran from one hospital to another to get treatment for those who tried to kill themselves, you were on our minds, when we organize parties to pay for someone's ticket, we'll be thinking of you, when our mothers cry their eyeballs out when we make our glorious coming outs, we'll be thinking of you. Really you make our miserable lives worth living :)

A couple of words regarding photography

I am not a photographer, put aside my phone, I don't even have a camera (yet). But I am the proud daughter of an amateur photographer and I was always infatuated by the world of photography, or maybe should I say the graphic world. But it's difficult to corner what I perceive as a good image. My Pazuzian definition of anything beautiful is what ever can make me feel something strongly and come back for more. Eh, I know that a picture of vomit creates an intense feeling of disgust in me... But I don't come back for more :-/. So that is not pretty. Eh kamen I know that this means that pornographic pictures are beautiful... Um yes I think pornography is very beautiful, sorry.

But this is not the real question when it comes to comparing real photography to fake photography. If you ask graphic designers they will tell you that Graphic design is the most sublime form of graphic art, it goes beyond photography. if you ask photographer s/he will tell you that it's all about the experience and the authenticity of a picture, its fidelity to its subjects. Most people agree with the latter. You see photography exposés everywhere, not as much graphic art exposés... But still graphic designers will easily make a living (MOI, the ultimate biologist, had to learn photoshop to be good at my job... MOI, who knows the secret to how a muscle contracts!).
Sadly, both antagonists are hypocrites, most non-hypocrites adhere to the Pazuzian dogma and would tell you that the reason why graphic designer make a better living is that their material is more flexible to marketing needs and the reason photography is more prestigious is because it has the ancestry advantage, it has been there for much longer.
In fact the Pazuzian definition of beauty is much more simple and makes much more sense. It's always about that twist of things that make all the difference. A picture, a simple light print on a film can be powerful, check out Happy Emi. (Yes I know, flickr is annoying and restricting, I can't embed this picture).
This is called a universal cheat of the human affection:

• Use a smiling baby picture and any human, who is not autistic for example, will feel the urge to smile
• Get a crystal clear image, with all the details (including the soft baby hair)
• Make sure to have a bright looking baby
• Add a sparkle of exoticism (with those dark eyes over wight skin)

And you are certain to have a kickass picture. You don't need any tricks, or edits to bring this photo to life.

But then sometimes, using nothing but old fashion photography tricks can make all the difference. Like for example opening the aperture for a while before taking the picture and you will get this luminescent line:
*
In this picture it looks as if it is spinning insanely.

Or you can take it a step further, using filters... I personally love filters to help one element stand out or create an awesome feeling emanating from the picture:
Like this one: Just Chillin (again the amazing trick or the exotic baby picture)

But sometimes, Graphic art can be even more artistic than art itself. it can create this amazing world where nothing is real but everything is so captivating. A bit of science fiction, a lot of imagination and grain of every baby inside every one of us and you get this:
*
I want to be this winged lion too :(. I want to have that cool hat and those huge wings! I want that crazy car and that amazingly living sky... and balloons, oh the balloons... *sigh*
And who cares if this is all graphic constructed by some nerd who could have never seen the real colors of the sky, it spoke to my inner me.
It's beautiful by all Pazuzu standards.
* I have no idea what the original source of these two pictures is but I found them on the photography section of the Rockstar Template Blog.

So did they, or did they NOT interbreed?

A lot has been said though little is known. But our human curiosity obliges us to try and reach conclusions. When I posted almost a month ago that notorious piece: "Skulls Add to "Out of Africa" Theory of Human Origins", inspired by an article in the Scientific American bearing the same title (actually I stole the title from them, BITE ME!), I concluded, basing on the decrease of variability of skull morphology (as the author of the article did before me ), that interbreeding just didn't happen. Now I did mention in my piece that, in theory, interbreeding could have happened without leading to any offspring, without leading to any viable offspring, or without leading to any fertile offspring. To be perfectly clear, I am 100% sure that Homo sapiens individuals and Homo neanderthalensis ones had sex, that's certain, but the fact that coming out of Africa Homo sapiens populations kept losing diversity means that the Homo neanderthalensis genome did not enrich ours, or at least it did not enrich ours in the sections monitoring and dictating the structure of skull bones, with that being said I stand corrected. I had failed in my previous analysis to anticipate the fact that the study focused primarily on skull remains. It is possible that Neanderthal genetic material would have integrated ours but didn't do so in the section concerning skull structure (or, as it has become obvious for you, those that did inherit of DNA chunks from Neanderthals coding for the skull were not viable/not fertile).

