lol, eerie, perhaps you 'Aqoulytes have a few preconceptions and stereotypes of 'merican culture too. i don't remember a time when i didn't bikini wax or use hair dissolving cream growing up.
And a lot of us grrls in Denver are just not into hypersexualized semi-nudity--actually, my tribes ('board rats and b-grrls) tend to favor very baggy loose clothing.
my favorite haut couture dancing ensemble is a boy-beater and UFOs.
'sides, it is too cold here most of the time for semi-nudity.

It is standard practice in most of MENA (as well as other regions with a high proportion of Muslims) to remove all body hair just prior to marriage. In fact, it is fairly common for Muslim women to keep their sensitive bits completely bare once they are married (or even before, depending on preference and local custom). Having a hairless or extensively "manicured" genital area is de rigeur for many Muslims, Arab or otherwise, regardless of gender (actually, I wasn't aware that the same rules applied to males, but I have since been educated).

There is a Hadith, on this, isn't there? I believe that bikini waxing is a religious duty for observant Muslims.

and, i don't think "covering" is just a muslim practice. My paternal great-grandmother just passed at 103, and she often told us disrespectful youth stories of the rigorous RCC that required headcoverings for women for attending mass in the bad old days.

Here, in fact, is a fatwa regarding the shaving of pubic hair.

http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?lang=E&Id=487&Option=FatwaId

There's even a fatwa on whether laser depilation is OK.

http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?lang=E&Id=7952&Option=FatwaId

For the record, it's not, apparently. I draw your attention in particular to reason number 2,

B. If one removes the hair permanently he will lose the chance of getting reward by removing the hair whenever it grows.

If it were me, I'd happily trade a few extra houris or mamelukes or whatever for not having my "sensitive parts" waxed every two weeks.

I have never gotten the Islamic preoccupation with hair. It's unnervingly obsessive. Rules for mustaches, pubic hair, beards, armpits, cutting the hair on your head, covering the hair on your head, etc., etc. Does anyone have any idea what drives this?

[eerie: Apologies, found this comment in the moderation queue just now]

And a lot of us grrls in Denver are just not into hypersexualized semi-nudity--actually, my tribes ('board rats and b-grrls) tend to favor very baggy loose clothing.

There are always marginal, low status exceptions to any prevalent rule.

However, ceteris paribus, it would appear fairly clear that the dominant, high-status image for fashion conscious young women tends towards the midrif exposing look.

The core of eerie's observation is regarding the tension in images, as it were.

and, i don't think "covering" is just a muslim practice

It's not. Orthodox Jewish women cover their heads in public or in front of unrelated men, and even Reform Jewish women often cover their heads in synagogue (usually the 50 and up set, but some younger ones as well). Even my quite Reform mom, who has been known to dabble in Buddhism and wacky New Agey stuff and is not terribly conservative in her street clothing, covers her head during religious services.

lol, eerie, perhaps you 'Aqoulytes have a few preconceptions and stereotypes of 'merican culture too. i don't remember a time when i didn't bikini wax or use hair dissolving cream growing up.

There is a difference between the standard bikini wax (which has been around forever) and a Brazilian (all or nearly all pubic hair removed from the labia, perineum, vagina, etc). Hence the distinctions made in the articles cited above. It was not common practice for fashionable Western women to remove most or all of their pubic hair until the 90s, because up until that point the practice was only associated with porn stars or similar.

Anon: There is a Hadith, on this, isn't there?

A couple, I think. Mainly having to do with cleanliness and purity. Google Answers has a decent summary (scroll down and check the links for fatwa/hadith examples)

By the way, re: the OP...I have one thing to add: OUCH!

Jinni: and, i don't think "covering" is just a muslim practice.

Covering the head is clearly normal practice for orthodox Jews, Christians and other groups during worship and even in public (e.g. yarmulka).

I never said it was a purely Muslim practice because that would be absurd. Still, most Westerners find it strange to see Muslim women covering all of their hair. The knee-jerk reaction (if there is one beyond sheer ignorance) is to assume they're oppressed.

I think you've really nailed a basic issue about the weird politics behind clothing and appearances, including why I've nigh-upon-quit trying to have the hijab debate.

Somewhere around the dozenth iteration of the "it's oppressive," "no, it's about choice and faith" screaming match, it occurred to me that one of the interesting properties of clothing is that it has very little inherent meaning. Its import (almost) entirely comes from what significance is attached to it. It's, like, sociological, maaan. So, when people ask if I think veiling is oppressive or not, they usually get frustrated when my answer is "well, depends on what else is going on". If, in some place, it's used to force a certain kind of piety on women who may or may not want it and/or make them invisible in the public sphere, then the veil is a very different thing than in places where those meanings aren't attached to it and it's more about identity or whatever (some diaspora communities come to mind). Unsurprisingly, that argument never goes down very well with the "it's oppressive and mediaeval" crowd.

Same deal with the brazillian wax (ouch, by the way). It oversexualizes women precisely as much as we think it does. The presence or absence of pubic hair itself isn't all that meaningful - as evidenced by its ubiquity in societies more puritanical than ours, at least more puritanical by most measures. Anyway, neat article. This comment is a roundabout way of saying, "wow, neat, I think you're onto something."

My dear Anon:

Here, in fact, is a fatwa regarding the shaving of pubic hair.

http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?lang=E&Id=487&Option=FatwaId

There's even a fatwa on whether laser depilation is OK.

http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/Fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?lang=E&Id=7952&Option=FatwaId

For the record, it's not, apparently. I draw your attention in particular to reason number 2,

B. If one removes the hair permanently he will lose the chance of getting reward by removing the hair whenever it grows.

Frankly I don't trust our Islamcity freaks, reading their first fatwa gave me an icky sensation.

Literalist weirdos.

I have never gotten the Islamic preoccupation with hair. It's unnervingly obsessive. Rules for mustaches, pubic hair, beards, armpits, cutting the hair on your head, covering the hair on your head, etc., etc. Does anyone have any idea what drives this?

It's hardly unique to Islam. Hair is a readily manipulable sign of membership in a community.

As to the origins, some large portion seems to have been picked up from the preceding Eastern Imperial elites practices. Certainly my impression the private shaving habits were not uniquely created by the Muslims, but the contrary.

That being said, in the climate it works well.

low status? lol. ;)

did the egyptians shave pubic hair? i would expect it in that climate.
i imagine it was lice control.

actually, L., both status and tribal affiliation are coveyed more effectively with clothing than hairstyle.

Perhaps, but as I did not use either the comparative or specific reference to tribe etc, we can simply observe that hair is a readily manipulable sign of membership in a community. Jewish locks, shaved salafi head, etc. Anon's puzzlement with respect to an Islamic focus on hair seems misplaced. I am sure cursory review of Byzatine fashion, and Persian habits would be enlightening if perhaps vaguely distracting.

Ahdaf Soueif's 1992 novel, In the Eye of the Sun, described a young woman, Asya, preparing for marriage by having her pubic hair removed by a member of the household staff, Mashta. What was interesting was that she also described the husband's reaction, "I put my hand on her and it was odd and somehow unreal. I'd known, I guess, or just assumed that she'd have it done. But it was disorienting to slide my hand downwards and not come upon a soft bush of hair." The scene was set in 1972.

The novel seemed to suggest that the young Egyptian bride reached back to a tradition that at the time may have been falling by the wayside. Perhaps these issues also trend one way or the other in the ME.

For the most part, the hijab is seen as oppressive where it is mandated for all, women are harassed into wearing it and where women describe a palatable relief when being able to remove the hijab.

ViewFromIran
The flight from Iran was uneventful. By the end of our flight, not one woman was wearing a headscarf. "You would see more women in headscarves on any flight in Europe or the US," I told K. Turns out I was right. On the US leg of the trip, more women were in hijab in our 10-row area than on the entire flight from Tehran.

as I did not use either the comparative or specific reference to tribe

Lounsbury,

"...shaved salafi head..."

