WeAreTheKey

Unfortunately, there are still large groups of people in this world that still live in the 17th century. I assume the current Afghan government's constitution has some sort of "Bill of Rights" that will make this Shiite law unconstitutional. If individual families want to follow those Islamic rules, then that's fine, but for a law to be passed with such "abhorrent" abuse of women's rights in our modern world cannot be accepted. I applaud the women who marched in that protest.

BTW-I've evolved! I'm now an inventor! YEE HAW!

You beat me to it on this story. This is utterly crazy. Men can "demand sex from their wives once every four days unless she is sick or would be injured by the act"??!?!?!?
Wow. And there's good ol' Unocal '76 Karzai saying weakly that their justice department is "reviewing" the law...
But almost as weird as the law is the article that accompanied it today. It was written in a very odd tone, and singled out random phrases 'overheard' at the protests, which any journalist should know you have to be very careful with how you present such things, because they have the power to paint an entire 'side' of a story with one 'quote', or sometimes, even an entire people are painted a certain way based on 'quotes' from some random individual, who gets chosen to 'represent' hundreds, thousands, or even millions of people to the Western World.
Just strangely written....with stuff like "Some picked up gravel and stones and threw them at the women, while others shouted "Death to the slaves of the Christians!"
?
"You are a dog! You are not a Shiite woman!" one man shouted to a young woman in a headscarf holding aloft a banner that said "We don't want Taliban law." The woman did not shout back at the man, but told him: "This is my land and my people."
?
Why are these tiny little micro back-and-forths relevant to the story? Aside from coloring the 'Taliban' side as angry and shouting, and the 'Democracy-wanting' side as calm and rational...
Huh..... www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30223599

Anyway - I agree though, this supposed law is absolutely horrible and seems to have roots in the primal, old-school desire to increase the population and keep culture/religion/race alive and flourishing. I mean even in the Bible God says "be fruitful and mutiply" aka "have sex, people!", so if Christian women were to decide not to get freaky with their husbands then even they would be going against God. So from a modern, western perspective it is horrid and slavery-esque, but from a more historic, survival perspective it "makes sense".
Or more likely, the guy in the gov't who proposed it was probably married to someone who wasn't putting out, and thought he'd get the last laugh by legally forcing her into bed.... Yeesh.


Oh yeah and - get to Inventing, slave!!! We need new and better firesticks to use against the savages!!

Yeah, I agree that the story was oddly written and we definitely have to be careful with the quotes. But that's true of any reporting.

However, I do see the relevance of the reporting. The story was framed around a protest held by women speaking out against the proposed law. Reporting on the what is seen and heard at the protest is certainly relevant. Did the reporter (or, more likely, the editor back in America) pick and choose the specific events and quotes to include and others to leave out? To that there is little question.

Unfortunately, completely unbiased reporting has never existed. I'm not sure that it can, even if honestly attempted. People always skew the world to their perspective, whether they know it or not. Probably, in this case, they "know it".

Yeah it's true. Objectivity is very hard to come by. I have less of a problem with "sensing" a bias in a particular phrasing here or there and the blatantly obvious "steering" going on in that article. It gets under my skin every time.
Is it too weird that I actually agree with the side the bias is based from? I agree and yet, still DO NOT AT ALL want to be led into "how to perceive" the facts. Just give me the #$%# facts and let me decide!
Hrrff....

Anyway, yeah.
Forced sex.
Bad.

Where have you been? It's call FOXNEWS, baby! "We report, You decide". It just doesn't get any more objective than that!

Problem solved.

Oh man.....
That was toooo hilarious.
Sadly, ever since I ditched my DirecTv, I have been regretfully devoid of my FDA Daily Recommended Value of FoxNews. My body went through terrible withdrawls. Cold sweats, night-terrors, vomiting and seizures for about a week.
Then at then end, I woke up and realized I had my brain function back, and was sane again!
Thank God for DirecTv charging way too freaking much. A blessing in disguise!