However, a few days after I posted that article another one was published in the Nat Geo online edition this time titled: "Odd Skull Boosts Human, Neandertal Interbreeding Theory", written by Brian Handwerk. The author of the study, reported by Mr Brian, talks about a certain skull with a groove in the bottom of the back of the skull, look at this picture (taken from the same Nat Geo page):

Do you see the horizontal groove at the bottom of the head? This is not a normal groove, this is not a structure that serves a function. Let me explain this a little, Bones are a living tissue, its metabolism is pretty slow but it's alive! It contains cells and the hard substance is constantly melted down and built up again. The role of bones is to protect soft tissues and to support the muscle thus enabling the body to actually move. We usually attribute movement to the dynamic of muscles and not the static bones. But in fact bones and muscles are both essential to produce movement. Complimentary in role they are also complementary in structure. The larger the muscles are, the thicker the bones will be, because stronger, more powerful muscles require stronger more resistant bones, that's how Anthropologists and Paleoanthropologists rebuild the whole body of a Neanderthal from some bone remains (no they don't just guess and let their artistic talent prevail!). Look at this picture for example it's a picture of an Australopithecus:

Source: Dkimages


And compare it to this one:


Source: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

Compare most of all the zygomatic bone (cheek bone). See how MASSIVE it was in the Australopithecus skull? This could be somehow facilitated or coded by the DNA but basically, it is a feature gained over the lifetime of the individual, as his diet (mainly roots and rough vegetal material) demands a powerful bite his muscles and concomitantly his bones (both the jaw and the zygomatic ones) grow, our diet (mainly cooked and soft food) doesn't require that much pressure, there fore the bones are smaller and the aspect is softer.

Now back to our groove, that groove is NOT like that, it is innate, Neanderthals have it, it does serve them a certain role, but it is not correlated to muscular activity. But this skull is not a Neanderthal's skull, it is in fact a Homo sapiens skull! But it has a Homo neanderthalensis' groove... And this is not the only metis ever found. There is a significant number of metis remains found throughout Europe in that period (20 000 - 40 000 years ago).

As I said before, these variations might not be innate but their presence can have an effect on the life of the individual bearing it, thus allowing the work of natural selection. The change of climate and the more effective life-style of modern man helped him, with his anatomical variations to dominate and out-compete Neanderthals.

For example, and to help illustrate that concept, consider the joint structure. Neanderthals had more massive bones in general, there fore their joints were less flexible. On the shoulder level, this means that Neanderthals (or Neanderthal/sapiens hybrids that had thick bones) were less agile and efficient in throwing spears for example, there fore less efficient in hunting from a distance (targeting much larger preys and allowing a better income). So maybe Neanderthals' bone structures were just not fit enough, and it is in the end the law of the survival of the fittest. Source: James Owen's Nat Geo article: Neandertals, Modern Humans Interbred, Bone Study Suggests

A little criticism to this theory:

1. It could be an accidental aberration, or variation:
   
   
   

   According to Eric Delson, this feature could have simply occurred naturally and not necessarily inherited from some Neanderthal parent. In fact, he believes it could be found in modern populations, who knows? This would need to be proven. This is also the same argument used by skeptics when the Homo florensiensis remains were found for the first time in that Indonesian Island of Flores. Skeptics back then said it could be a case of Microcephaly. However that argument didn't stand back then and it's unlikely to justify all the Neanderthal-like variations. You see, and as I always say, fossil remains are very very very rare to occur, very few individuals are fossilized. So an already very rare variant of skulls is unlikely to be fossilized (this is a simple statistical concept). Now of course, you could say: "well a 1/10000000000000 chance is still a possibility, who knows? Maybe this individual had that super rare morphological feature and that the super rare chance of getting fossilized, who knows?"