Come on, shaved salalfi head? This is crazy. I've heard of "Salafis" from South London doing that sort of thing but when you are talking about traditional Salafis they tend to wear there hair longer and unlayered.

BiKhair
Come on, shaved salalfi head? This is crazy. I've heard of "Salafis" from South London doing that sort of thing but when you are talking about traditional Salafis they tend to wear there hair longer and unlayered.

It was merely an example, my fellow. Not a be all comment.

Frankly I don't trust our Islamcity freaks, reading their first fatwa gave me an icky sensation.

Yeah, me too. But the laser depilation thing was just too good to pass up.

Literalist weirdos.

Perhaps, but there is site after site after site obsessively discussing similar issues. There are fatwas on eyebrow-shaping and whether men may remove gray hairs. There are fatwas on acceptable haircuts and on hair-braiding, just to name a very, very few.

It's hardly unique to Islam. Hair is a readily manipulable sign of membership in a community.

It seems to me that the enormous detail and emphasis is unique to Islam. Islam does tend to go into a lot of prescriptive detail anyway on some topics but the apparent obsession with hair seems to take it to new heights.

Granted, much of this is, no doubt, cultural and how much people really get into this varies a great deal across Islam. Nonetheless, I find it interesting that Islam does provide a theoretical platform to discuss how often you are required to shave your pubic hair and whether you should start from the right side or the left.

Anyway, I doubt seriously that shaven armpits are a very useful everyday clue as to membership in the community.

That being said, in the climate it works well.

That, I suppose, makes sense. I wonder how the depilitory practices of Muslims in Central Asia compare with those in MENA.

it occurred to me that one of the interesting properties of clothing is that it has very little inherent meaning. Its import (almost) entirely comes from what significance is attached to it.

Very true. There's a perfect example from Western culture: the suntan. Through much of history, not having a tan was a badge of status. It meant you could stay indoors all day and didn't have to work in the fields. Over the last 100 years or so, the social import of having a tan has been turned on its head. Now it indicates you don't have to stay indoors all day but, rather, have the time and money to lay around in the sun.

The hijab is similar. It is meaningless out of context. For example, does anyone think that Charlize Theron is an observant Muslim?

http://www.filmfestivalen.se/sitelliteroot/pix/North_Country_web.jpg

The problem, to be tediously sociological, is that the hijab in Islam represents the ultimate objectification of women. It is not designed to free women but to free men. Men, innocents that they are, are completely unable to control themselves when faced with the hypersexuality exuded by women who, apparently, are inherently inclined to try and corrupt them. As a result, they are driven to distraction by the sight of a stray wisp of hair. In Islamic thought, women are loaded guns and it is their responsibility to be careful where they point themselves.

This stands in sharp contrast to Western attitudes which, to be fair, are perhaps equally bizarre albeit in the opposite direction. In the West, women often go out of their way to be as shocking and noticeable as possible, a difficult task in the modern world. Nonetheless, men, by social convention, are expected to be oblivious, or at least to pretend to be. It seems odd that a women can spend thousands of dollars on breast surgery and then become outraged should a man obviously admire the fruits of her effort.

So whether the hijab is oppressive or not depends on the context in which it is worn. Every society has social conventions but whether these conventions are oppressive or not turns entirely on how they are enforced. If wearing a hijab is merely a matter of social convention and not wearing a hijab makes you nothing more than a topic of gossip, it’s not oppressive. If violating that social convention can get you beaten or worse, then it is oppressive.

This obviously varies from place to place. If a woman in France want to wear a hijab, it’s absurd to argue that it’s oppressive. The same cannot be said of Saudi Arabia.

Clever Anon, there is a thing we say in evolutionary psychology. A people is not shaped by their culture, their culture is shaped according to the people's needs. I imagine shaving practices initiated as parasite reduction. As for the elaborate archaeology of rules that has sprung up around hair maintenance in Islam, i think all of Islam has a devotion to rules, rules for eating, making love, eliminating, etc. Presumeably these rules conferred some relative fitness on muslim populations.

I wonder how the depilitory practices of Muslims in Central Asia compare with those in MENA.

I may be able to get you some info re: Turkmenistan, if I can manage to call my friend with a straight face.

(Besides, you might be amazed what kinds of things religion prescribes in great detail; in Judaism, for example, the number of times per month the husband is required to perform his marital duties is determined by the prestige of his profession. IIRC it's something like 3x/week for manual laborers, but much less for, say, rabbis.)

Anon at 6:18 (take up a name, come on)

If a woman in France who lives in a cité refuses to wear one, is light gossip all she will get? Possible, I don't know, I'm asking others here as well.

Couldn't the hijab in Western societies (particularly France) be seen the same way as the fez in Turkey in the 20s/30s? As a symbol of rejection of the present secular order* and identification with the Ancien Régime?

*Which puts the city of man above that of the city of God, when it should be the other way around from a religious point of view.

Jinn,
"A people is not shaped by their culture, their culture is shaped according to the people's needs"
Well, cultural traits can certainly be influenced (even strongly so) by their biological needs but such an assertion must be temperated. Irrationality is common.

Perhaps someone has tried to explain the cultural differences between North Korea and South Korea from an evo psych point of view? Or the cultural differences between Turkey and the rest of the Mideast (minus Israel)? Singapore?

Baal Shem Ra
cultures are continuously evolving in response to environment. so when you use evo psych to explain current cultures you are including more than biology. remember, there are two kinds of inheritance, genetic and memetic.
NK/SK is the only one i know enough about to comment. there is probably little difference between NK and SK genomes, but a lot of difference in their memomes.
Cultures evolve. North Korea citizens have had to make hard choices to survive. environmental effects, like the culture of famine and three generations of stunted children. SK has had to acculturate to American culture. Adaptive.
i would guess turkish culture is influenced by having a parlimentary government, as opposed to the local oligarchies, theocracies and tyrannys. Singapore has evolved a business oriented urban culture.

Perhaps I'm getting this wrong but does that mean that memes are one of the two causes of culture as opposed to being a part of culture?

I'd have thought that memetic inheritance was very close to what one can call "culture" and that to use memetic inheritance to explain culture is to assert that culture has (at least) some independence from genetic inheritance and can determine itself. As much independence as memomes have from genomes.

I realise that I asked a lot of explanation and should have said "pick any one of those three" instead of asking the three to be explained.

You say culture is based on people's needs, have evo psych researchers come up with a list of those needs? Does it look like Maslow's pyramid?

Baal,
E.O. Wilson's proposed name was culture genes. You are correct there are two kinds of inheritance, but less independent than we had thought. I don't know of a comprehensive list, but a lot of cog sci right now postulates that religion or a belief in the supernatural is a biological need--see Atran and Boyer.
I think biological needs persist in culture in interesting ways--for example the way black african christians incorporate witch-burning and blood sacrifice into their new religion.
Look at consanguinous marriage--encouraged by some cultures, discouraged by others, depending on the needs of the tribe (or deme, L.).
I think full body shaving most likely originated as parasite control, and like Clever Anon suggests, done more rigorously for women (ie, beards allowed for men) as women represent a source of evil and possibly body lice. ;)
This is not exclusive to islamic culture--many cultures incorporate deep gynophobia--the irish are notoriously afraid of women--

That's why the women are worse than the men, when they go down to hell they're thrown out again...

And The Lounsbury suggests that any and all empty theorising about "culture" "memes" and actual natural selection is pure bollocks of the worst order.

Had not my fucking laptop crashed there would be more, but it did crash.

ahh...your otherwise excellent education seems just a bit dated, L. for example, consider the latest findings on FOXP2 and language evolution--would you say language is part of culture?
i can recommend some other reading if you are interested.

BSR: Couldn't the hijab in Western societies (particularly France) be seen the same way as the fez in Turkey in the 20s/30s? As a symbol of rejection of the present secular order* and identification with the Ancien Régime?

As homais said, the hijab can be viewed in any number of ways. Hysterical types on the Right will often point to the hijab as a sign that Muslims are more loyal to the "ummah" than the state.

Re the culture "meme" discussion, what is being argued? That culture has a biological component as well as an environmental component? Sure, why not.

As for FOXP2 and language, again not sure what you're getting at jinn. You have a transcription factor gene that supports certain elements of language production (e.g. facial motor skills) in humans and other animals. What specifically does this have to do with cultural development? It does not prove that "memes" have a genetic basis or are transmitted via natural selection.

Sorry, but I'm a bit of a skeptic when it comes to meme theory.

No, the mere biological capacity to language is not part of culture. It is a physiological substrate upon which cultures may be built. My education is hardly lacking in this area, and if you want to pimp primatively understood backwards ass sociobiology, take care, I am not inclined to being kind to low-rent bowlderisations.

As to the general concept of rooting culture in biology, there are two different questions:
(i) Macro level influences - i.e. human biology as an encadrement for the possible human cultures, which is fine and rational,
(ii) Micro level culture specific Just So fairy tales.

The former is interesting. The later, merely an echo of poorly understood science married to poor logic.

i am not sure i was arguing memes have a biological basis. but some might. i was arguing memes may have a biological origin, but the transmission becomes memetic, thru religion. like louse protection to full body shaving.

(ii) Micro level culture specific Just So fairy tales.
i guess i don't understand your difference between macro and micro.
research in cognitive science supports the thesis that belief in the supernatural is easier (than not believing) for homosapiens. there is a good scott atran paper where subjects retain extra-natural beliefs both longer and more emphatically. i'll look it up.
and cultural anthropology supports the biology of belief thesis as well.
i recommend pascal boyer's book Religion Explained for a good treatment.

and umm...we don't say sociobiology any more. not PC.
evo psych.
;)

umm...don't you aqoulytes think cultures evolve? or are competitive and have relative fitness?

eerie, i didn't explain that well, sorry.
i don't think we will ever tie a gene or gene complex to a single meme. but we are tying the processes of memetics and memetic transmissions to genes. that is what i meant with FOXP2.

Chers tous,

What are the ways in which the social pressure to wear less (or shave/not shave one's pubic hair) manifest itself? What are the ways in which the social pressure to wear a hijab manifest itself?

How is one punished for not adhering to the formet? How about the latter?

Are there laws that forbid not wearing revealing clothes?

When a woman in Scandinavia wears plain clothes, how is she liable to be punished? When a woman in a cité does not wear the hijab, how is she liable to be punished?

I'm not keen on the "they've internalised their own oppression" business, sounds too much like Marxist accusations of false consciousness and it's infantilising. I'm more interested in knowing what happens to someone who breaks social norms regarding hijabs, revealing clothing, participating in Girls Gone Wild videos etc.

i was arguing memes may have a biological origin, but the transmission becomes memetic, thru religion. like louse protection to full body shaving...

Why only religion as opposed to local custom/social convention?

but we are tying the processes of memetics and memetic transmissions to genes.

Linking a specific behaviour to a gene is quite difficult, even though plenty of scientists have tried. The "God Gene" (a gene that makes a person "spiritual") is hardly a specific enough behaviour to be tied to a gene. Same problem with "memetic transmission" and genes. A gene that promotes articulated speech in humans and animals is not necessarily a gene that promotes "memetic transmission".

What I'm trying to say is that memetics doesn't seem rigorous or empirical enough to be a science. How is a unit of meme measured? How does one determine the "fitness" of a meme? Is it falsifiable or is it a nice catch-all like God?

It strikes me as a rather easy way for one group to pretend superiority over another using the "science" of memetics. Example: "Our memes confer more advantages, therefore we are superior. That other culture has memes that are resistant to change, which is why they aren't adopting our obviously superior cultural norms/memes"

And so on. No real basis for this assertion, but an easy cognitive trap for the intellectually lazy.

BSR: How is one punished for not adhering to the formet? How about the latter?

You should know how peer pressure/social conformity manifests itself. Cover yourself in grape jelly and go to the mall.

Are there laws that forbid not wearing revealing clothes?

EDIT: Is this a typo or a double negative? Are you asking if there are places that "require" people to wear revealing clothes?

Perhaps I'm getting this wrong, but you seem to be saying that people who live in Western societies have no business criticising hijab wearing because here the equivalent is wearing skirts, form fitting blouses, high heels etc. Is this the case?

You say that Muslim women don't think Western ones are liberated and that Western ones don't believe Muslim ones are liberated. Yes, there is a disagreement and some symmetry there. Does this mean both are equally right and that Californian women are as oppressed as Saudi ones?

Is the prudery of one unassailable because of the sluttery of the other? I don't believe the sluttery is enforced to the extent that the prudery is but I'm asking people here what they know about that social enforcement. Does the social enforcement go beyond snickering and pointing in either case?

Are the ways in which this social pressures (which may or may not result in Muslim women wearing hijabs and women wearing revealing clothes in Western countries) the same?

"this a typo or a double negative?"

No, not a typo, just an awkward phrasing that I realised at the time was awkward but couldn't find something superior to (kinda like this sentence).

Jinn: umm...don't you aqoulytes think cultures evolve? or are competitive and have relative fitness?

Do you think memetics is the only way to explain how groups change over time or interact with each other?

In fact, how does one distinguish one culture from another? Or better yet, how does one distinguish between two cultures that are both dominated by one religion?

I've seen plenty of people declare that Islam is "evil" by using examples from Saudi Arabia, with the implicit assumption that Saudi Arabian culture is identical to Moroccan culture because both are Muslim majority. It would seem that the "memetics transferred by religion" theory might easily support such an argument.

BSR: Perhaps I'm getting this wrong, but you seem to be saying that people who live in Western societies have no business criticising hijab

Not saying that at all. My point was summed up rather nicely by homais above. Context is extremely important for determining whether someone is opressed (by law or social convention) or is making a free choice. In many cases, it is extremely hard to judge because perceptions can be so different (and ignorance is pervasive).

Does the social enforcement go beyond snickering and pointing in either case?

Sure. It can result in complete ostracism, verbal/physical abuse and with a big enough majority, state legislation. Think about the hijab ban in French public schools. It was essentially a law that required some Muslim women to reveal more than they wished, to preserve "secular" values.

Social pressure:
By "revealing clothing" you meant "without hijab"? Of course you didn't. Your play on "more revealing than she wants" being interchangeable with "revealing clothing linked to hypersexualisation" is an uneffective sleight of hand and an equation of France with Gulf countries.

Show me a country that has laws that require women to wear revealing clothing (of the type you talked about when you referred to the supposed hypersexualisation of the North America).

What is the social enforcement of hypersexualisation? Do you extend the definition of "hypersexualisation" so broadly that it includes not wearing a hijab? Is it equal to the social enforcement of modesty?

Context:
Context is indeed very important. How would one determine it? What is that context in France or [insert your city's name here]?

Was hijab wearing more prevalent in-between the start of the hypersexualisatin and 2001 than it was before the start of the hypersexualisation?

Did the woman you talked to consider showing one's hair to be too sexual (and not just a protest against hypersexualisation)?

First, you're being quite obtuse. Anyone who has grown up amongst other human beings should know how peer pressure and social conformity manifest in any community. Ostracism and/or abuse, perhaps with state legislation if there is widespread support (hence the bloody France example). Muslims, gays, smokers, whatever.

