Originally posted by fymk:
What hatred?
I am speaking about women's rights.
The facts are there. In a very heavily dominated male society , how
could a woman possibly have a voice to leverage using the media? It
was her lawyer , who is a well known human activist, who appealed
her case ,as the newspaper reported. Her husband used the media to
appeal her case. I don't see how she , being the lowly woman ,
could command a media presence in Saudi Arabia.
very heavily male dominated society? my friend kindly
elaborate.
For him appealing her case and for her husband using the media, she
got an increased number of lashes . Reassignment of blame to the
victim again.
You are so blind to think that you are so right when you really do
need to improve your comprehension.
you're being facetious now. what do you expect? IF her
husband/lawyer's appeal were successful, do you expect her
husband/lawyer to be compensated or the victim herself? BY SAME
REASONING, IF her husband/lawyer's appear were not successful, do
you expect her husband/lawyer to be punished or her ownself?
my friend dont act emotionally.
[b] Their archaic law makes it right . However as a woman , it is
repugnant and absolutely disgusting . I don't have to accept this
as a woman and I don't think you have any right to tell me not to
criticise any form of discrimination against my own gender.
[/b]
it's not fair to refer to their laws as archaic when singapore's
own is derived from british one which is derived from roman ones.
which is not recent.
do you feel equally disgusted and repugnant about women not being
able to go topless like men in public in anglophone countries or
their colonies (like singapore eg)?
does that sound like discrimination against your own gender since
men can go topless?
