Driving Damages Ovaries, says Holy Man
Posted: 08 October 2013 09:49 PM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2587
Joined  2011-04-24

A Saudi cleric claims that women drivers are likely to cause damage to ovaries, pelvis - and should not be driving. I’ve never heard of this, but it is possible for some medical issues to arise because of excessive driving.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/29/us-saudi-driving-idUSBRE98S04B20130929

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 October 2013 06:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  804
Joined  2009-10-21

He did not cite specific medical studies to support his arguments.

Nuff said.

Really, my favorite quote is that driving “not out of specific necessity” causes damage. So, if it’s necessary, like to go get some beer for her husband, then it won’t be damaging. It’s when she’s just tooling around, cruising for whatever, that’s when the real damage happens.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 October 2013 10:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2242
Joined  2012-10-27
mid atlantic - 08 October 2013 09:49 PM

A Saudi cleric claims that women drivers are likely to cause damage to ovaries, pelvis - and should not be driving. I’ve never heard of this, but it is possible for some medical issues to arise because of excessive driving.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/29/us-saudi-driving-idUSBRE98S04B20130929

Of course men’s equipment is much closer to the action, but we don’t hear anything from the clerics about damage to those “family jewels”, do we? Seems to me it’s a better argument that males should be banned from driving.

Maybe it has something to do with the profound lack of intelligence found among Muslims.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 October 2013 04:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2018
Joined  2007-04-26

So let me get this straight. Sitting in the drivers seat reduces fertility but sitting in the passenger seat has no affect and of course many American teenagers can attest to the fact that the back seat increases fertility. Who knew cars were such amazing fertility management devices and that clerics were so smart.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 October 2013 06:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5169
Joined  2010-06-16

It just goes to show those male chauvinist ministers who want to limit women to using putters.  red face

The only study that I’ve ever seen is that males like truck drivers and sales people whose work requires long periods driving have been seen to have a higher incidence of prostate problems. 

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 October 2013 03:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2587
Joined  2011-04-24
Lausten - 09 October 2013 06:05 AM

He did not cite specific medical studies to support his arguments.

Nuff said.

Bloody hell, I missed that part saying there were no studies to back up the claims.

You’re totally correct.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 October 2013 05:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2018
Joined  2007-04-26
mid atlantic - 10 October 2013 03:23 AM
Lausten - 09 October 2013 06:05 AM

He did not cite specific medical studies to support his arguments.

Nuff said.

Bloody hell, I missed that part saying there were no studies to back up the claims.

You’re totally correct.

LOL, you guys were actually taking this clerics comments seriously.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 October 2013 06:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2242
Joined  2012-10-27
macgyver - 10 October 2013 05:42 AM
mid atlantic - 10 October 2013 03:23 AM
Lausten - 09 October 2013 06:05 AM

He did not cite specific medical studies to support his arguments.

Nuff said.

Bloody hell, I missed that part saying there were no studies to back up the claims.

You’re totally correct.

LOL, you guys were actually taking this clerics comments seriously.

It pays to take them seriously and then show how they are completely irrational. There’s always the possibility that a rational argument will plant the seeds of doubt in the mind of a believer. If we don’t take such pronouncements seriously (at least to the point of taking notice), we miss that opportunity. Scoffing doesn’t so anything but raise hackles. A reasoned, constructive approach can deliver a positive message.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 October 2013 08:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2018
Joined  2007-04-26
Lois - 10 October 2013 06:43 PM

It pays to take them seriously and then show how they are completely irrational. There’s always the possibility that a rational argument will plant the seeds of doubt in the mind of a believer. If we don’t take such pronouncements seriously (at least to the point of taking notice), we miss that opportunity. Scoffing doesn’t so anything but raise hackles. A reasoned, constructive approach can deliver a positive message.

Lois

Sorry Lois, What I meant is that it appeared that some of you actually thought there was even the remotest chance that his comments were based on a scientific study rather than pure sexism and misogyny. I give you all credit for giving him the benefit of the doubt but I suspect you have already spent far more time researching this issue in the legitimate scientific literature than the cleric did.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 October 2013 03:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2587
Joined  2011-04-24
macgyver - 11 October 2013 08:02 PM
Lois - 10 October 2013 06:43 PM

It pays to take them seriously and then show how they are completely irrational. There’s always the possibility that a rational argument will plant the seeds of doubt in the mind of a believer. If we don’t take such pronouncements seriously (at least to the point of taking notice), we miss that opportunity. Scoffing doesn’t so anything but raise hackles. A reasoned, constructive approach can deliver a positive message.

Lois

Sorry Lois, What I meant is that it appeared that some of you actually thought there was even the remotest chance that his comments were based on a scientific study rather than pure sexism and misogyny. I give you all credit for giving him the benefit of the doubt but I suspect you have already spent far more time researching this issue in the legitimate scientific literature than the cleric did.

Oh, I got your insinuation. LOL

But, yes, my thoughts were that some reproductive trouble in female drivers could be substantiated - I recall reading that excessive drivers do have higher rates of certain excretory and reproductive complaints; that’s what I was going from, so to speak. Lausten pointed out that there was no evidence, something I missed when first posting the article.

Of course, the fact that this is from a Saudi cleric, easily makes you think of fantasy based policy making.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile