Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Saudi Cleric Pummeled On Twitter For Claiming Driving Damages Women's Ovaries

samzenpus posted 1 year,20 days | from the I'm-not-a-doctor-but-I-play-one-on-TV dept.

Medicine 408

An anonymous reader writes "CNN reports, "Sheikh Saleh Al-Loheidan's widely derided remarks have gone viral ... 'If a woman drives a car,' Al-Loheidan told Saudi news website sabq.org. 'it could have a negative physiological impact. It would automatically affect a woman's ovaries and that it pushes the pelvis upward.' ... 'We find that for women who continuously drive cars, their children are born with varying degrees of clinical problems.' The controversial comments were widely interpreted throughout Saudi Arabia as an attempt to discourage women in the country from joining a popular online movement urging them to stage a demonstration by driving cars on October 26. 'This is his answer to the campaign,' Saudi women's rights activist Aziza Yousef told CNN. 'He's making a fool of himself. He shouldn't touch this field at all.' Al-Loheidan's words have been ridiculed mercilessly via social media. An Arabic Twitter hashtag called '#WomensDrivingAffectsOvariesAndPelvises' was quickly created to make fun of Al-Loheidan — underscoring just how widely the call for Saudi women to defy the driving ban has resonated thus far. And while numerous conservative voices have supported Al-Loheidan, many Saudis believe this was an extremely clumsy way of trying to counter the popularity of the October 26 campaign.'"

cancel ×

408 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Where to start with this one...? (5, Interesting)

Ragnarok89 (1066010) | 1 year,20 days | (#44991939)

And driving is bad as opposed to sitting when: reading? eating? watching TV? listening to the radio? any of the other myriad of activities done while seated? What an idiot.

Re:Where to start with this one...? (5, Insightful)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | 1 year,20 days | (#44991955)

Don't forget the obvious: RIDING in the car, but not driving it, is apparently fine for the ovaries.
Try and wrap your head around that!

Re:Where to start with this one...? (1)

Ragnarok89 (1066010) | 1 year,20 days | (#44991961)

Good one!

Re:Where to start with this one...? (5, Insightful)

ninlilizi (2759613) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992489)

And its not dangerous at all for testicles.
Even though they're sat on, bounced around on. etc.

Re:Where to start with this one...? (4, Funny)

Joce640k (829181) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992639)

My genitals are always HUGE when I'm driving my car.

Re:Where to start with this one...? (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992547)

RIDING in the car, but not driving it, is apparently fine for the ovaries.

It's true! It shortens the menstrual cycle to two weeks, making the woman twice as fertile. Unfortunately, it has the opposite effect on mens' testicles. That's why they have to drive, it makes them more virile, and having more than one man in a car is very gay, punishable by death.

Now, let's talk about the backseat. This is where babies are made.

Re:Where to start with this one...? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992017)

He must be a liberal democrat!

Re:Where to start with this one...? (5, Interesting)

Sponge Bath (413667) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992407)

He must be a liberal democrat!

His unscientific view of women's anatomy more closely resembles that of Republican Todd Akin, who claimed women have magic body parts that prevent conception when "legitimately" raped.

Re:Where to start with this one...? (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992593)

I'm pretty sure he wasn't the only republican to agree with that philosophy.

Re:Where to start with this one...? (0, Flamebait)

Jeff Flanagan (2981883) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992685)

Yep, their clerics are much like our own conservative christians, so you find similar insanity attempting to justify unsupportable traditions and beliefs in the Republican party.

The derpy person who said he must be a liberal democrat was engaging in projection, another trait that's very common in conservative christians.

Re:Where to start with this one...? (1)

Bengie (1121981) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992675)

I love magic, that's how computers solve problems.

Re:Where to start with this one...? (4, Informative)

gl4ss (559668) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992029)

well.. the saudi cleric would probably comment that standing next to the stove is the only safe place for women.

why he bothered with such a lie I got no idea. maybe he thought he was talking to some 4 year old kids or something... definitely sounds like a guy who's surrounded by extremely "yes" men.

Re:Where to start with this one...? (4, Funny)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992387)

Yes the heat from the stove helps to keep the ovaries supple and healthy!

Re:Where to start with this one...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992531)

well.. the saudi cleric would probably comment that standing next to the stove is the only safe place for women.

why he bothered with such a lie I got no idea. maybe he thought he was talking to some 4 year old kids or something... definitely sounds like a guy who's surrounded by extremely "yes" men.

