In "Keeping the faith for the sake of all our Aqsa Parvezes," Rosie DiManno in the Toronto Star (thanks to Jen) calls out all our spineless human rights advocates:
...It's all grist for debate. But when the issue is Islam, debate – or disagreement – is hazardous.So even feminist warriors, decades after social emancipation rewrote human rights laws, are leery of giving offence. The Baal of multiculturalism – recast to incorporate radical interpretation of religious and cultural imperatives – has trumped gender equality.
In Afghanistan, before the pariah Taliban regime was ousted, women were stoned to death on the slimmest of accusations – but the world took more outrage at the destruction of Buddhist statues.
In Afghanistan, a girl once sobbed in my lap because she was taking the burqa the next day. Do not dare try to tell me she had a "choice.''
Increasingly, in the predominantly Shia section of Iraq, women are being murdered for not covering up sufficiently. In Saudi Arabia, total concealment is the law.
This is infantalization of women, every one an apparent succubus.
The hijab is not the burqa? When coerced, there's no difference.
Some years ago, in Ontario, women won the right to go topless in public, a silly legal benchmark that now feels like it happened on another planet. Such was the agreement in an era of muscular gender emancipation. Now we have human rights complaints over airport uniforms – slacks and mid-calf skirts – not modest enough to appease one's religious sensibilities.
Where are the feminists? The civil libertarians? The secularists? Browbeaten into silence.
I know all about immigrant families and the desire to retain traditions – obsequious conduct – from ancestral lands. I know all about leaving the house dressed one way and arriving at school, presto, dressed another. I know all about pining to look and act like one of the group, not an alien. There was a time when I genuinely believed my father would kill me for shaming him. I don't think I have a single female cousin who wasn't beaten for rebelling.
But, in this country, in my lifetime, that was never socially acceptable. In time, assimilation sanded off the rougher edges of that conflict. The in-between existence of immigrant children, straddling two cultures, found its own balance. Time will do that.
There are casualties, though. Occasionally, a senseless death will hit the headlines, filling us with revulsion. But countless more – daughters in cages – are leading lives of quiet desperation. In the angst of adolescence, more will die by their own hand than be murdered by righteous fathers.
Time, and pity, ran out on Aqsa Parvez, it would seem.
" In time, assimilation sanded off the rougher edges of that conflict. The in-between existence of immigrant children, straddling two cultures, found its own balance. Time will do that."
I beg to differ. There is no evidence that Muslims have ever assimilated, anywhere. On the contrary: young Muslims in Western Europe and Australia are more fanatical than their parents ever were. The mosques and the madrassah's do the rest. Then there are the satellite dishes, the hate-channels from Al manure and Al Jzzeera and Al Arabiya, In Europe you can get at least 15 with the vilest Islamofascist propaganda you want.
No: Muslims didn't immigrate to assimilate, Muslims have come to make US Islamic.
Happy to hear counter arguments, any takers?
At the gym, in order to add mental to physical torture, I read through a few recent back issues of "The Nation" someone had left behind, along with all the magazines devoted to Men's Health, and Women's Health and so on. Amazing to see that nothing much makes an impression on "The Nation" -- certainly nothing about Islam, that Total Belief System, manages to make on impression on its otherwise quite impressionable editors and contributors. They still rant about Bush, though their criticisms of the war in Iraq are the usual Alexander-Cockburn-lite stuff, not the deadly criticisms made here. Still the same stuff about "Palestine" and a presumably "nationalist struggle" (Frieda Kirchwey would not be pleased). And nothing at all about Muslim mistreatment -- rooted in the texts and tenets and attitudes of Islam -- from the resident "feminist" (her description), Katha Pollitt who apparently is unwilling to think through what Islam is all about -- when what Islam is all about is as close to what Katha Pollitt's relatives had to worry about in the 1930s. No, none of it seems to matter.
But "The Nation" exhibits an extreme form of the mental desarroi of the age that can be found, in less extreme versions, all over the goddam place. Even the cheekbones of Katrina vanden Heuvel, and all that they promise, will not -- no more than the perfumes of Arabia -- sweeten this.
In the article from the Toronto Star above, for "infantalization" read "infantilization."
Feminists in Norway demand 'at least' 40% female representation in the boardrooms of the nations firms, otherwise they 'will be de-listed'-how perverse does it get?
Protests from female soldiers have led to the Swedish military removing the penis of a heraldic lion depicted on the Nordic Battlegroup’s coat of arms.
Neutered? Castrated is a better word. The dumbing down of our society is self-evident. We are degenerated. This is the age of stupid!
Islam may not be the answer, but the soldiers of Allah might be able to teach us a thing or two.