   
   
   

   That is true, but that doesn't explain the recurrence of a number of these Neanderthal-like aberrations, compare the number of remains with to the number of remains without them, how often did these aberrations occur? It is obviously higher... Why?





2. Earlier DNA studies revealed a rather early split between Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens occurred as early as 400 000 years ago:
   
   
   

   Source: Elizabeth Svoboda's article in Nat Geo's online edition: Neandertal Gene Study Reveals Early Split With Humans.

   
   
   

   The study (done by James Noonan) even focused on Nuclear DNA (DNA contained inside the nucleus of the cell) and previous studies (source: Hillary Mayell's Nat Geo article: Neandertals Not Our Ancestors, DNA Study Suggests) focused on mitochondrial DNA and found similar resutls. Neanderthals don't seem to have contributed our DNA! It just doesn't seem to have happened.

So individually speaking, Neanderthals and modern humans seemed to be interbreeding but, on the long run they didn't contribute to the construction of our DNA... I vote for viable non-fertile individuals, what do you think?

P.S.: no don't get impressed with the large number of links, I just opened the links that were available in the initial page.

Meet Lamia

Ok while reading the comments on the previous post, I was surprised to get introduced to the interesting figure of Lamia. Now I have been familiar with the story of Lilith and other figures but Lamia is totally new for me.


(I just love big pictures of half naked women, don't you?)

Another interesting aspect of this name is the fact that it's a common name in the Arab world, not exactly in Lebanon (in Lebanon such clearly Arabic, nomadic names are not cool enough) but in the rest of the Arab world it's actually common and popular. So I was curious to know what does this name mean, and would it's meaning in anyway explain the picture depicted in the Greek mythology, one of vengeful, bitter mother without children that compensated her children's death by eating other women's children... Oh not to mention the the half serpentine body!

Now Lamia is said to have lived in Libya, and she is in fact the symbol of the feared Libyan snakes (well they are desert snakes aren't they?). But the origin of her name is not cited in the wikipedia source. I find it unlikely that this name would be of Arabic origin, since Libya was not an Arabic country at the time of the Ancient Greeks. Same as Lebanon, all of Northern Africa, all of the Levant's region and the Mesopotamian one also, as most of you already know, Arabs were only the inhabitants of the Arab Peninsula.

Another possibility would be that the name existed in the ancient language of the inhabitants of Libya and the Arabs somehow adopted that name and integrated it into their language. I suppose the only way to check that out is to go back to the meaning of the name Lamia which means:

أما لمياء معناه: الفتاة ذات السُّمرة المُستحبة في الشفتين واللثة ، الشفاه اللطيفة الرقيقة ، الرماح السُّمر الصَّلبة ، والأشجار الكثيفة الظل .

I know you don't read Arabic! It's translated to:

The girl with a beautiful darkness in her lips.
Nice and delicate lips.
Dark and hard spears.
Thick and shadowy trees.


No mention of snakes or power or anything. Another annoying fact against any common-ancestry theory is the fact that in Standard Arabic we say Lamiaa' not lamia, you have to emphasize on the ending A and to cut it in the end.

So I guess maybe it just happens that this name belonged to the so many different cultures without any real connection or fusion between the two, a sort of convergence maybe... That kind of reminds me of the coincidence that made the word theo mean God in both ancient Latin and ancient Aztec languages (I think it was Aztec, I am not sure anymore). This convergence was long used to defend the theory of an archaic mother language that gave birth to all spoken languages now, however future studies and years of scrutiny would prove that this is in fact a simple coincidence, no more no less.

Christianity and False Reform

Now this is funny. What I enjoy the most about this blog is the fact that I can be as anti-clerical as I like. Not that I hate the church, I honestly don’t, I do have beautiful memories from that phase of my life. However, the church never chose to be neither modern nor tolerant, it was on a few occasions forced to evolve, to drop its old teaching and to claim tolerance. Forced because they lost popularity, they lost power, influence, so they had to remake their image to a more modern one, with much softer values that would attract the new generations. You see, the new generations were rather attracted to Buddhism and Gnosticism in terms of spirituality. Especially in the Occident as we call it. People simply lost faith in the church as the path to reach heaven/God, the discovery of old scriptures convinced the Occident of many churches and not only one and only church, the recent memory of religious clashes between Catholics and Protestants fortified the belief that there isn’t just one Church but many churches, that no one hold the truth eventually the conclusion was inevitable: Christianity is not THE religion and religion is not THE goal of life.