Your play on "more revealing than she wants" being interchangeable with "revealing clothing linked to hypersexualisation" is an uneffective sleight of hand and an equation of France with Gulf countries.

Your over-reading is getting a bit tedious. As mentioned above, the French hijab ban was used as an example of how social convention (in this case, anti-hijab sentiment and concern over secular values) led to legislation against it.

Context is indeed very important. How would one determine it?

By examining the environment? By thinking about it? By recognizing one's own biases before making a judgement? By not being an ignorant moron?

How am I supposed to answer this?

Was hijab wearing more prevalent in-between the start of the hypersexualisatin and 2001 than it was before the start of the hypersexualisation?

You've missed the point. Hijab and hypersexualization are not related per se. They are examples to demonstrate the difficulty in identifying free choice vs. pressure to conform in a given society. Brazilian waxing is merely another case study with an ironic twist in re: perceptions of a certain practice by Western vs. Muslim women.

Regarding this tripe:
i am not sure i was arguing memes have a biological basis. but some might.

Save the cutsey half dance for other sites, either take the idiotic position or not.

i was arguing memes may have a biological origin,

Restated in actual English, that specific concepts may have a biological origin. Tripe. Utter magical thinking tripe.

but the transmission becomes memetic, thru religion. like louse protection to full body shaving.

Whatever loosey goosey sort of hand waving words one uses, concepts transmit by culture; nothing more and nothing less, and there is no reason to tie this in vague hand waving manners to some immediate biological explanation.

(ii) Micro level culture specific Just So fairy tales.
i guess i don't understand your difference between macro and micro.

Somehow I am unsurprised.

Macro: All human culture is in some way bounded by human biology. As a general matter.
Micro: Specific cultures are not defined by some vulgar pseudo-biological explanations a la trite 19th century pseudo-darwinisms.

research in cognitive science supports the thesis that belief in the supernatural is easier (than not believing) for homosapiens.

Macro - across humanity. The substrate upon which human culture is built.

Very simple.

and umm...we don't say sociobiology any more. not PC.
evo psych.
;)

I couldn't give a fuck what the fools have rebranded themselves as.

Or the cultural differences between Turkey and the rest of the Mideast (minus Israel)?>/i>

Since this thread seems to have descended into wild psychological speculation, I guess I'll do some of my own.

I think it is indisputable that religion is changed by culture as much, or probably more, than religion changes culture. For purposes of comparison, consider Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world's two Islamic "theocracies."

Though Islam has been present in Iran almost as long as it has been in Saudi Arabia, Islam is expressed in Iran much differently than it is in Saudi Arabia, even apart from any Sunni/Shi'te differences. For example, in theory, both are fundamentalist Islamic states that enforce hijab. In practice, Iran is actually amusingly "liberal" in many ways. Compared to Saudi Arabia, Iran is the Moulin Rouge.

Consider this photo of an Iranian woman being accosted by one of the "Sisters of Zeinab," the all female-religious police charged with enforcing hijab.

http://www.alikhaligh.com/photoblog/prev/31.php

Does she look to you like she has been crushed under the weight of a misogynistic religious patriarchy? Note that, unlike in Saudi Arabia, the religious police are not exclusively men.

This is not to trivialize the problems posed for women by the regime in Iran. Nonetheless, Iranian woman are in a very different place than Saudi women. I know a number of Iranian women. Granted, all come from a particular socio-economic class. Nonetheless, I can honestly say that not a single one shows the slightest sign of having had her spirit broken. On the contrary, as a group, they are not one you want to mess with.

This expresses itself in the way "fundamentalist Islam" is expressed in Iran. Apart from certain transitory political problems, Iran could rub along quite well with the West. It will never become the West but that is actually one of its most stabilizing attributes. Iran/Persia has been a major player on the world stage for 2500 years. This history gives Iranians a certain self-confidence in dealing with the West. Saudi Arabia, by contrast, was a motley collection of raggedy-assed nomadic tribes within living memory and, therefore, lacks that self-confidence.

Turkey, in some ways, is similar to Iran. Turkey, having been a player in European affairs for the last 500 years, is well-equipped to address the West on its own terms. Turks do not fear that the West will destroy their culture because the West is, in effect, already a part of their culture.

All this is to say that religion is a part of culture and adapts to serve cultural ends. This isn't unique to Islam. On the contrary, some of the most egregious examples appear in Western culture. It's a constant source of amusement to me to hear various theologians torturing biblical passages in an effort to demonstrate that homosexuality is/is not a sin, that divorce should/should not be allowed, that God is/is not in favor of a bigger defense budget, etc., etc.

oh....i seeee.
the concept that islamic full body depilation may have started as body lice prevention offends?
but it's logical.
the pharoahs shaved and wore wigs.
shaved with horrible bronze razors as a matter o' fact.

Save the cutsey half dance for other sites, either take the idiotic position or not.

compliance.

Re Anonymous:
First, creativity with the handle you lazy good for nothing git, or I will start creating names for you. I bloody well can and will rename the bloody entries.

Second, spot on. I like the shot you chose, it so very much expresses Iranian Sisters' approach to the issue.

Does she look to you like she has been crushed under the weight of a misogynistic religious patriarchy? Note that, unlike in Saudi Arabia, the religious police are not exclusively men.

Actually the second is far more important than the first, as of course some might argue the gel and rougue combo suggest some blah blah submission to the "male gaze" or whatever is fashionable in Anglo Saxon Lit Crit circles.

I do expect, however, the Muhajaba was about to get snapped on by the Mutahajaba.

This is not to trivialize the problems posed for women by the regime in Iran. Nonetheless, Iranian woman are in a very different place than Saudi women. I know a number of Iranian women. Granted, all come from a particular socio-economic class. Nonetheless, I can honestly say that not a single one shows the slightest sign of having had her spirit broken. On the contrary, as a group, they are not one you want to mess with.

Quite right, rather different social structures with deep roots underlaying them. Very different, in large part, from the nouveau riche Saudis.

Or as a Paki Sister said to me and her bro, "The Iranians have a brilliant x thousand year old culture, why would anyone want to copy Saudi hillbillies" drum beat pause "and they [the Iranians] won't let you forget it."

Captures Khalij-Iranian cultural tensions right there.

As for jinni....
oh....i seeee.
No, you don't. And start writing like an adult with fully joined up sentences, proper grammar and capitalisation; else I may take to deleting your juvenile chat-like scatter-brained comments to spare the literate. Don't think I am joking.

the concept that islamic full body depilation may have started as body lice prevention offends?

No, dimwit. It does not offend. Not in the least. It's simply typical poorly disciplined thinking with wishy washy 'logic' presented as actual thinking. It's bar room speculation.

Not offensive as such, merely not something to presented as "thinking."

but it's logical.

It is a logical supposition

Might be true (in which case, it would be interesting, although fairly irrelevant to the pointless meme blather supra). Or it might not be true.

the pharoahs shaved and wore wigs.
shaved with horrible bronze razors as a matter o' fact.

And?

However, as a point of fact, I rather thought they shaved with obsidian blades.

Well, regardless, to return to the issue of origin:
This is an area that baring some miracle, one can never know what the origins of the practice were. Perhaps it was lice control (although one would have to ask if there is an effect), perhaps it was pure fashion, the mere whim of influential person that once it caught on.... stuck.

Pretending by weak logic to have "the" explanation and to vulgarly tie various human practices with direct presumed biological reasons rather overreads the evidence, is in reality sloppy and undisciplined ahistorical thinking, and often wrong.

So, no one offended. But one author irritated by stupidity, poor writing skills and a juvenile approach to the subject matter.