(Now watch the femi-nazi's come out in force and rip me to shreds!)
Sorry, forgot to post the link. Here it is:
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/12/women-rule.html#readfurther
Well, Hugh, I guess you need to read The Nation as part of your job, to keep up and all that, but I don't envy you. I once found copies of it at the doctor's office, but I already felt bad enough. Another good publication for mental masochism is Tikkun, with Rabbi Moonbeam.
All those rags basically peddle the same delusion: That all the world's evils, including Islamic extremism, are caused by Western moral turpitude. As has been pointed out here, it's a form of ethnocentrism, in that it contains the notion that every action everywhere is just a reaction to our actions. It also contains the comforting delusion that only our acting morally can solve conflict.
Probably a lot of feminists think it's racist to criticize another culture. So let me ask them: What's worse, sounding culturally superior or tolerating the abuse of women? I think the answer is that their own self-image as free thinkers trumps any real concern for other people. It's just narcissism masquerading as liberalism.
Regardless of the personal and media fate of Aqsa Parvez, what of all the other similar cases? What of all the other cases coming down the pike? What is society going to do to prevent that? If the moderate Muslims do not prevail upon the "extremists" to moderate their ways, can any solution other than a complete ban on immigration from Muslim countries prevent Western nations from becoming Pakistan light?
Rosie DiManno, you say? In the Toronto Star? Somebody pinch me, I think I must be dreaming.
That's a good article; thank you. I wouldn't have expected it from either source (but obviously I was mistaken).
I submit that the muslims are funny.
Their clerics assert, that wearing a hijab protects muslim females living in the West from lewdness of the non-muslim males. Do they have documentary proof of systematic abuse of non-covered muslim females by non-muslim males? That's ludicrous.
Even worse, in the muslim world, where there are no non-muslim males around, the degree of covering female bodies is even higher. Why?
From what the muslim clerics and public figures are saying, there is only one conclusion: muslims tend to abuse their women unless those are covered. We have statistical proof that it does not happen in the West with non-muslim males.
Muahahahahahahaha!
They just gave themselves away!
Existence in any society is hard enough. Why make Western existence harder by importing huge number of Muslim intransigents who only want to make our lives harder? Have our governments have no compassion for its citizens?
I live in Toronto and very frequently see muslim girls as young as two, three and four in headscarves and hijabs. This is disturbing on many levels.
Is this the straw that breaks the camel's back? (See, a camel reference! He must be an Islamophobe! Where is CAIR or the MSA?)
I sense a rising tide that is building in the deep recesses of the Western soul. As more and more of Islamic culture is revealed to the public, the sleeping giant stirs................will it shake off the throws of lethargy? And rising, stride sleeplessly to reestablish civilization?
We know what happened to Asqa. How many of her Muslim sisters cower from the brutalization of the men in their lives? When we say enough is enough?
Re: "When the issue is Islam, debate – or disagreement – is hazardous"
Times are changing on this. This story represents a barely visible portion of a titanic iceberg of domestic violence to women among Muslims that not even elaborate deception and self-deception is effective at hiding anymore.
The sad truth is that many Muslim women cover themselves most willingly. The paternalistic brainwashing runs deep. For a man, a beard and forehead burns from praying are the sign of zealous devotion. For woman, the willingness to don hijab or niqab is. Islamic fundamentalism is a disease that goes far deeper than our simple male-oppressing-female paradigms allow us to understand. Islamism manifesting itself this way is not going to go away, no matter how many honor killings. It would be interesting to see what Aqsa's mother has to say: no doubt she is conflicted, but some probably part of her believes that Aqsa deserved it. It is that kind of programming we are fighting against. There is no simple solution, except a hard line. They are hard; we must also be hard in opposing any form Islamization of our societies.
"many Muslim women cover themselves most willingly. The paternalistic brainwashing runs deep."
-- from a posting above
Wafa Sultan has noted that many Muslim women find that their status depends on their shrilly defending Islam against Infidel attack, and part of that defense includes repeating the male claim that the hijab, the burqa, the chador, all are assumed most willingly, even eagerly, for Muslim women do not wish to be regarded, as they assume Western women do, as objects of the male gaze. She, and Nonie Darwish, both noted this strange embrace, not by all but by some Muslimahs, usually when they are talking to Infidels, or believe they are being overheard by Infidels, their own imposed inferiority, servitue, abasement.