This loss in followers that gradually degraded the Catholic church in its cradle (Europe) meant a huge loss in political power and in money. Then Miraculously came John-Paul II, a man that many regard as remarkably tolerant, good, modern, gentle and so on. Some praise him as the iron fist that shook communism in Poland, others praise him as the defender of poor people around the world, the man who renewed the church… A lot has been said about this man but let’s get back to earth, his presence, his actions and his decisions were all part of a good plan:

1. Attract the young generation:
   He gave the young generation a distinct place in the church they had camps and activities inside the Vatican itself, he emphasized on their role thus attaching them and using them for work that needs to be done



2. Looking like a saint
   Well you know how they teach us in the bible that the early Christians lived in total poverty? How they relied only on the help of God? How Jesus in person forbidden us from piling riches? Well every time the Catholic church went through a identity crisis, they did readopt that Saint appearance. Just as an example, remember the establishment of the Dominicans and the Franciscans , also known as the Mendicant Orders. These orders were established as a direct response to the rise of Catharism. These orders quickly spread like mushroom on wet lands, the prohibition of Catharism and the inquisitions favored the rise of Mendicant Orders on the detriment of Catharism naturally. But the fast expansion of Mendicant Orders expresses the need among the population for a better spiritual guidance. That’s what was going on since the dawn of the last century, and that is why the church has been trying to restore a stoic/humble/poor façade.
   
   You see, a lesson that history has taught us, humans have an empathy/selfishness balance within them; rough environmental conditions favor selfish behavior, clement conditions favor empathetic behavior. This, in my opinion, partially explains the clash of cultures also. But in general the modern world is more at ease and satisfies its needs much more easily than before, especially in the Occident (again and again). That is why people would find a docile and soft Christianity far more appealing than a tough and powerful one. Christianity has the ability to fulfill that role, because Christianity in its beginning was a very oppressed religion, it was found and established in a hostile environment under constant threat, unlike Islam that spread quickly and establish an empire even quicker (the Coran being written under the guidance of kings not fugitives) and Judaism, a religion who’s holy books were written over a long period of time, and more often than not by an independent nation. So the New Testament is a tolerant book, because tolerance is usually the demand of the weak and the minority facing an oppressive majority. Christians in post-war Lebanon demand tolerance, Christians before the war demanded the right to preserve the Christian privileges by force.
   
   So the Catholic Church, back at the good old days of John-Paul II tried to resurrect the memory of that old Christianity backed with a very tolerant New Testament…
   
   

However there are a few flaws that show the insincerity of this docility. The Church is only docile with the powers… So can we call it a resurgence of tolerance or reassessment of alliances?

1. Reinforcing the role of Africa and Latin America, but also the InterChristian, the Christian/Jewish and the Christian/Muslim Dialogue:
   Europe has always been the cradle of Catholicism and all Catholic Christians were subjugated to the central power of the Vatican, in fact all Catholic Churches were obliged to sing in Latin (except our Maronite Church), to pay the tax directly to the Vatican, the Pope was almost always an Italian… Many saw that the election of John-Paul II and his work afterwards was colossal and amazing, sort of like a liberation a modernism… Well allow me to disagree, though I do agree on these moves I don’t really understand how can people neglect the fact that John-Paul II’s election in itself indicated that the change within the church wasn’t the result of that pope’s election, on the contrary it is the change that brought him to power. In fact it was utterly absurd and idiotic to keep the power of the Church so centralized, it was absurd that Africans and Latin Americans would be so excluded of the church, it was absurd for people who never even come in contact with the latin alphabet to be forced to pray in Latin, thus pray in a language they cannot understand, the changes John-Paul II generated were the strict minimum that anyone would demand, he didn’t liberate the church he just didn’t want to fight the changes that were inevitably happening.
   