They're called theists.

Re:Where to start with this one...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992555)

This happens when people who are used to speaking to blind followers of their words enter real life...

Re:Where to start with this one...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992665)

yes twitter is the real life?

Re:Where to start with this one...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992051)

toilet

Re:Where to start with this one...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992105)

Is reverse cowgirl bad too?

Re:Where to start with this one...? (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992611)

Definitely not.

Re:Where to start with this one...? (3, Funny)

Atzanteol (99067) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992151)

Sitting is always bad. She should be doing housework and caring for her husband and 20 kids!

Re:Where to start with this one...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992373)

One thing's for sure, it's not as bad as being beaten by her husband. Oh no.

WaitWaitDon'tTellMe (3, Insightful)

LeadSongDog (1120683) | 1 year,20 days | (#44991941)

..."In other news, a fatwah has been issued against tweeting."

Re:WaitWaitDon'tTellMe (4, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992421)

..."In other news, a fatwah has been issued against tweeting."

Yes, because getting "pummeled on Twitter" is really going to have an impact on this guy.

herp derp (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | 1 year,20 days | (#44991947)

What a dipshit. At least if you're going to claim those forces can damage the body, make sure to include being in a car entirely, instead of only driving the car. /facepalm

Fundamentalist Religions: Oppressing Women Forever (4, Insightful)

SpaceManFlip (2720507) | 1 year,20 days | (#44991971)

Since like forever, the old men who are afraid of their womens getting loose have used the Korans, Bibles, Talmuds, etc to control their womens.

Fear and Freedom don't mix well. Let's all be a little more brave and learn to tell all the batshit religious crazies to fuck off. I don't care if they do raise hell and blow stuff up - eventually there won't be enough left of them to matter.

Free your mind, and your ass will follow.

You can't judge (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992109)

All cultures are equally valid.

Re:You can't judge (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992185)

Bullshit.

Re:You can't judge (2)

Noxal (816780) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992203)

A culture isn't "valid" or "invalid". That's meaningless. We CAN judge whether a culture has immoral beliefs and practices. This is a very clear case in which we can see immoral beliefs and practices, and the mental gymnastics the cultural leaders have to do to defend them.

Re:You can't judge (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992331)

Beliefs and practices aren't 'moral' and 'immoral'. That's meaningless. We CAN judge whether a culture in in line with our beliefs and practices. This is a very clear case in which we can see intolerance between our belief systems, coming from both sides.

Re:You can't judge (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992359)

A culture isn't "valid" or "invalid". That's meaningless. We CAN judge whether a culture has immoral beliefs and practices. This is a very clear case in which we can see immoral beliefs and practices, and the mental gymnastics the cultural leaders have to do to defend them.

Actually no we can't. Morality is a product of culture, therefore one culture cannot objectively judge the morality of another.

Some cultures are more "successful" than others (as measured by quality of life, and propagation of their cultural identity). But that tells us nothing of "morality", or "validity".

Re:You can't judge (1)

christianT (604736) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992589)

What is your basis for defining what is moral vs. immoral?

Re:You can't judge (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992647)

A culture isn't "valid" or "invalid".

A culture's "validity" is determined by its might, not by some ethereal "morality".

...mental gymnastics the cultural leaders have to do to defend them.

"Defense" is accomplished through bombs and bullets, not by mental gymnastics.

Re:You can't judge (1)

Nadaka (224565) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992671)

Incorrect. All religions may be equally valid... all equally completely invalid.

But some cultures are more valid than others.

Re:Fundamentalist Religions: Oppressing Women Fore (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992157)

If Sarah Silverman had said it, people would be calling her a genius.

funny how the moral relativists come out of the wood-work to scream about a sudden universal right and wrong once their pet issue is involved.

also, you are racist for criticizing their culture.

Re:Fundamentalist Religions: Oppressing Women Fore (3, Interesting)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992289)

If Sarah Silverman had said it, we would be laughing at her joke because that's a stupid thing to say.

Re:Fundamentalist Religions: Oppressing Women Fore (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992321)

If Sarah Silverman had said it, people would be calling her a genius.

funny how the moral relativists come out of the wood-work to scream about a sudden universal right and wrong once their pet issue is involved.

also, you are racist for criticizing their culture.

