Jordan: 20% of women think their husbands should beat them if they disobey

It's called 'being a good Muslim'.

Good Grief. The Mein Qurampf needs to be done away with. The whole thing is evil.

Stupid bitches deserve to be beaten, not because it's right, not because they're Muslim, but because they are too stupid and lacking in self-respect to breathe. Muslim women make it impossible to respect them. No wonder they get treated the way they do.

Damn, jdamn, I see you didn't report to sensitivity class today. :) Sounds like something I'd say.

Hey wait... am I offending myself?

Here's a list of Turkish reasons for wife-beating:

[The report details the excuses Turkish men use for beating their wives: ]“The woman’s not wanting to engage in sexual activity, the woman’s gaining weight, her inability to bear children or her not bearing a male child, the food she’s cooked being too salty, burnt, cold or not according to the man’s tastes, not doing a good job ironing his clothing, being late in answering the door when he’s come home and knocked, the woman’s getting ill or not getting better after getting ill, leaving the home without permission, a couple’s child being unsuccessful, the home’s heater not being turned on, a child not looking like its father, the woman’s wanting a divorce, the woman’s interference in the man’s relationship with another woman, the working woman’s not giving her husband her entire salary, the refusal of ‘berdel’ [a type of arranged marriage], the woman’s wanting to work, the man’s being unemployed, family financial difficulty, the man’s soccer team losing a match, being warned by his wife about his alcoholism or gambling addiction, an argument between men about ‘machismo.’”
http://www.thememriblog.org/turkey/blog_personal/en/11678.htm

I knew there was a reason I didn't cotton to Turkish men. So far, I'd only been going on instinct; surely it was survival instinct.

The Islamic pimp slap...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Daz1w7MDoh4&feature=related

Nice..smack her on her wedding...start it early!!!

I Wonder how many of that 20% have actually been beaten by their husbands, and how many of the 80%
have not?

Or whether the 20% get off on the pain that will (by their standard) be inflicted upon the objects of their jealousy.

What should we expect?

They kill any women who stands up to them. After 14 centuries, what does that do to the gene pool in Muslim countries? To survive in a Muslim society, what are the qualities a women must demonstrate?

I'm amazed the number is that low.

Like Duh Swami, I wonder how many of them have been beaten. Maybe their husbands should see to it that their wishes are fulfilled

Tanstaafl, you're operating on the assumption that natural selection applies in Islamic societies. It doesn't. Arranged marriages preclude natural selection. This is a case of evolution in reverse. Not only can Islamic societies not evolve due to arranged marriages (and female genital mutilation, also designed to ward off natural selection through the elimination of standards), but rampant inbreeding causes evolution to work in reverse. They also, like I said in the Amina and Sarah thread the other day, kill off their best and brightest, and with women, their most attractive. This is a case of survival of the stupidest.

"The stupid shall not enter heaven."
Charles Erskine Scott Wood
"Heavenly Discourse"

Hmm. One out of five Jordanian women think they deserve to be beaten by their husbands if/when they disobey?

How ironic.

Four out of five American women think that Jordanian husbands deserve to have the $#!+ kicked out of them if/when they beat their wives.

This is a case of survival of the stupidest.

Posted by: jdamn

Yes, Islam is an example of Gresham's Law in action; only in society, not economics. In the economy, bad money drives out good money; and in society, bad people drive out good people, either by actually driving them out as refugees, or simply by never raising good people. Consider the good things produced by civilized countries: science, scholarship and learning, music and the arts, poetry and literature, invention and material progress, law and justice, etc. Then consider how little good comes out of a country once it becomes Islamic. Compare the achievements of Egypt, Persia, and Byzantium before and after the Islamic conquest. Some good work continues to be done for a century or two after the conquest, mainly by non-believers. But as the number of non-believers declines, and the control of the Moslem authorities tightens, this stops. Critical thinking and innovation disappear.

Put it this way: assume that tourism on the Western model was possible in the Islamic world. As a tourist, how much of what you would want to see is from the pre-Islamic period, and how much from the Islamic? Well, in Egypt, there are the pyramids and the ancient temples, and the Cairo Museum, containing things removed from the ancient temples. But from the Islamic period? Just about zilch. How about Turkey? There are lots of Greek and Roman ruins worth seeing. But from the Ottoman era there are only a couple of mosques, themselves copies of the Byzantine Hagia Sophia.

It's true about driving out the good people, too. The Shah doesn't seem so bad to me. I'm sure I would hate living under any dictatorship, but the Iranians had a revolution to replace the Shah with Khomeini the illiterate pedophile. Sadat was assassinated. But try to overthrow Saddam Hussein and the Taliban and the whole Muslim world is against you. Not only do they want idiotic, sicko despots, but they want dictatorship, too. That pretty much says it all. Not that Muslims are ready for democracy, or that they ever could be. You can't be supremacist and also believe in the power of the individual. Even we were kidding ourselves up until 1964.