Carry on.

dear last anonymous,

this is the official "shot before the bow" re: your historical argumentations.

iran/persia has NOT been I"a major player on the world stage for 2500 years", nor has turkey been "a player in European affairs for the last 500 years". according to your logic, inhabitants of countries like the u.s. should have no self-confidence at all as they are so brand-new.

it's a question of perception, be oneself and others. let me assure you - khalijis are the LAST people who have self-confidence issues. saudis are VERY comfortable in dealing with the "west". they are also very literalist when it comes to religion & the law.

btw - i know a whole lot of saudi women who one wouldn't want to trifle with and quite a number of iranian men who, in reverse, are quite confidently trampling on ANY woman's notions of self-assertion.

that picture you showed was impossible between the early 80s and the mid-90s in iran. women like the one pictured would've gotten flogged, or even shot. and they DID. on the other hand - remember the "car driving" demonstrations in riyadh? if you have to fear severe punishment, you're not gonna go out of your way to push your hijab a bit back or wear tight clothes. that woman in the picture dressed her way precisely because the enforcement of restrictions have relaxed a bit -- they can harden again.

my hijazi friends always complain that places like jiddah, madinah, and - YES - even mecca were so much more relaxed and liberal before the 70s.

you guys just stop the psycho-analyzing of whole "nations". it's becoming silly.

--raf*

"You've missed the point. Hijab and hypersexualization are not related per se. "
Ok.

"First, you're being quite obtuse. Anyone who has grown up amongst other human beings should know how peer pressure and social conformity manifest in any community. "
I know some of the ways but don't think all social pressures are equal. If you're not saying that social pressure to be hypersexual is equal to social pressure to wear the hijab, ok.

"How am I supposed to answer this?"
Right, should have been mroe precise. Seems that what Homais said was that if you get the piece of clothing and you understand the context, you can say whether or not the piece of clothing is oppressive. Since a description of the contexts isn't forthcoming, I was wondering if someone would know of a way to determine them.

"They are examples to demonstrate the difficulty in identifying free choice vs. pressure to conform"
Which is the reason I kept (tediously, I know) asking about the different ways both are enforced. If a social practice is enforced by lots of people and the media constantly talking about it and approving of it, then people who yield to it are not victims. If it is enforced through cutting economic support to one's dependents, violence, pariah status (though I'm not sure about that last one if the pariah status is only within a community), then that's an oppressive social pressure.

BSR: Aha, I get where you're coming from. Your last para is an interesting thing to ponder, esp in pluralist societies.

iran/persia has NOT been I"a major player on the world stage for 2500 years", nor has turkey been "a player in European affairs for the last 500 years". according to your logic, inhabitants of countries like the u.s. should have no self-confidence at all as they are so brand-new.

We're not going to have one of those tedious am-I-really-the-same-person-I-was-ten-years-ago-because-all-of-my-original-cells-have-died discussions, are we?

it's a question of perception, be oneself and others. let me assure you - khalijis are the LAST people who have self-confidence issues. saudis are VERY comfortable in dealing with the "west". they are also very literalist when it comes to religion & the law.

Of course it's about perception. America has self-confidence because it is, currently, a major player on the world stage. In fact, self-confidence/arrogance is, arguably, the defining characteristic of the American persona. The vast majority of Americans genuinely believes that, deep down inside, everyone wants to be just like them. Americans are not, as a result, concerned about their culture being destroyed by foreign influence -- they are, in general, quite convinced that foreigners will adopt their culture if given half a chance. That this perception is not entirely correct makes little difference, at least until the perception rubs up against reality.

The same cannot be said of, say, Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia lacks that self confidence and believes that its culture is at risk from being over run by Western culture. In defense of that culture, they seek to use religion as a method of protecting it from change. How do we know this? Well, for one thing, Wahabists will go on at great length about how corrupting Western culture is and how it has to be fenced out at all costs. The Saudis clearly do not believe that their culture will triumph in a free market of ideas.

if you have to fear severe punishment, you're not gonna go out of your way to push your hijab a bit back or wear tight clothes. that woman in the picture dressed her way precisely because the enforcement of restrictions have relaxed a bit -- they can harden again.

You assume that these restrictions relaxed because men allowed them to. I assume that these restrictions relaxed because Iranian women determinedly chipped away at them. The point here is that the role of women in Iranian culture is very different than the role of women in Saudi culture and the religious rules reflect that.

BTW, this is absurd.

saudis are VERY comfortable in dealing with the "west".

Oil ministers and princes, maybe. Ordinary Saudis? Not so much. Though I believe they changed the curriculum a few years ago, ordinary Saudis in elementary school have until recently been explicitly taught, along with a lot of other insular Wahabist drivel, to shun all infidels and to have no social interaction with them except for the purpose of leading them to Islam .

Raf Bey

First, don't be tedious with these kinds of arguments:
iran/persia has NOT been I"a major player on the world stage for 2500 years", nor has turkey been "a player in European affairs for the last 500 years". according to your logic, inhabitants of countries like the u.s. should have no self-confidence at all as they are so brand-new.

Our Anon (who I believe we all recognise as a long term commentator here) is sketching out ideas in a tight little format. A bit of flexibility on the thumb nail sketches, eh?

It would, nevertheless, be, I think, historically accurate to say that Iran and Turkey have at the core of their current national identities, the sense (however arguable) of being ancient and long-standing countries and players in the international scene.

it's a question of perception, be oneself and others. let me assure you - khalijis are the LAST people who have self-confidence issues. saudis are VERY comfortable in dealing with the "west". they are also very literalist when it comes to religion & the law.

Bullshit. You should be ashamed of yourself for even writing the phase "Saudis are very comfortable in dealing with the 'West'" - certainly many would disagree with you.

Khalijis have all kinds of complexes typical to the nouveau riche.

One might want to differentiate, to be sure, between the elite and other segments, but to call the Khalijis well-adjusted vis-a-vis the West is merely exposing your knee jerking rather violently.

that picture you showed was impossible between the early 80s and the mid-90s in iran. women like the one pictured would've gotten flogged, or even shot. and they DID. on the other hand - remember the "car driving" demonstrations in riyadh?

Yes, I do. It went nowhere. Of course wasta solved the demonstrators problems with respect to the authorities.

if you have to fear severe punishment, you're not gonna go out of your way to push your hijab a bit back or wear tight clothes. that woman in the picture dressed her way precisely because the enforcement of restrictions have relaxed a bit -- they can harden again.

Or not.

Or they can loosen....

you guys just stop the psycho-analyzing of whole "nations". it's becoming silly.

Not quite as yet. It merely is touching on areas you disagree with. Not the same.

BTW, although I largely agree with Lazy Scum Anon's points supra, a note on this:
The vast majority of Americans genuinely believes that, deep down inside, everyone wants to be just like them. Americans are not, as a result, concerned about their culture being destroyed by foreign influence -- they are, in general, quite convinced that foreigners will adopt their culture if given half a chance. That this perception is not entirely correct makes little difference, at least until the perception rubs up against reality. I would opine that one thing I have noted in my exile these past six months (bloody hell, already.....) is a certain fear expressed in some quarters with respect to immigrants and the perceived non-adoption of culture.

I personally think that the fear is both overdone, and based on a misperception of the rate of assimilation, but it is interesting to note.

Our Anon (who I believe we all recognise as a long term commentator here)

We do?

Maybe not, just a turn of phrase.

First off, I don't think that the age of a country's civilization is by itself reason for self-confidence in its culture. Neither the US nor India make significant efforts to protect their national cultures from outside influences, but both France and Canada make efforts to do so (albeit not to anywhere near the same extent that, say, Saudi Arabia does).

I think it is also important to see where governmental legitimacy lies. Saudi Arabia projects itself as being at the vanguard of the Islamic world, does Japan's government make similar claims or try to protect the country culturally? And how much of the protection is to stop the infiltration of 'bad' political ideas, as opposed to 'bad' cultural ones? A comparison of the two Koreas might be useful here.