If Sarah Silverman had said it, she wouldn't be serious, much less trying to control lives with the statement. It's called "humor." Also, see "sarcasm." And "entertainment." You may as well consider the movie "Star Wars" to have been a documentary, if you equate her saying this with a Saudi cleric saying it.

Moral relativism is a total non-issue here; this is a Saudi cleric...a religious leader of a famously oppressive culture...with regard to whether or not there should be gender discrimination with regard to something incredibly useful and entirely non-gender-related. Whether women should be allowed to drive is not, in the eyes of pretty much the entire human population, a tough moral issue. I'm not sure whose "pet issue" this is, since out of a world of billions of billions of people there are so few places left where women are prohibited from driving cars. That'd have to be a pet with a LOT of owners...

And this is neither about race (but laws), nor is "Saudi" a racial group. Lern 2 definez, plz. :)

Re:Fundamentalist Religions: Oppressing Women Fore (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992159)

Since like forever, the old men who are afraid of their womens getting loose have used the Korans, Bibles, Talmuds, etc to control their womens.

Also their childrens.

Re:Fundamentalist Religions: Oppressing Women Fore (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992183)

... your ass will follow???

Ass as in something similar to a donkey or mule?

Re:Fundamentalist Religions: Oppressing Women Fore (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992393)

You mean Fundamentalist in general, they can be religious or not. Point is you are using this as an excuse to bash religion, which may or may not be the issue.

The Jewish and Christian Bible has always said, a woman becomes "one-flesh" with a man at marriage. I.e., a man abusing his spouse is basically abusing himself. In this picture, women are neither inferior nor superior. The Bible does mention different roles they play, but their importance is not downplayed.

Fundamentalist will use anything including the Bible to exploit their view of women. But it isn't religion in itself that caused it. Except for Islam - that religion hates everyone even themselves.

Re:Fundamentalist Religions: Oppressing Women Fore (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992461)

Its funny how the liberal Democrat comment got voted to -1, but your bigotry isn't? Why is that? Lots of Bigots and one minded thinking on this site. Stupid anti religious bigoted a$$e$.

Also known as... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44991973)

AKA Streisand Effect.

Welcome to the Interweb, my friend.

Re:Also known as... (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992167)

The Streisand Effect is when the act of trying to hide or cover something makes it even more widely known than it otherwise would be. I don't see how that applies here.

Re:Also known as... (0)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992307)

AC can't even write Internet correctly, don't be too harsh on her*.

* see what I did? It's on-topic!

eh... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44991977)

Saudi Cleric is about the same thing as a tea party member. Their logic ability is about exactly the same.

Re:eh... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992117)

When you actually look at the demographics [nytimes.com] , the Tea Party crew are actually more educated than the average American. They aren't lacking in logical abilities, but the impression that they do comes from televised news, which in its frenzy for ever-more-senationalist stories to generate ad revenue likes to focus on the fringe that staple tea bags to their foreheads and carry around signs reading "GIT LARNED SUM ANGLISH FUR YALL COME TO DIS COUNTRY" (hint: the more mainstream Tea Party members concern themselves with economic issues like taxation, not so much immigration).

This one Saudi cleric, however, is clearly on the fringe of even Saudi religious authority. So, you're right if you want to compare this guy to the kind of looney fringe of the Tea Party that you'll see on TV, but not if you want to compare him to the average Tea Party member.

Re:eh... (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992561)

Saudi Cleric is about the same thing as a tea party member. Their logic ability is about exactly the same.

Obvious troll is obvious; here's a novel idea - maybe try judging individuals based on their own actions, and not some arbitrary label.

Re:eh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992667)

So judging individuals with those labels who make horribly stupid comments is ok?

Fine, they're all fuckwits.

Brain damage (1, Funny)

PPH (736903) | 1 year,20 days | (#44991987)

It sounds like Al-Loheidan suffered cranial trauma when he was carried by his mother who spend hours riding a camel.

Re:Brain damage (4, Funny)

pesho (843750) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992081)

Women are not allowed to ride on camels. Camels are too precious for that. In fact women are supposed to carry the camel when it gets tired.

Twitter is nerdy .... right? (1, Insightful)

Kohath (38547) | 1 year,20 days | (#44991995)

This is news for nerds because of Twitter! Twitter is all technical and stuff, with the computers and the social media buzz.

Seriously, WTF? What's next? Baseball scores?

Re:Twitter is nerdy .... right? (5, Funny)

Nyder (754090) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992125)

This is news for nerds because of Twitter! Twitter is all technical and stuff, with the computers and the social media buzz.