Muslim female garbs bad for health:
http://www.blackburncitizen.co.uk/news/newsheadlines/display.var.1791843.0.56_cases_of_rickets_uncovered.php
"Probably a lot of feminists think it's racist to criticize another culture."-Jewdog
This is built on the delusion that somehow imperialism (Empires) are only a Western European phenomena. Actually, West Europe came late to the game. Islam (just read the history of the Muslim invasions of India and the appalling destruction of the Hindu culture there) is a lethal destroyer of indigenous cultures in the manner of Pizarro in Peru or the Nazis in Russia. Islam is a murder-deception-plunder-exploitation-jizya-cargo-Imperialism. It's nothing like commercial based empires (Britain, e.g.) which usually (but not always) respect indigenous cultures. Commercial empire-imperialists tend to tolerate that which does not interfere with trade. However, "religious" or "ideological" covers for domination-imperialism are lethal and sneer at indigenous" cultures-peoples. They are always supremacist.
Islam is a destroyer of indigenous cultures. This is not a commercial based rationalization for imperialism-domination, it's an ideological-"religious" rationalization system for Pizarro style exploitation and murder. The real reason for the rationalization system, of course, is gold-power-domination (in one form or other) and Islam is the cover to exploit-deceive-plunder-kill with a "clean" conscience.
Hi everyone,
I too, am the daughter of an Italian immigrant. My father and I had many arguments about clothing during my teens. For him, wearing a mini-skirt 2 inches above the knee was "slut" behaviour. However, my father never attempted to strangle me. Killing your own child is murder. I believe that Aqsa's father loved his reputation more than he loved his own child.
I was just on Facebook, where there are a number of discussion groups dedicated to the memory of Aqsa Parvez. Most disturbing among them is this one: "Aqsa Parvez was a cog in the Zionist machine. The father did nothing wrong!" They describe themselves: "For all peoples who understand that Aqsa Parvez existed only to perform Zionist-backed havoc upon Islam. And that the father performed a caliph-esque duty. Accordingly, we call for the IMMEDIATE release of Mr. Parvez."
Her older brother, who may have obstructed justice, has already been released. It will be interesting to see what her mother has to say, if anything.
Hugh said:
"Wafa Sultan has noted that many Muslim women find that their status depends on their shrilly defending Islam against Infidel attack, and part of that defense includes repeating the male claim that the hijab, the burqa, the chador, all are assumed most willingly, even eagerly, for Muslim women do not wish to be regarded, as they assume Western women do, as objects of the male gaze."
I think that the ground state of Muslim women, like most women and like men, is to wish to be attractive to the opposite sex. This is indeed the only biologically sound way to view any animal, human included.
Head coverings are clearly a very obvious reaction to this. Western societies were once much more modest, of course, but even then there was not a wholesale rejection of femininity. Full-length dresses are still a form of clothing that underscores and does not deny femininity.
Clearly, Muslim men are incredibly sexually insecure. I am surprised the chastity belt has not made a big splash in the Muslim world, although a complete covering is close enough. It is a kind of front-end chastity belt, making the woman utterly impenetrable in terms of any possible appraisal of attractiveness, and so unattractive. A chastity belt is more of a last-ditch safeguard against infidelity. In both cases, ensuring infidelity is the issue.
All of this has been formalized in Muslim society, and the socialization starts early. It's easy to see what the man - father, brother (as surrogate father and partly perhaps to offset any strange feelings brothers may get or may hear of from their friends) or husband - gains from this, but why would the woman willingly cover herself, partially or fully?
You are certainly right, that part of it is kind of like protecting the clan by adopting its rigid strictures, even if oppressive. Another part of it is that some women, like some men, are true Islamists in deed as in word, so they are simply expressing their own fundamentalism. Other Muslim women cover themselves simply because they may not feel strongly about and so "go with the flow" of the immediate cultural milieu. I wonder if another group of willing "veilista" Muslim women do it simply because having done it so long, it is just comfortable and comforting, just an article of clothing they are so used to that it is just "natural," even if they have no strong ideological or even clan-based reasons for doing so. In Eastern Europe, many women wear head coverings, but it has no deep meaning and seems something willingly done. At any rate, perhaps the reasons for women's willingness to wear the hijab or niqab are manifold.
The modern feminist movement in not vociferously denouncing massive mistreatment and brainwashing of women in the Islamic world has revealed again its shallowness, cowardice, stupidity and hatred of Western culture. If Christians practiced one tenth of the restrictions against women that the Muslim world does, Gloria Steinem and her ilk would be in courts of law yesterday suing practicing Christians for violations of criminal and civil law. Hypocrites. The silence of Western feminism is deafening; my contempt for it complete.
Why make Western existence harder by importing huge number of Muslim intransigents who only want to make our lives harder? Have our governments have no compassion for its citizens?