Baal Shem Ra

If a woman in France who lives in a cité refuses to wear one, is light gossip all she will get? Possible, I don't know, I'm asking others here as well.

I can assure you she won't even get light gossip. Actually, it's the other way around, thanks to ambient islamophobia and state pressure. Now, you might be shown some testimony on TV stating that there's pressure indeed to wear, but I really have no idea where reporters manage to fetch those cases. I *know* many of those places first hand, and haven't seen anything of the kind. What wouldn't surprise me though is that, in some of those places, if you dress "too hot" you stand good chances of receiving many not-that-welcome "compliments". But that's a problem that exists in most poor suburban neighboorhoods around the globe.

Couldn't the hijab in Western societies (particularly France) be seen the same way as the fez in Turkey in the 20s/30s? As a symbol of rejection of the present secular order* and identification with the Ancien Régime?

The choice of all those I've known, whether from the cités or not, to wear the hijab has nothing to do with anything but their personal religious convictions. In the months of commissions and inquiries preceding the law forbidding it in France, only one veiled woman was interviewed out of entire crowds of secularist anti-hijab, "I know better what's good for you" feminists and islamophobes. The media wasn't much more balanced. It was essentially the (not-so) well-thinking "they're oppressed" argument that was consistently reflected, with only a token sporadic representation of veiled women or secular libertarian views. The French arguments you're mentionning are stereotypes which have been used again and again to rationalize a controversy that was actually just a matter of good old xenophobia conforted by a hand of highly publicized "Wafa Sultan"s. You can take this comment as coming from a very anti-hijab person (me).

Canada has a distinct culture to protect? Quebec, bien sure, but Canada?

I find the whole east/west culture discussions tedious. It reminds of what was in vogue twenty years ago when [western] men where admonished to get in touch with their feminine side as if sensitivity and nurturing were exclusively female traits and boorish agressive behavior exclusively male. Anytime someone attempts to define themselves by negation, by what they are not, I get exasperated. Behavior, like personalities, are for the most part universal. In all cultures, you have your class clowns and you have your battleaxes, Wafa being this month's fave.

And, please correct me if I'm wrong, I know you will, but I had always assumed that when western women got a look at what Saudi women wore beneath their abayas, they were shocked! Beneath the abaya lies a hypersexual world, these women were dressed to rock their man's world. (Didn't Maureen Dowd write about the Frederick's of Riyadh, "the three-story mall was so chockablock with designer stilettos, bondage boots, transparent blouses and glittering gowns with plunging necklines that it would have made Las Vegas blush"?)

Ironically enough, young [western] girls that dress trampishly can often be prudish and sqeamish. They'll signal availability by their dress and then are shocked when young men crudely proposition them. These girls are not oppressed, just stupid.

Thank you for the information Shaheen.

Why are you very anti-hijab?

I presume that you either come from the Maghreb or that your ancestors were. If so, which country was it?

Yes, even Canada.

Canada has a distinct culture to protect?

Yes and no. In spite of content regs, most Canadians have access to US cable/specialty channels. Canadians like to view themselves as distinct from Americans (and politicians generally push this view to score points with voters), but day to day culture is similar (ex Quebec).

Ideologically, there are some predictable differences (due to history, geopolitical significance, etc).

Well said Shaheen.

While reading this post I remembered having read something about pubic hair customs in Al-Jabarti's Chronicle. A quick search on google revealed what I was looking for.

Al-Jabarti says of his encounters with the French in Egypt in the late 18th century:

Their women do not veil themselves and have no modesty; they do not care whether they uncover their private parts. Whenever a Frenchman has to perform an act of nature he does so wherever he happens to be, even in full view of people, and he goes away as he is, without washing his private parts after defecation. If he is a man of taste and refinement he wipes himself with whatever he finds, even with a paper with writing on it, otherwise he remains as he is. They have intercourse with any woman who pleases them and vice versa. Sometimes one of their women goes into a barber's shop, and invites him to shave her pubic hair. If he wishes he can take his fee in kind. It is their custom to shave both their moustaches and beard. Some of them leave the hair of their cheeks only.

They do not shave their heads nor their pubic hair.

Absolutely fascinating.

One biomeme for eerie. ;)
Dying of a broken heart

Perhaps you can argue that full-body depilation started as a fad instead of as parasite protection, but I think dietary practices in both Islam and Judaism are obvious protection against death by food poisoning or from unsanitary food preparation.

One biomeme for eerie. ;)

Again, there is the problem of definition. What is a biomeme?

The article is interesting, as it demonstrates the physiological effects of an extended stress response. Perhaps an early human running from a predator will notice certain short-term advantages from the hormones/chemicals released, but long-term exposure to this chemical environment can be damaging. This might happen due to mental stress (e.g. broken heart) or extended physical duress (not addressed by the article, but could be tested).

Classifying a psychosomatic stress response as a "biomeme" is teleological unless there is an underlying precise, falsifiable biomeme theory. If not, this is merely a fixed conclusion looking for supporting data.

I think dietary practices in both Islam and Judaism are obvious protection against death by food poisoning or from unsanitary food preparation.

As L indicated, customs like this were often developed as a way to distinguish one group from another. They don't necessarily have any "practical" purpose, nor do they necessarily indicate greater understanding of biology/medicine/nutrition (e.g. pork prohibition arising from trichinosis). There is little you can do to prove the above assertion.

It's a losing proposition, but into the breach against simple minded illogic.

Perhaps you can argue that full-body depilation started as a fad instead of as parasite protection,

Fad has fuck all to do with it. Removal of some body hair (or piercing one's lower lip and inserting lord knows what) easily starts as a custom driven by any number of factors and spreads.

Your illogical selective application of modern observation back onto antiquity remains and is "just so" stories grounded in facile and superficial thinking. Spare me in particular of any further blithering on in this area.

but I think dietary practices in both Islam and Judaism are obvious protection against death by food poisoning or from unsanitary food preparation.

Obvious rubbish.

Fine, L.
Scroll by or delete me, your choice.

They don't necessarily have any "practical" purpose,
In the EEA, the Environment of Evolutionary Advantage, everything had a practical purpose. Or you didn't live to pass it on. You can argue spandrels or side-effects, I guess.

Dying of a broken heart is a meme that is based on biology, a biomeme. There is actually a cardiological sensation of breaking, and then sometimes you die.

In the EEA, the Environment of Evolutionary Advantage, everything had a practical purpose.

You can take this position for purely biological elements (e.g. a genotype), but it can be difficult to support because the logic often drifts into teleology. Trying to extend this principle to human behaviour is even more risky, not to mention nearly impossible to prove in a rigorous way.

Also, what was rational and practical 2000 years ago might easily be magic and superstition today.

Am still waiting for a precise definition of biomeme and meme.

Dying of a broken heart is a meme that is based on biology, a biomeme. There is actually a cardiological sensation of breaking, and then sometimes you die.

The same chemical response and damage might occur from a different kind of stress unrelated to heartbreak, such as extended physical injury, prolonged fear, etc. If the same response can result from a variety of physical and mental stressors, is it still a "biomeme" specific to heartbreak? Or is it merely a broad stress response that has nothing to do with a specific emotional trigger?

oh.
Meme, the smallest unit of cultural inheritance, as a gene is the smallest unit of genetic inheritance. That is Dawkins, I think.

Biomeme is my own, I guess. A meme with a proximate biological cause. The "genius germs" and "gay germs" theories are other examples of biomemes.

The meme, "dying-from-a-broken-heart" is part of the "true love" mythology that shows up in many cultures. It is a biomeme because it can be mapped to a specific biological condition that reps the breaking sensation and sometimes death. And it doesn't matter if two different conditions can cause the same result.

The meme, "dying-from-a-broken-heart" is part of the "true love" mythology that shows up in many cultures. It is a biomeme because it can be mapped to a specific biological condition that reps the breaking sensation and sometimes death.