Seriously, WTF? What's next? Baseball scores?

Dude, it's football season.

Re:Twitter is nerdy .... right? (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992169)

Then he is doing it right.

Re:Twitter is nerdy .... right? (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992199)

Dude, it's Slashdot. Don't expect them to be on time. Or even from the most recent season. Or decade.

Re:Twitter is nerdy .... right? (1)

Kohath (38547) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992233)

Dude, it's football season.

Are they talking about it on Facebook? If so, this "football season" of yours may make a great Slashdot story.

Re: Twitter is nerdy .... right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992263)

Baseball season ended yesterday. The baseball post-season thus starts today. Also, baseball stats are about the nerdiest sport stats, so that'd be more plausible than football on this site. ;)

Re:Twitter is nerdy .... right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992273)

This is news for nerds because of Twitter! Twitter is all technical and stuff, with the computers and the social media buzz.

Seriously, WTF? What's next? Baseball scores?

Dude, it's football season.

Dude, baseball is in its playoffs.

Re:Twitter is nerdy .... right? (1)

Peter Simpson (112887) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992493)

This is news for nerds because of Twitter! Twitter is all technical and stuff, with the computers and the social media buzz.

Seriously, WTF? What's next? Baseball scores?

Dude, it's football season.

...unless you're in the playoffs, like the RED SOX!!!!

Re:Twitter is nerdy .... right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992137)

"Baseball's bad for the ovaries!" said some guy over ICQ.

Re:Twitter is nerdy .... right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992149)

You forgot to put a Trigger Warning on your post, some people were mercilessly taunted as children for enjoying baseball.

Self-driving cars (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44991999)

Would it be acceptable to Saudi powers-that-be for women to drive self-driving cars?

Re:Self-driving cars (4, Interesting)

Captain Hook (923766) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992145)

of course not, because the issue is not really about driving it's about independance.

Re:Self-driving cars (2)

DrXym (126579) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992471)

I think the answer would be yes, given that they don't exist in any acceptable form and probably won't for any forseeable time to come either.

But Saudi Arabia being Saudi Arabia, they'd probably insist that the woman "driving" be escorted by a male relation lest any other male on the road be so overcome by passion to ram her vehicle and rape her by the roadside. Which would be her fault obviously.

well it does.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992015)

If they crash.

It is true (2)

MyLongNickName (822545) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992019)

It is true! It is also true that women cannot get pregnant from "legitimate" rape.

Re:It is true (4, Insightful)

QilessQi (2044624) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992083)

This. The Middle East has no monopoly on ridiculous ideas about female physiology. Some American politicians, pundits, and religious leaders are downright scary in this regard.

Re:It is true (0, Troll)

mark-t (151149) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992455)

Not that Todd Akin was telling the truth, by any means, but in actuality, his statement is the result of a grossly ignorant misreading of what's really going on. I will, by the way, be assuming that by use of the word "legitimate" he was meaning something more like "genuine" and not meaning it as "acceptable" or "okay" (in the context that Akin appeared to use the term, "legitimate" rape would be where one of the two people did not want to have sex with the other at that time, where "illegitimate" rape might be, for example, copulation that may have been entirely voluntary at the time that it had occurred, but then afterwards one of the two decided that they didn't like it and convinces themselves that they never wanted it in the first place... which is not an altogether uncommon occurrence). It's worth noting that a lot of the outrage against Akin was caused by people who were taking the word "legitimate" in that context to mean some synonym of "acceptable", and it's quite natural that they should be offended by such a notion. Nonetheless, giving Akin the benefit of the doubt about the meaning of the terms, it's slightly less offensive to assume he meant "genuine", so that's what I'm doing here. To that end, it's worth noting that there is actually a grain of mathematical truth behind this claim... although lacking sufficient context, the statement is plainly outrageous.

The reason, you see, that it's really "rare" for a woman to get pregnant when she is raped is because rape, by itself, is already relatively rare compared to the frequency with which people voluntarily engage in copulative sex... at least in this society. Since pregnancy from rape demands what is already an atypical condition (involuntary sex as opposed to willful engaging of said activity), there is some "legitimate" mathematical basis for saying that pregnancy arising from rape is not common. Of course, ordinarily and without any such context to clarify what is being talked about, the statement sounds loaded, since it appears to presume the pre-occurrence of rape when assessing the frequency of pregnancy, and it's candidly obvious that Akin had absolutely no idea what he was even talking about.