   To understand why this is not such a great work, you should simply remember how big Latin America and Africa are in terms of Christianity, of blind belief and compare it to the atheist and small Europe. I am shocked it took them so long to take this step don’t you think? These are powerful groups that the church simply needs
   And think of their attitude toward other entities…




2. What about powerless minorities
   Now the modern society hasn’t just abandoned the old catholic beliefs like for example Muslims and Jews brought the plague in the medieval times or Protestants are heretics… They morphed their whole society, there were the emancipation of women, the gay pride, just to name a few. However, in an all-Male Vatican, the emancipation of women does seem absurd, of course don’t beat them but would they want to invert roles in society? Why do they refuse to bear children? Why do they demand to become part of the Ecclesiastic body? Why do they want to head the religious celebrations?
   
   I am sadly speechless against these questions as they express the blindness and the stupidity of the people in charge, starting from the head of the church back then to the simple priests… They simply refuse to listen, ever since the election of John-Paul II and his work for the Catholic Church’s reform feminists tried and tried to reason with them, it just wasn’t heard, we just looked funny for him.
   
   And allow me NOT to mention the homosexuality debate… The mere mention of such a subject is sufficient explanation in itself.
   
   In fact the Church is still the dictator that it always was, it only started to realize who have become too powerful for her to oppress, those that are still not powerful enough are still oppressed



3. Condom anyone?
   Well it’s very very very very simple, what is the objection against safe sex? What is the objection against enjoying sex? What kind of modern church are we talking about? Why? Why? Why? Why?
   

My personal conclusion: It wasn’t that great and he wasn’t that much of a saint afterall

But wait! Don’t close the window just yet!

Well, I am not a big fan of John-Paul II but the last thing I wanted was the return of fundamental Catholicism. Yes I know many people cried out Nazi when Pope Benedictus was elected… and I know they were cruel, inaccurate and silly. But that doesn’t change the other aspects about this person. Benedictus is, just like John-Paul, the result of the changes that are storming in the Church and the world. And his ascendance to power was not the fruit of chance either. Three main points:

1. The absence of Greater enemies
   When John-Paul II was elected, the Church was threatened by new ideas such as communism, there were a sense of anti-religion, a sort of anti-religion imposed by politics, churches were being burnt Christianity was being attacked (along with other religions). At that time the Catholic church had to struggle against that current to preserve its political influence, after all communism and other ideologies failed to eradicate Christianity as a belief but did manage to eradicate the financial and political power of the Institution (the Church).
   
   Nowadays, it’s different, attacking any entity is banned, there fore religions can’t be eradicated. However, a worse anti-religion has been established… the one that grows inside the individual, individuals are no longer against the church, they are indifferent to it! This is even more lethal than the political oppression.
   
   Struggling against the Church is now being tougher, to distinguish itself from others, to affirm itself as THE right belief, sort of creating a new Identity for Catholics. It is no longer OK to agnostic/atheist/muslim/jew/Buddhist for as long as you are “tolerant” no you HAVE to be Catholic Christian to be GOOD.
   
   Sadly this attitude is nothing but a regression to a time that we thought won’t come back.



2. The rise of extreme Islamism
   Fundamental Islamism has hasted many changes both in the Muslim Middle East, The Christian West and the Secular West. Though the Christian and the Secular West have evolved side by side and have become archenemies they do rely on the same population. The Secular West could be described as a dreamer for the past few centuries they have promulgated fundamentalism as THE problem, claiming that secularism and tolerance will solve all the problems and that others (Muslims for instance) will be friendly if we are friendly… Skipping many details we can say that this simplistic view of the Middle East failed to protect the Europe and the West against gruesome and unimaginable violence.
   
   Up until recently, secularism was THE rule, among the Western population. The rise of Islamism and the apparent absurdity of this philosophy/ideology makes the Western population more inclined to the Fundamental Ideologies (throw the Muslims back to where they belong kind of ideas). One of the fundamental Ideologies is expressed by the rise of Christian Fundamentalism, remember when Benedictus claimed that Europe is unfaithful to its Christian roots and ungrateful to its Christian History. Unfortunately, people are now going to be more and more attracted to fundamental speech, and to be honest I am no longer sure if secularism/tolerance is the solution anyway, but I am certain that Fundamentalism is NOT.
   