The specific biological condition is general: stress. Same feeling might occur if you broke your leg in the wilderness and there were bears around. Lots of animals have similar chemical responses to stress.

And it doesn't matter if two different conditions can cause the same result.

It matters when you get into the physiology. Even the JH article said a variety of stressors could trigger that response, not just a "broken heart" (shock from a surprise party, fear of public speaking, armed robbery, a court appearance and a car accident). It certainly doesn't prove that the broken heart feeling somehow evolved separately or has any physiological uniqueness. Just because there is a mythology attached to this specific feeling doesn't mean the biomeme theory is valid, or even useful. What is the value in describing this as a "broken heart biomeme" as opposed to a pyschosomatic stress response? The "fear of public speaking biomeme" would be identical, as would the "fear for my life biomeme". They all map to one biological response.

Also, dying from a broken heart seems unlikely, as the JH article notes how easily patients recover from stress cardiomyopathy (no permanent damage, unlike actual heart attacks).

BTW your definition of meme is not measurable nor does it seem to have any salient features. Biomeme doesn't really mean anything either, as every behaviour can have a proximate biological cause (e.g. your synapses fire and you pick up a glass), whether it is culturally relevant or not. Give me a definition that can be measured and tested.

If you have any citations explaining gay/genius germs, I'd like to see them.

eerie, rather than spoil your excellent thread with further offtopic comments, I will email you the cites.
I would just like to say, the difference I percieve in my position and L.'s, is that he believes in free will and I believe that there is no true randomness in the universe.

eerie wrote:
Now they call it a 'landing strip' -- I call it the Hitler look. You can imagine it.

As a connoisseur of such things, I can inform you that the correct terminology is a "Clitler"!!

I would just like to say, the difference I percieve in my position and L.'s, is that he believes in free will and I believe that there is no true randomness in the universe.

First, don't put words in his mouth. Second, do try to focus on the actual argument rather than handwaving abstractions. It's already quite clear that you view the world through some sort of cartoonish teleological lens with social Darwinist undertones. Rather stinks of an "agenda", even if you aren't aware of it.

L and I are arguing largely the same point: you have no empirical support for any of your memetic/biomemetic assertions, nor can you prove any of your suppositions about why ancient cultures decided to adopt certain practices. Your reasoning is "just so", it makes sense to you but can't be supported objectively. The "broken heart biomeme" is something you made up based on a very superficial reading of an article dealing with stress and chemical/physiological changes in the body. Grief, fear, anxiety, surprise and joy can all be felt in the chest, which is why ancient Egyptians believed thoughts/emotions came from the heart. There is nothing magical or significant about the fact that there are physiological responses to mental (or physical) stress. Basic endocrinology.

Anyway, cut the crap. It's very tedious for people with formal training in science.

Lol, I have an excellent education, and I work as a mathematician. My professors would be so very disappointed in your opinion of me.
I choose the "dying of a broken heart" meme for two reasons--inflamation of the pericardium can cause a "breaking" sensation quite different from angina, and the condition can cause death especially in older women without treatment, which was probable. All ancient cultures viewed the heart as the seat of emotions, duh. Your point?

I, (and many other scientists, incidentally), believe that we will be able to understand consciousness and create non-biological intelligences. We have already mapped the human genome, and there is the ongoing hapmap project. My "just so" reasoning is supported by the work of cognitive scientists and cultural anthropologists like Pascal Boyer and Scott Atran. I sent you cites. Dawkins is just a populist. There is quite a large of body of scientific evidence for their theories.

I have a question--what do Aqoulytes think of bleeding edge science in general-- like nanotech, superbiology, Artificial Intelligence, exotic particles, string theory, etc.?

Reguarding putting words: I meant no offense. But it is obvious to me there are only two views on this. Either you believe that this is a deterministic universe and we will eventually be able to explain everything, or you believe that some things are inexplicable, and will never yeild to scientific analysis.

You do know that the popular American perception of MENA is that all your universities are really madrassas where one exclusively studies the Qu'ran.

And perhaps I should get this out of the way right now--i also have affection for theory of quantum consciousness and Susskind's Landscape. Those are very controversial even in the scientific community. Memetics is not.

I should say, memetics and the biological basis of behavior is not.

Oh, forgot to avoid the tedious arguments about snyapses firing, and what not.
The biological basis of complex behavior.
Actually some proofs are mathematical, not body of evidence. I recommend John Maynard-Smith-- Evolution and the Theory of Games.
The appendices are really good. ;)

Lol, I have an excellent education, and I work as a mathematician. My professors would be so very disappointed in your opinion of me.

You can't even provide measurable, empirically verifiable definitions for your terms, which means any scientific support you provide is useless. Grade 9 science, and yet you can't seem to grasp it.

I'm not particularly interested in the details of your education, as you've had plenty of opportunity to demonstrate your intellectual abilities here.

All ancient cultures viewed the heart as the seat of emotions, duh. Your point?

That was your point, idiot. The feeling of a broken heart, shock from a car accident, fear of public speaking, worry, etc all have similar physiological effects on the heart. They are stressors. What is the point of making up a new, badly-defined term for concepts that already exist in biology/endocrinology?

The rest of your blathering about cogsci and the human genome is irrelevant to this discussion. Throwing around jargon does not make you seem more intelligent.

Either you believe that this is a deterministic universe and we will eventually be able to explain everything, or you believe that some things are inexplicable, and will never yeild to scientific analysis.

Or you believe that there isn't enough information to draw either conclusion.

You do know that the popular American perception of MENA is that all your universities are really madrassas where one exclusively studies the Qu'ran.

Are you suggesting that most Americans are ignorant morons, or that all Muslims are religious zealots?

Utterly irrelevant, but amusing. Reveals your inner bigot (not to mention the utterly hilarious assumptions you've made about "us" here at 'Aqoul).

And perhaps I should get this out of the way right now--i also have affection for theory of quantum consciousness and Susskind's Landscape. Those are very controversial even in the scientific community. Memetics is not.

Nobody cares. Memetics is dubious science at best, no matter what you claim. The inability to define or measure a "unit of cultural inheritance" is a primary flaw.

BTW is anyone else getting miss_corvette flashbacks?

Now that you mention it, maybe so. But mostly I am just boggled at the lack of attention people pay to information that is right in front of their noses.

I have a question--what do Aqoulytes think of bleeding edge science in general-- like nanotech, superbiology, Artificial Intelligence, exotic particles, string theory, etc.?

I don't know. What do mathematicians think of them? Aqoul having been designed for MENA commentary, why should its readers have a shared (or any) opinion on these topics? On the other hand, I seem to recall Eerie mentioning the Turing test. Maybe I should read the user agreement more closely. By using this site, you agree to adopt the brane theory of cosmic evolution. . .

You do know that the popular American perception of MENA is that all your universities are really madrassas where one exclusively studies the Qu'ran.

"Your universities?" It's bad enough that people always assume that everyone who posts on this site is a Muslim. Now people are assuming that everyone at Aqoul spent their time at university parsing the Quran. On the contrary, I suspect that most of the authors here received all or part of their higher education at well-respected western universities. Do very many of the articles here strike you as having been written by half-illiterate Quran-thumping peasants?

Eva - we're still waiting for that report on underarm hair in Turkmenistan.

Clever Lazy Scum Anon: Clearly we're not supposed to know anything about theoretical physics or advanced computing as they were not part of the Quranic curriculum at the MENA universities we allegedly attended.

Anyway, my burka seems to have slipped and I can't read the screen anymore. Perhaps I should get back to being oppressed by my tyrannical husband, this science stuff is simply too much for me.

dear malikat (al-)'aqoul,

i propose to track down "clever lazy scum anon"'s i.p. address and to ASSIGN him a screen name under which his commments shall then appear - without him/her being able to do something about it.