Re:It is true (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992595)

The reason, you see, that it's really "rare" for a woman to get pregnant when she is raped is because rape, by itself, is already relatively rare compared to the frequency with which people voluntarily engage in copulative sex...

Oblig [xkcd.com]

Re:It is true (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992655)

Not to mention car rape. Thank god the woman's body has a mechanism to shut the whole thing down...

Damage the ovaries. LOL (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992021)

Someone should remind this cleric that male fertility is decreasing around the world. That's a fact. There are more men in modern society whose sperm is too weak to fertilize a female egg. Okay, using his "logic," why shouldn't we believe that driving cars is weakening the sperm of males? When I read the headlines on this articles I was just ready to crunch into a Pringle, and I couldn't help it, I spewed most of it on my keyboard. It was just too laughable. Damage the ovaries! LOL! I think he's got it wrong. Women driving in Saudi Arabia may be damaging to the frail machismo of the Muslim male. Next thing you know, the women will want to walk down the streets without a male chaperone from the family. Give 'em an inch, and they'll take a mile! Hey, Sheikh Saleh, did no one ever tell you that being a suicide bomber is bad for the testicles? I mean, the Saudi brand of Islam has more than its share of guys who like to blow up in a crowd of people. Oh, all those flying sperm going to waste! What good will those 72 virgins in Paradise do them if they have nothing below the waist? (Or above, too!) This is the funniest thing I've heard from Saudi clerics in decades. I think it should be spread all over the net. "Damage the ovaries"....hahaha!

Has to be said (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992031)

Won't somebody, please, think of the children?!?

Saudi (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992035)

The fix :

The issue of women driving in the totally fucking nutty kingdom...

In addition to prohibiting driving, the country's strict and compulsory guardianship system also prevents women from opening bank accounts, working, traveling and going to school without the express permission of their male guardian.

And their nutty "clerics" think we are immoral.

Being a clergyman is for lazy people who like power trips - unless they are thrown into the "profession" like the Dalai Lama.

You know, if it weren't for their oil, they'd be just another backward Third World shithole. I feel bad for Muslims because of Mecca being in that shithole of a country run by backwards thinking ignorant Third World thugs.

you know... (5, Interesting)

buddyglass (925859) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992067)

As crazy and wrong as this guy is, his claim isn't completely out of left field. One of my physics teachers in high school (who had worked as an engineer at Bell Helicopter) related the story that, apparently, some of the helicopters initially used in the Viet Nam conflict happened to vibrate at the resonant frequency of the human kidney, causing pilots to experience organ damage. They had to add material to the seats to cancel out the vibrations. Here's a page from the Canadian equivalent of the U.S.'s OSHA:

http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/phys_agents/vibration/vibration_intro.html [ccohs.ca]

Re:you know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992173)

I for one, welcome our new testicle resonator gun wielding overlords.

Re:you know... (4, Insightful)

the_humeister (922869) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992405)

Except there's data to support that helicopter example. There's no data to support what this cleric just pulled out of his ass.

Re:you know... (2)

StrangeBrew (769203) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992539)

If porn has taught me anything it's that a lot of research has gone into finding out whether or not vibrations effect a females reproductive organs. The conclusion: "Yes, oh god, Yes!!!!"

Medical studies show (0)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992071)

smoking religion on an extreme level causes deficiencies in areas of the brain dealing with logical thought processes and the ability to reason clearly.

When you have an unreasonable position... (1)

roc97007 (608802) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992093)

...just double down. And then double down again. We see this a lot in politics.

Re:When you have an unreasonable position... (2)

disposable60 (735022) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992377)

I'm just encouraged that it may no longer be a capital offense to publicly disagree with an Imam/Mullah in Wahabbi territory.

snickrsnee! (1)

somepunk (720296) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992097)

Of course, if one cared to invoke physiology here, the real victim is the male genitalia, which need cooler temperatures to produce healthy sperm, a condition undermined by any posture that isn't standing with the legs slightly apart while wearing loose clothing. Oh dear!

Also in the news (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992101)

Saudi woman pummeled with stones for driving.

Fundies (3, Funny)

Rob the Bold (788862) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992135)

Isn't it about time that this guy and Todd Akin [wikipedia.org] just get a room, already, and make out.