Posted by: Wimbledon Womble at December 15, 2007 10:19 PM
Good question and the sad answer is: NONE! Politicians fool and use their electroate to get elected. Once in office, they the same politican turns around to exploit the trust by selling ou tto the highest bidder. And it works in many ways. Someone who can get facvours, like Slick Billy and Monica, or $$$$$$ like subya and petro-$$$ but at any level, high or low, politicians turn around to stab the electorate in the back. Electorate should look out for politicans turning upon them and take swift and stiff action like impeachment. But Americans prefer to let politicians exploit them, rather than confront them.
Read in Telegraph that Princess Di's 'real love'
was heart Surgeon,Dr Hasnat Khan. Now I don't care
what lovers that lady had [or anyone else]
but was appalled to discover that Di had 'óffered
to convert to Islam' if Dr Khan would marry her!!
I agree wholeheartedly with Wellington's post above. Judging by the silence of feminist organizations against Islamic sexual discrimination, the feminists only help to perpetuate Muhammad's claim that women are weak and unintelligent.
Having seen her picture, I ask myself a question. how a man can willingly kill her own child in the name of a savage prophet from the 6th century. May God rest her soul.
Wellington--"The silence of Western feminism is deafening; my contempt for it is complete."
Add my contempt as well.
Multiculturalism trumps gender equality!---In my life time, no less---Whoud a thunk it!
Wellington,
Well said! Sadly, my feelings also.
Yet it is our women that we desperately need to win this battle.
The weakest point of Islam and the very best point to attack it is its treatment of women. How many poor brutalized girls cry out to be released from this tyranny? How many more Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s are out there willing to join us in the battle against Islam, if only we could reach them and set them free?
As disgusted as I am with feminists, we must make an extra effort to enlist our women in this fight.
(Come on guys you know you've swallowed your pride many times, over matters much more trivial than this.)
Americans have such a short memory and know nothing of their history. If we take a moment, catch our breath and quit throwing temper tantrums every time a Muslin does a naughty thing we would realize that throughout American history first generation immigrations have great difficulty assimilating into American society. It's the second and third generations that assimilate well and make strong contributions to their community. This is evident from the Irish in the 1840s to the Mexicans in the 1960s and '70s. And now it's true of the Indians, Pakistanis and Arabs. Aqsa Parvez is a perfect example of assimilating into Western culture. And, by God, she was Muslim. Yes, she was probably killed for it, but how many girls out of 1.5 billion Muslims? A tiny fraction, not even a fraction really, of the 1.5 billion.
Then we have comments like these from a poster: "It would be interesting to see what Aqsa's mother has to say: no doubt she is conflicted, but some probably part of her believes that Aqsa deserved it."
We are so arrogant that we even know what grieving mothers are thinking. We know this woman so well we can publicly proclaim to the world her thoughts.
Did you know that more Muslim women are now more than ever wearing the hijab as a political statement to demonstrate their solidarity to their Muslim sisters precisely for the hate that you project. They won't back down and they will stand their ground against the haters. Thanks to you more Muslim women wear the hijab because they want to show the assholes of the world they won't be intimidated.
http://13martyrs.blogspot.com/
I am an American who both knows and has lived U.S history; an American whose grandparents came from different lands. I am aware of Nativist bigotry in the U.S., especially from the 1830s through 1920s. I think I have sufficient standing and objectivity, together with a measure of compassion, to weigh in what you say, Thirteen Martyrs.
Such hate and fear as you percieve here is not gratuitous or groundless; nor are we, a diverse and generally educated and informed trans-national readership, mindless bigots. Far from most of us to pile-on insults or abuse of Muslimahs, to blame the victims of a regressive, dualistic, all-encompassing belief-system. Even so, just WHAT political statement are we kuffar supposed to infer from in-your-face sporting of Islamic dress and other exclusivist, ultimately supremacist, folkways? Do say.
Decades ago, a similar case of honor-killing was explored in a featured segment on CBS' 60 Minutes. A Palestinian-activist father, secretly wiretapped by the FBI, stabbed his high-achieving, Westernised daughter for, among other things, taking a fast-food restaurant job after-school. It was shocking and disgusting then, and it still weighs on me now.
Wire surveillance recorded the altercation and assault, heart-rending; even the girl's dying words of love for her father-killer--convicted and imprisoned; for life, I think.
Her surviving family subsequently left the U.S.
I remember seeing the girl's chadour-draped sister blame the murdered girl for her own death and their father's imprisonment--even more, expressing SATISFACTION that her sister died. INHUMAN! Now, show me a display of solidarity with Aqsa, THIRTEEN MARTYRS!! (NOTE WELL, if you can, that there is a pattern here, a pattern that can be discerned and its depth and reach fathomed.)
Troll alert:
"Did you know that more Muslim women are now more than ever wearing the hijab as a political statement to demonstrate their solidarity to their Muslim sisters precisely for the hate that you project. "
The 'hate that we project?'- hardly.