GAKH.

--raf*

ps: if you don't want to do it, remember: i can always just call your husband and ask him to make you do it ... and then beat you for insubordinance. don't make me look up the relevant qur'anic verse, woman!

raf* - that would assume that a) she has a hsband; b) he gives a rat's ass about the Quran; and c) even if both the foregoing were true, that he is physically (and emotionally) capable of beating her up.

i propose to track down "clever lazy scum anon"'s i.p. address and to ASSIGN him a screen name under which his commments shall then appear - without him/her being able to do something about it.

Ah, Raf. Expert historian and wry observer of things MENA, you may be. But in the ways of the Internet, you are a child.

Perhaps I should get back to being oppressed by my tyrannical husband, this science stuff is simply too much for me.

At least you can always find solace with your co-wives.

Indeed, Clever Lazy Scum Anon knows about Tor, so I will leave him to his faux-obscurity and playing hard to get.

At least you can always find solace with your co-wives.

But that would interfere with my schemes to destroy them!

Oh, and Anon - sorry, but haven't been able to reach my Turkmen connection. She is notoriously social, and therefore busy and hard to catch up with. On the flip side, her extroversion apparently served her remarkably well in creating a women's reproductive health curriculum out of thin air during her sojourn in Turkmenistan, and she does have a way of getting ppeople to open up to her, so I'm hoping for some good info once we do finally catch up with her.

(By the way, though Anon makes you sound awfully Shakespearean, and you do have a somewhat distinctive writing style, I do wish you'd come up with a handle of some sort.)

dear anon,

a witty remark is a witty remark, regardless of feasability. while i'm no techie, i do know about things like masking one's i.p. address, having it alternate, or even fluctuate.

looks like my 12 years of internet experience haven't been totally wasted ... phewwww.

so if you've delazified yourself to protect yourself from being traced (congrats - i'm all for it) ... then why not spend the extra 1.8 seconds on thinking up a handle?

dear eva,

since when are you a literalist?

--raf*

raf* - I may be precaffeinated and all, but I have no idea what you're referring to.

I apologize, all.
You are certainly right, science has no place in a discussion of MENA.
The biological basis of complex behavior has been around for over twenty years and is not reguarded as controversial in the scientific community. Maynard-Smiths book was first published in1982.
I could have reprinted a formal definition of meme from a text, eerie, but I talk about about this stuff all the time and i just wasn't aware I needed to. In the communities I belong to it is taken for granted. Like breathing.

A lot of the other things I mentioned are extremely controversial in the scientifc community and we argue about them all the time.

I see now this has been like talking about genetic drift or flynn effect on an Xian fundie board.
We are really not speaking the same language at all.

I apologize for wasting your bandwidth.

I could have reprinted a formal definition of meme from a text, eerie, but I talk about about this stuff all the time and i just wasn't aware I needed to. In the communities I belong to it is taken for granted. Like breathing.

Blah blah blah. You were requested to provide a measurable, empirically verifiable definition of meme and biomeme, so don't pretend you weren't "aware" that you had to. The definition wasn't for my edification, as I already knew the primary flaw in memetics is lack of rigor. If you were capable of providing me with such a definition, you obviously would have.

I see now this has been like talking about genetic drift or flynn effect on an Xian fundie board.
We are really not speaking the same language at all.

Spare me the pathetic excuses, the pretensions to intelligence, the amusing insinuations that we here at 'Aqoul are too stupid to understand such "advanced" science.

You have no idea what our backgrounds are beyond this hobby blog. Try and keep that in mind before unknowingly putting your foot in your mouth.

Then again, don't bother. More entertainment for us.

Jinn, if you really meant that apology, you'd just shut up and stop doing it. I'll believe you meant it when I see it (or don't see it, as the case may be).

Frankly, we are just sick of you bringing in completely irrelevant discussions and derailing the relevant ones, especially when the irrelevant "information" you add is wrong. So just cut it out.

It's interesting that jinn feels the need to mention her allegedly excellent education, admiring profs and magnificent intellectual performance on other blogs.

If an argument is well-formed, elegant and withstands scrutiny, there is no need to bring up external references. On the other hand, if an argument is weak and poorly-defended, some people will assert external credibility to compensate for the obvious failure. Simple questions will be handwaved away in favour of irrelevant jargon and neologisms to "prove" intelligence.

jinn appears to have gone one step further by implying that her understanding of science is far beyond that of the ignorant Aqoul fundies, and that we need to be educated on a more basic level before we can discuss these things with her. Of course, there is no possible way we could have equivalent or superior educations, it just doesn't make any sense based on her vast knowledge of Muslims (and people who seem like Muslims, or foreigners, or whatever).

Why not let this circus act continue her little performance. I'm certainly amused to see so many nasty, bigoted ideas creep out in her comments.

I see now this has been like talking about genetic drift or flynn effect on an Xian fundie board.

No, it's like talking about Egyptian business practices on a mathematics board.

You seem to have mistaken Aqoul for a sort of Muslim Myspace. It is most definitely not. This is not the place to meet people from MENA. It is the place to find people who are interested in a more nuanced understanding of MENA.

Apart from this interest, Aqoul authors, posters and readers have no other common characteristic. Posters here, to my knowledge, include North African business people, Jewish paralegals and British journalists. This is not uncommon with specialty blogs. People interact with respect to their common interest but have nothing else in common. In fact, it is entirely likely that many people who interact in perfect harmony on such blogs would actually hate each other in real life. In other words, blogs like Aqoul create a unique space that allows people with extremely diverse backgrounds to intersect each other only on a topic of common interest. This can be a surprisingly powerful organizing principle as it enables an extremely diverse group of people to cooperate in a narrowly defined area in a way they would never have been able to do in real life.

For someone who keeps chuntering on about memes, you are surprisingly unfamiliar with the basic sociology of the Internet.

Baal Shem Ra,

sorry for the late answer, I've been extremely busy.

Why are you very anti-hijab?

Many reasons I've mentionned before on this site. To be brief, it goes from aesthetics, to disliking the associated religious interpretations, hygiene concerns, the negative impact on Islam's PR, etc.

I presume that you either come from the Maghreb or that your ancestors were. If so, which country was it?

I have friends and relatives in the three main countries. Actually I am your typical (for the Lounsbury at least I guess) globe trotter Maghrebi who grew up as a cultural hybrid since birth, moving around, studying in foreign schools and abroad, and working in several countries.

Ah, l-Maghriba.

Eva - we're still waiting for that report on underarm hair in Turkmenistan.

OK, I'm slow, but I get there eventually - my friend isn't local anymore, and as she was apparently busy getting knocked up, it took a while to reach her. But her observations on Turkmenistan:

-- General practices are same as described previously for MENA: serious trimming at a minimum, if not total hairlessness (as Turkmenistan also has a well-established public bathhouse/sauna tradition, she had lots of opportunities to see women nude or semi-nude). Hairlessness is generally achieved via shaving, not waxing. She overheard many disparaging comments about hairy Westerners and their poor hygiene.

Her take on at least one of the reasons: hygiene rather than strictly religion. (She said non-Muslims/Slavs living in Central Asia have also adopted the practice, which is much less common in Russia.)

WARNING - TMI (as if you didn't already know that, but hey, I warned you!) In a country where it is often hotter than hell, and large chunks of the population are desperately poor and/or have no access to items like tampons or sanitary napkins, or even running water in many cases, menstruation is far less messy if there are less things for blood to cling to. As Central Asia is a cotton-growing region, women tend to use wads of cotton for this purpose. To be blunt, loose cotton, pubic hair, and dried blood have got to be a really uncomfortable combination, especially when they stick together. Ick, and ouch, respectively.

There - aren't you glad you asked?

Eva,

We live for this.