Please come to my neighborhood (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992165)

My neighborhood is not exclusive to one cultural group, but there is a sizable muslim community. I have had a few encounters with burka-clad women at intersections that made me fear that my pelvis (or other part of my anatomy) may one day be pushed where I do not want it by the fender of their luxury german cars. To be fair, the burka-clad people might have nothing to do with muslim women, they might have just been impersonating them.

Re:Please come to my neighborhood (3, Informative)

SJHillman (1966756) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992319)

I've had numerous bad driving experience with:
- Women in general
- Asians
- College students
- Old people
- Teenagers
- Men in general
- Animals
- Bicyclists
- Prius drivers
- Lexus drivers
- BMW drivers
- Chevy drivers
- And one helicopter on the Thruway

It ain't just one demographic that makes driving a bad experience in general.

Wahhabism (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992175)

I think you guys are being unnecessarily harsh.

I'm pretty sure that it says in the Holy Quran: "And the Women... shall not drive..." :-)

Re:Wahhabism (1)

thewolfkin (2790519) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992543)

and the Women shall be as one with the Man for only together will they be at their fullest of strength. Singularly they shall not drive away the darkness of loneliness.

Long tag is long (2)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992193)

Hashtags are getting ridiculous.

"#WomensDrivingAffectsOvariesAndPelvises"

Were they worried about getting confused with the always popular "#WomensDrivingAffectsOvaries"?

Correlation != Causation (5, Insightful)

RivenAleem (1590553) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992253)

You might be able to say that women who drive a car get damaged ovaries, but you missing the intermediate step where the woman is dragged from the car and beaten.

S Effect in 3...2...1... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992323)

Apparently, women driving causes Barbara Streisand's ovaries and pelvis to malfunction. Effect News Story at 11!

Dumbass should be pummelled in other places. (1)

Chas (5144) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992349)

Like between his legs.

Show him "physiological consequences".

Fucking religious nutbags.
(Pun unintentional.)

Meanwhile (2, Informative)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992383)

The Pope says stupid shit all the time and is lauded for it.

Actually I would have to say this current Pope is a little more forward thinking, he is choosing to ignore the issues rather than outright dismissing them based on 2000 year old dogma. Given another 2000 years a Pope might finally say something intelligent and original based on current science and facts.

Re:Meanwhile (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992535)

The Pope says stupid shit all the time and is lauded for it.

Actually I would have to say this current Pope is a little more forward thinking, he is choosing to ignore the issues rather than outright dismissing them based on 2000 year old dogma. Given another 2000 years a Pope might finally say something intelligent and original based on current science and facts.

Except that in 2000 years, current science and facts will be outdated by 2000 years. The future pope will still sound retarded and 2000 years backward.

Fixed that for you mullah (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992477)

Women driving cars makes his penis feel smaller.

Does Slashdot have to embrace this crap? (4, Insightful)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992495)

This is the Kardashian model of what makes news worthy. Any idiot saying or doing anything shocking to most of us becomes a media sensation. Just because it was on Twitter doesn't make it relevant to this audience. I'm hoping this trend of dumping crap here skimmed off TMZ headlines doesn't continue.

Pummels? are you kidding me? (1)

thewolfkin (2790519) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992517)

This man needs to be on stage in front of a brick wall. I laughed out loud. hahah. ovaries. I hear he has a bit where he points out that cooking damages a man's lungs.

WTF? (1)

twmcneil (942300) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992549)

It's shit like this that makes it hard for me to believe that they could find 15 of their countrymen intelligent enough to learn how to pilot a plane.

Forget Missouri (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,20 days | (#44992565)

Todd Akin needs to move to Saudi Arabia. He'd be a huge hit there.

Women in Marathons (4, Funny)

LinuxFreakus (613194) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992577)

Until not that long ago women were not supposed to run marathons either... because their uterus might fall out (among other stupid assertions).

Probably more dangerous for men (1)

davidwr (791652) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992599)

Sitting down for an extended period of time is probably more dangerous for men than women from a harm-to-gonad perspective.

But for most men,* the overall risk of harm gets lost in the noise of random chance and other small risks men's family jewels face every day.

*Not counting those whose wives catch them hopping into a car to visit their mistress: For them the risk of harm to the space between the legs approaches 100%

So logically he wouldn't oppose... (2)

MiniMike (234881) | 1 year,20 days | (#44992633)

So logically he wouldn't oppose women past child-bearing age from driving? Or has he spouted some other nuttiness to justify keeping them from driving?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?