Muhammedans suck the hatred in with the mothers milk. Their hatred comes from the Koran and the hadith, not from anything we say or do. They don't come to integrate or to assimilate, but to make US Islamic.
Mohammedanism, the mental disorder, is not caused by us. Its THEIR problem. We just failed to keep them out.
Now that's our problem.
Mohammedanism, the mental disorder, is not caused by us. Its THEIR problem. We just failed to keep them out.
Now that's our problem.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at December 16, 2007 7:03 AM
Islamic violence is Islamic problem and muslims are responsible. It is as simple as that.
You hit the nail on the head.
"This is infantalization of women, every one an apparent succubus."
Actually, it's the other way around: this is the infantilization of men, who cannot permit themselves the sight of the female face or form lest they become uncontrollable beasts.
History speaks to the savagery of Islam as regards the beauty of women. Eloquently and repeatedly. You'd almost think it's trying to tell us something.
"When the issue is Islam, debate – or disagreement – is hazardous"
This statement reminded me of this:
Islam Beheaded: The Information Superhighway & the Death of Mohammedanism
The reason Islam is so prevalent in our news (at least among those of us courageous enough to expose it) is because we are beginning to realize the depths of evil this "faith" represents.
Mohammedans are desperately trying to defend a cult once protected by secrecy and naiveté, except to those directly involved or forced into submission. As Islam is exposed for the evil it is, we may see a rise of fierce violence in its final death throes.
I've been looking at documentaries on the 1967 war and other things from 30-40 years ago. Egyptian women dressed like The Supremes. I did not see any women in those newsclips that wore the hijab, chador or anything else. Thtis is a recent thing and a reflection of the oil money spread by Saudi in my estimation. It's not about faith, it's about asserting an Arabian supremacy.
I've been looking at documentaries on the 1967 war and other things from 30-40 years ago. Egyptian women dressed like The Supremes. I did not see any women in those newsclips that wore the hijab, chador or anything else. Thtis is a recent thing and a reflection of the oil money spread by Saudi in my estimation. It's not about faith, it's about asserting an Arabian supremacy.
I've been looking at documentaries on the 1967 war and other things from 30-40 years ago. Egyptian women dressed like The Supremes. I did not see any women in those newsclips that wore the hijab, chador or anything else. Thtis is a recent thing and a reflection of the oil money spread by Saudi in my estimation. It's not about faith, it's about asserting an Arabian supremacy.
"Americans have such a short memory and know nothing of their history. If we take a moment, catch our breath and quit throwing temper tantrums every time a Muslin does a naughty thing we would realize that throughout American history first generation immigrations have great difficulty assimilating into American society. It's the second and third generations that assimilate well and make strong contributions to their community. This is evident from the Irish in the 1840s to the Mexicans in the 1960s and '70s. And now it's true of the Indians, Pakistanis and Arabs. Aqsa Parvez is a perfect example of assimilating into Western culture. And, by God, she was Muslim. Yes, she was probably killed for it, but how many girls out of 1.5 billion Muslims? A tiny fraction, not even a fraction really, of the 1.5 billion.
"Did you know that more Muslim women are now more than ever wearing the hijab as a political statement to demonstrate their solidarity to their Muslim sisters precisely for the hate that you project. They won't back down and they will stand their ground against the haters. Thanks to you more Muslim women wear the hijab because they want to show the assholes of the world they won't be intimidated."
Posted by: 13 Martyrs
Oh, yes, I remember reading in my American history courses about all the 19th c. Irish-American girls killed by their fathers for wanting to marry outside the faith -- there weren't any, much any less any murdered by Papa for wearing the wrong clothes. Same goes for Mexican-Americans in the last 30-40 years -- we read about it all the time in the papers, don't we? Well, don't we?
How many? Just a tiny fraction! When Ayaan Hirsi Ali got the Dutch police to begin keeping records on honour-killing in 2004, they found 11 in the first 6 months in just the 2 police districts (out of 25 for the whole country) included in the pilot study. Extrapolate from the number of Moslems in the Netherlands to the number world-wide, and one gets a figure on the order of 400,000/year! Still, that's just a "tiny fraction" -- only 3/100ths of one percent of the world Moslem population. To be sure, that figure is for all honour-killing, so it includes wayward wives as well as wayward daughters. But, you say, that's only a small sample; maybe Dutch Moslems are not typical. Maybe you're right, maybe they're an unusually honour-crazed group. Well, even if they're, say, 20 times as honour-crazed as the typical Moslem, that's still 20,000/year. And that's a lot of dead girls!
