I didn't actually think that Fatemah's tone was condescending, but I do think it was rightfully annoyed.

The way I read it she was not claiming that you didn't have a right to your own viewpoints, but rather asking that you acknowledge that if you are not part of a certain group, your view from the outside may likely miss many of the salient aspects of different issues related to that group. And more importantly, that you shouldn't use your view from the outside as a means to dismiss the voice of those on the inside.

Most readers of feministing seem to accept the above. For example, I've seen several occasions where women registered annoyance when two men sit to debate abortion, and expressed desire to hear the opinions of two women visibly engaged in that discussion. "Do they realize they are talking about ME?" One woman asked on this post. The same is true of race. How often has it occured that white men and women have said something deeply problematic or racist, when they thought they were being helpful?

Especially since 9/11, politicians and the media have frequently made remarks about Islam or Middle Easterners that are grossly misinformed. Often times the types of conversations carried out about Islam are remarkable for their one-dimensionality; there is a lack of complexity because there is a lack of understanding.

Instead of asking us to "sit and wait", I think Fatemah is simply calling to make those directly affected by different issues the ones speaking at the center of a conversation about it. She doesn't seem to be asking that you just adopt whatever Muslims say about Islam, if only because that would be impossible - interpretations of Islam are widely varied and the religion manifests differently in different cultures. But I don't think you can have an intelligent assessment if you aren't listening to and respectfully engaging with those most affected.

"Don't you think there's just the slightest undertones of the Muslim honor system there?"

It would be if the "honor system" didn't also rear its ugly head in some non-Muslim cultures too, but IRL the "honor system" does also rear its ugly head in some non-Muslim cultures too.

It is true that some Muslim radicals decapitate their victims to make a point. Aasiya Hassan was decapitated by her HUSBAND, which makes it domestic violence.
Domestic violence in the Good Old USofA also bears the mark of our culture - guns are a common method for killing one's wife. The means of murder doesn't determine whether to call something domestic violence. Whether the perpetrator was an intimate of the victim determines whether we call it domestic violence.
Side note on language - ever notice how Muslims behead their victims, but other people decapitate them? Case in point - http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/01/world/main4313498.shtml Language counts. Let's try not to preferentially use loaded words.

That still shows a lot of ignorance about Islam. The Koran is no more anti-woman than the Bible is, infact it at least grants a woman the right to divorce. A lot of the laws in Middle Eastern countries derive from the Hadith, which is sayings or morals that were handed down allegedly by the Prophet Mohammad, and has been interpreted into law (some interpretations are so far out there it makes one think that they just made it up and said it was from the Hadith). The Koran and Hadith do not get equal consideration, but those who reject the Hadith and follow only the Koran are in minority, and in a lot of intolerant countries its blasphemy to reject that Hadith. Here in the West Muslims are more critical of the Hadith and there have been calls to re examine them completely, but over in the Middle East, this is the law of the land and is not up for interpetation at all (there are exceptions of course, such as Turkey which does believe in seperation of Church and state.) Even amongst sects there are different views, a Sufi Muslim practices differently from a Sunni. Really we're looking at an extreme form of Islam and saying all Muslims believe that, its like saying all Christians believe what Jerry Falwell says and that you can't be a Christian and a feminist at the same time. Whats occurring over there isn't a religion suffocating people, its people using religion, using only one form of this religion, suffocating the religion (not allowing any interpretation) and using it to suffocate people. Even in Buddhism we have misogynistic scripture (Buddha at first would not allow women to become nuns, and set particular roles for men and women, women as the home makers and men as the bread winners.) If anyone were to take that and hold it up as the holy law and questioning it is punished, even a religion that gets a pretty good rep like Buddhism would be a terror to the people. Even from a strictly religious viewpoint and even with that extremely simplistic explanation I gave, its a pretty complicated situation. Try looking at the Islam section in your book stores, you'll find books by women and men who are writing about reforming Islam in the Middle East, and breaking that suffocation.

Not to mention that honor killings and such are not special to Islam. Its not unheard of in Hinduism, for example. And the Bible says to stone a woman to death for adultery, if a man rapes a virgin he has to pay money to her father and then has to marry the woman (yeah, marry your rapist, sounds great), and also to stone gay men. If literalism was the word of the law here, we'd be in quite a similar situation.

From a different angle than the folks who are responding to the anti-Islam sentiment ... yes, this act by this man was particularly gruesome. No denying that. But if you look at it in the context of intimate partner violence in the United States, regardless of religious background, it's one of many terrifying and disgusting acts of violence perpetrated against women by the men who purport to love them. Just off the top of my head I can think of two high profile cases in the past few years - the woman who recently received the first successful face transplant because she was shot in the face by her husband. There was also a woman who was doused in gasoline and lit on fire at her place of employment by her ex-boyfriend. When I worked in a DV shelter, we followed the local case of a woman who was dragged by her hair from her apartment and beaten to death in front of her building by her boyfriend. None of these perpetrators or victims were Muslim.

I don't know enough about Islam to be an appropriate apologist for it, but I do enough about domestic violence to say that by trying to isolate Aasiya Hassan's death by blaming Islam minimizes the scope of domestic violence in the US. Aasiya Hassan's death was a clear act of domestic violence, a heinous crime which should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, and I don't think there's anything minimizing in saying that.

Thank you! I thought the exact same thing. That piece was nothing but an extended victim blaming argument. How about blaming the woman who murdered him?

Ann, you should be ashamed of yourself for calling that "thought-provoking" instead of "disgusting victim-blaming." Doesn't that even violate the site's own code of conduct?

totally agree! the author even said "i don't want to blame him for his own death but..." blah blah victim-blaming bullshit blah.

at another point, the author wrote "i dont know if this counts as domestic violence.." what?! because it doesn't fit into preconceived gender roles of dv?

why is it okay to do this when men are the victims??

im kind of grossed out, as well, that this was described as "thought-provoking". seriously fucked up.

Heres why its different than victim blaming of women: men and women in America operate under entirely different cultures and pressures and contexts. Men are pressured to make reckless choices, they live with pressure to sleep with as many women as possible, no matter the costs. This hurts men as much as women, and I think that's part of Coates point.

Calling on men to take more responsibility for their sexual behavior isnt victim blaming. He doesnt say McNair is responsible, but he suggests he was unaware of the dangers he could face, b/c nobody ever tells men the real consequences. There are bad people out there; thats not scare tactics, thats real.

No offense but I don't think that Coates is victim blaming in the sense that you describe. Asking people to take responsibility for their actions is not the same as telling someone they had it coming for dressing a certain way. Furthermore asking men to be respectful of the women they date, and asking men to take responsibility for their sexual lives is my opinion a rather pro-feminist argument. If anything I personally think the post is an argument against the double standard. One of the major issues that people have with patriarchy is that it blames women and excuses men. In my opinion Coates is trying to say that Men need to take responsibility for their sexual lives. This is a rather important message, and a version of it gets re-iterated here all the time.

A few quotes from the post.

"But all of that aside, I think it's about time for men to take more responsibility for their bodies and sex lives"

"men who are reckless, often leave behind families to pick up the pieces."

"This isn't one of those "men's rights" riffs, and it's clear that men will never face the same sort of physical dangers that women face. But I think brothers could give a little more thought to who they take their clothes off in front of, or at least who they go paragliding with"

Finally
"I think brothers need to bury the mythology of the "Crazy Chick" once and for all."

All in all the message is one of personal responsibility in matters of sex that, in my opinion, men don't hear enough of in present society. If you ask me, asking men to be more responsible, and espescially asking men to bury the myth of the "crazy woman" is a fairly pro-feminist message that needs to be said more often.