As a final result, the Church tightens its grip and it launches outrageously intolerant remarks hiding behind the excuse of caring for linguistic precision! Just check this article:

Catholicism is the only true church, Vatican declares

Or this one (thank you Nomad for posting it):

Catholic claim 'offensive'

Ok let’s consider that this source is not that objective or whatever! I am honestly tired of this! This is STUPID… there shouldn’t be any comments that could be interpreted in a negative way by unsubjective sources.


I have no idea why I have spent around 5 hours writing this!

Jeha’s nail:

Before resuming blogging, I was busy with my moderating responsibility in the forum and had no time to check the blogosphere so often. So I used to check them in a hastily and just read headlines, except for my favorite blogs, those read in details but skipped comments of course. Now ever since I resumed blogging I actually realized what I was missing all the time, a few blogs I have newly discovered to be very interesting. These blogs rely on long posts so you need to take a few minutes reading them in order to understand them and appreciate their content.


Jeha’s nail:
Now when I first noticed his blog I found it rather cute, it had cute pictures in the corners (personally I never relied on pictures in that context), it had a cute overall interface. Over the last year I couldn’t follow well his blog and now that I have taken the time to read it in details I found it very interesting. First of all he has gained much more confidence in expressing his ideas, check the pictures in the sidebar, it’s much balder than before. He also relies on linking at other sites/articles/blogs, apparently he now knows his way around things, he has an article to support every word he says, he used very accurate terms that he never loses time on explaining (instead he just links to the appropriate article exhaustively discussing it) as a result when you read an entry you would be very interested but you find nothing to say as a comment, he does his homework well. And finally he expresses a strong interest in caricatures.

My impression as I analyze all that in my head is imaginative, a little sarcastic, not very confrontational preferring to attack with a joke, he is excessively reflective to the point where he would go from one journal to another to find that twist in a small article or a small sketch, in fact I get the impression that he finds it difficult to find a satisfying way to express his ideas and thoughts so he looks in what others have written to find that twist. Another thing about him, he is both opinionated and politically correct. Well maybe not exactly the right word to describe it but that can wait a second. First of all he’s opinionated, not necessarily stupidly stubborn but he doesn’t change his mind easily, after all his opinions and his stands have been taken after deep reflections and much reading. So in other words he wouldn’t have took that stand or adopted that point of view if he hadn’t questioned it, read about it, asked about it… In brief he puts a lot of effort in the idea he expresses so it isn’t so simple for him to change his mind. After all, he has probably heard a thousand times all the arguments with or against a certain idea; it’s unlikely for anyone to come up with some new argument to prove him wrong. Which takes us to the second point: Political correctness. Now I don’t mean to say he is a ass kisser or a hypocrite, in fact I am not even saying he’s diplomatic in the sense where he believes you’re wrong but tells you you’re right anyway, no. But before forming any opinion and as I have said before he did think about it a lot and thought of all sides of the story which means that he knows that there is not cutting line between the right and the wrong, he knows that he might take this side but those that took the other side have their arguments and their reasons to do so. So when he says something he avoids abusive and insulting terms (most people would use such terms believing they have the right to do so (if I call him an idiot it’s because he is an idiot kind of arguments). As a result he takes no sides, for example he is not clearly with any political group, probably because he fears stereotypical attacks against the arguments he gives.
One last clear thing about him, he’s a perfectionist by all means, under any angle… A perfectionist, his care in well positioning the pictures, the absence of dynamism in his blog, the way he insists/wants/needs that every entry would be grammatically flawless, no typos, every entry must be exactly like the first, the font, the size, the colour, the everything! Perfectionism in everything he does, from the way he forms his ideas to the way he expresses them.
In general I enjoy the atmosphere of his blog… Had I known him in person I would have asked him to review my analysis and tell me how accurate or inaccurate it is. But since I don’t know him at all I just hope he doesn’t notice all this unsolicited and rather nosy analysis coming from someone who really knows nothing about him, but I can’t help it, it’s in my blood to try and dissect everything to reach the core of everything.