Then there's the bit about the Moslem "sisters" in their hijabs and burkhas not being intimidated by the haters. Ha! They already have been intimidated -- the haters are their fathers and brothers. It's the Moslem men who are doing the intimidating.
I've been looking at documentaries on the 1967 war and other things from 30-40 years ago. Egyptian women dressed like The Supremes. I did not see any women in those newsclips that wore the hijab, chador or anything else. Thtis is a recent thing and a reflection of the oil money spread by Saudi in my estimation. It's not about faith, it's about asserting an Arabian supremacy.
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at December 16, 2007 9:38 AM
------------------------------------
Agree. Muslim costumes are part of their supremacist theater. This "religion" is lethal to indigenous cultures.
The more I ponder the history of empires (Chinese, Roman, Britain, Arab-Islam, Spain) the more I see a sharp difference between empires based on "religion"-ideology and empires based on commerce. Commercial empires are generally (but not always) quite tolerant and often respectful of indigenous cultures.
Arab invented Islam and the Arab Empire expanded by the sword as a predatory Imperialism. It made/makes Arab wannabes out of the conquered. It's a tool to destroy indigenous cultures. As Hugh has said, Islam, at it's root, is the engine of Arab Imperialism.
Islam will die by the sword at it's root. It will end with massive destruction (Mecca, Medina) at its root. It's inevitable. It's coming. My words here will prove prophetic.
"The silence of Western feminism is deafening; my contempt for it complete."--- Wellington
Wellington, and others who agree with his assessment of feminists, perhaps you might wish to consider a couple of things:
First, men can be feminists, too. Where are all the male feminists? They certainly aren't here.
Secondy, Islam kills. Have you forgotten that, gentlemen? Islam kills. It will kill your feminist wife, your feminist daughter, your feminist neighbor...but, I think you get the gist.
Do you really expect Western feminists to attempt to reason with people who can't be reasoned with? People who kill their own women and children?
Rather than bashing feminists, why don't you try supporting them? If I stick out my neck, do you have my back? No, I didn't think so.
I refer you to the title of this topic: "When the issue is Islam, debate – or disagreement – is hazardous"
Abscedere: I don't expect American feminists to attempt reasoning with zealous Muslims who think and act as though women are second-class in so many ways, but I do expect feminists to openly criticize the mistreatment of women in the Islamic world. And they haven't. They have been conspicuously silent here. They're too busy still writing books about how marriage is a form of slavery, constructing women's studies majors (which are, in effect, male bashing, victim studies majors) or doing their best to dismantle men's athletic programs in high schools and colleges across America because they don't meet some highly artificial measurement of program equality.
As for men being feminists too, the trouble here is that the very word "feminist" has become associated (properly I would contend) with wackos on the Far Left. It didn't have to be this way but it is and so what man, and what sensible woman for that matter, wants the descriptive, "feminist," characterizing them? I'm all for equality between men and women but that doesn't mean I want to labelled a feminist. And speaking personally, I've had the great good fortune to have a strong-willed mother, sister and wife in my life and I can assure you that they are as tough and independent as any man and sure as hell don't want to be called a "feminist."
This is infantalization of women, every one an apparent succubus.
It's also infantilization of men. How is it that the "stronger" sex is incapable of any form of self-control and must be guarded against all temptation, lest they succumb?
Let the women take charge in Muslim societies. Obviously, they are the only ones capable of exercising self-discipline. Men must be protected from all opportunities to sin, since they seem incapable of controlling their own urges. Is that the legacy of Muhammad? Male children who age but who never grow up?
Wimbledon Womble:
"In Eastern Europe, many women wear head coverings, but it has no deep meaning and seems something willingly done."
They do. In traditional peasant societies there, married women are supposed to don a head scarf right after marriage, as a sign of sexual unavailability and fidelity to their husbands, and they keep it throughout their lives, even after being widowed. There's no coersion involved, other than the woman has to put up with the occasional malicious gossip from the village matrons if she walks about flaunting her hair.
City women, of course, don't follow that tradition.
In older times, upper-class women, married or not, would never show themselves out without a hat. The "modistes" (hat-makers) have all but disappeared in Eastern Europe, now that wearing a hat is mostly utilitarian. I assume they still exist in Great Britain. I've seen them in black neighborhoods here, in the U.S., absolutely fantastic in color and shape.
Read Rosie DiManno's whole article. She's not afraid to point out the sexism of Judaism and Catholicism too. It's just that Islam does it so much better, with nary a qualm of guilt. No self-searching, no debate allowed, in fact in what must be some warped interpretation of the violence and outright hatred that the world sees, we're told, ad nauseum, that "Islam honours women."
Thanks to Rosie, I learned a new word, "succubus," which according to the Oxford Dictionary means "female demon believed to have sexual intercourse with sleeping men." And yes, this attitude helps explain the ferocity of abuse heaped on Muslimas.
Her reference to the assimilation of immigrants was in reference to the wave of Italian immigrants in the 50s and 60s in Toronto -- not to the current situation of Muslims there.
Yesterday's funeral for Aqsa was held earlier than the time given to the media and so when her friends arrived at the mosque where the service was to be held, all they found was a locked door with a posted notice that they were too late. Even at the cemetery, they were unsure which fresh grave was hers. Was this to avoid any more negative publicity for the Muslim community of Toronto? Images of weeping female teenagers don't do much to bolster the image of a purportedly woman-friendly religion. Perhaps, but I've been told by Muslim friends in Turkey and South Africa that females are not allowed to attend Islamic funerals there(their tears bother the dead apparently). Even when the deceased is female, women do not attend. (No equality even in death.)Also would the segregation of women at the mosque where Aqsa's funeral was held not be reported in the media? Would women have to enter through a rear entrance? Not good PR, I'm afraid. I'm just speculating, but could these reasons have affected the decision to hold the funeral much earlier than announced?
Although I detest the burqua, hijab and veils of all kinds, there is one advantage to them here in the States: at least we know the wearers are Muslim! We can keep an eye on them!
A Shia friend from Africa, who is an Indian Muslim, told me that "they" do not believe in this type of covering for Muslim women! She and her family dress well, just like high class Americans. They can blend right into our society. Unless they proclaim their religious affiliation, no one knows!
This one is now a teacher in a public highschool. Do you suppose she will try to insert her version of Christianity, Judaism and Islam into her teaching? Will she gently insinuate her beliefs into the minds of innocent highschool students? Our laws are so loose that the damage may be done before anyone realizes what is going on. GOS BLESS AND PROTECT THE U.S.A.
Of course I meant: GOD BLESS AND PROTECT THE U.S.A.
Of course I meant: GOD BLESS AND PROTECT THE U.S.A.
Wellington,
A large part of the success of the feminist movement depended on the reasonable nature of the average American man. At first, men laughed. Next, they frowned, and probably did some head scratching. After that, they expressed vocal opposition, which was clearly their right, and some of the desires of early feminists were a bit silly. Finally, some men--I would go so far as to say most American men began to nod and to understand what it was that the feminists wanted, and that not all of it was unreasonable.
I think we're agreed that this would likely not be the case with men and women steeped in the values of Islam. When we speak of the second-class status of Muslim women, we're putting a positive spin on it. Muslim women have no standing at all, in many places.
Yes. You really can hear a pin drop, in the silence of "feminists" when it comes to the outrages perpetrated on Muslim women and girls. I found an article written by a Kay S. Hymowitz, of the City Journal (the City in question being NYC). The article is about a year old, and we'll see if the link will work here:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_1_why_feminism.html
Hymowitz's article attempts to explain the phenomenon.
I concede your point about Far Left wackos, but I have to wonder where that leaves the rest of us. If to be pro-woman can't be called feminism, what is it to be called? What is it to be, for that matter? It needs to be and to be called something, because as it is, I feel pretty well "bashed" myself, when a bunch of the posters here start in on what a contemptible thing feminism is, and how contemptible feminists are. I guess I'm taking it too personally, when some folks use "feminist" and "women" interchangeably.
Yet, according to Hymowitz, there are three "types" of feminism, and I don't fit into any of them. Probably few of the other women who post here would.
By the way, sheik yer'mami,
I agree with you about the silliness of emasculating the heraldic lion, especially in terms of how much valuable time must have been wasted on the issue.
Bless the God and pass the ammunition.
Abscedere: Thanks for your response and thanks for the link to the Hymowitz article. Having read it, I can't say I'm impressed with any of the three types of feminists---gender, multicultural or utopian---and I can understand why any clear thinking woman wouldn't be either, including you. Some words, fairly or unfairly, take on a mostly if not totally negative meaning. I submit to you that this has happened to the word "feminist." I would also suggest that it's not necessary for women or blacks or Hipanics or gays or.......to regularly think of themselves belonging to a group, unless it be that grouping known as Homo sapiens. I'm tired of trying to fit people into categories based on inherited or very early acquired characteristics (notice this does not include those who adhere to totalitarian ideologies like Marxism, fascism or Islam). One should be judged first and foremost by the content of one's character, as Martin Luther King said. Also, there's that old maxim that a group that is oppressed or at least perceives itself to be oppressed, subconsciously does not want equality with the oppressor but rather wishes to become the new oppressor. I think you see this with a hell of a lot of feminists, regardless of what subdivision they might belong to.
For me there are three types of women. First, those with a chip on their shoulder against men, pretty much the feminist type; second are those women who really do suffer from low self-esteem and think men their superior, something found with regularity in the Islamic world most especially, although this can be found in many non-Islamic societies as well; third are real women who are smart and tough, who like men, but who won't put up with any crap from them. I far prefer the third category. The first one is too ornery and annoying; the second category of women are too mousy and submissive and not worthy of true respect.
I should add that I'm a middle-aged white guy so you're going to have to accept everything I've written here with a grain of salt but, in the final analysis, I respect men most who treat women well and respect them and I like women who relish being female and enjoy the company of men. Whatever you wish to call such women is something I'll leave up to you and those of your gender. In the meantime, how can one, regardless of gender, not feel compassion for so many millions of Muslim women across the world? Aren't you glad you weren't brought up in a Muslim household? In any case, thanks again for your post and take care.
First, men can be feminists, too. Where are all the male feminists? They certainly aren't here.
I'm a man and I'm a feminist. I'm also apparently one of the "far-left wackos" I keep reading about here, since I happen to be fairly liberal (though I am against gun control, as well as a few other things liberals generally aren't supposed to be against).
That said, I'm also against cults like Islam, and I'm not ashamed to let it be known (actually, I'm against all forms of religion, but that's another story. And, no, I'm not an Atheist, I'm a Christian Heretic).
However, I also believe in freedom of belief, even if that belief happens to be crazy and homicidal. What I don't believe in is freedom of action if that action infringes on someone else's freedom or well being (that means that I don't believe parents should be allowed to force their children to follow their religious practices if the children don't want to, be they Muslim, Jewish, Christian, or any other religion). If one's action doesn't interfere with another's freedom of belief or action then I say, by all means, go nuts. Yes, it's a tough balancing act, but anything worth supporting in life generally is.
Read Rosie DiManno's whole article. She's not afraid to point out the sexism of Judaism and Catholicism too. It's just that Islam does it so much better, with nary a qualm of guilt. No self-searching, no debate allowed, in fact in what must be some warped interpretation of the violence and outright hatred that the world sees, we're told, ad nauseum, that "Islam honours women."
Posted by: Jen at December 16, 2007 2:45 PM
The West has led the way in its criticism and self-criticism of these rationalizations for dominance. Many other cultures are also becoming more self-critical of that. Even the Japanese have begun to admit some guilt re the "hakko ichiu" religious ideology and its role in leading to the invasion of China (including the Rape of Nanjing) and they see that it was indeed a rationalization (using "Divine authority") for dominance-exploitation of China. Beliefs have consequences.
However, Islam shows no self-criticism in its role in destroying indigenous cultures and peoples. They still have the supremacist sneer on their faces when they enter another culture.
(BTW, I do not believe in "feminism". I think "gender" is a false class, set up to hide self-interest behind a facade of disinterested principle. Like most ideologies, it is, at its core, predatory and exploitative (in this case working-class men). I think the only real class is social-economic. Evey other invented class is bullshit.)
I'm with John Lennon re "Working Class Heros"....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7047645613230232539&q=working+class+hero&total=1174&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
The Christian Heretic: Interesting post. No offense, but I've never met the woman yet who called herself a feminist who I would have had the remotest wish to wed (or she me) or met a man who called himself a feminist who wasn't a wuss. Perhaps you're the exception to the rule here.
As for being liberal, that's OK with me but I have to wonder why, if for no other reason than that modern liberalism doesn't work, however well intentioned it might be (and even that is questionable). Liberalism hasn't gotten anything correct since the Civil Rights Era, and even then it went overboard on that with affirmative action and refusing to see blacks and other minorities first and foremost as individuals rather than belonging to some damn group. Nonetheless, in this fight agaisnt what is arguably the most menacing totalitarian ideology of all time-----Islam----liberals, moderates and conservatives should work together to defeat a common enemy. So, I welcome your input.
Additionally, your differentiation of belief and action is exactly a correct reading of how the First Amendment to the US Constitution has been interpreted by courts of law. For example, if one wants to believe Satan is one's guide and guru, go ahead, be an idiot. But if that belief requires a human sacrifice once a year, sorry, that can't happen-----ever.
Oh, by the way, though a conservative, I'm an agnostic, a skeptic through and through. If you think being liberal and against gun control and other traditional liberal positions is lonely sometimes, you should see things through my eyes. In any case, my best to you and yours. Thanks for your post.
The Christian Heretic: Interesting post. No offense, but I've never met the woman yet who called herself a feminist who I would have had the remotest wish to wed (or she me) or met a man who called himself a feminist who wasn't a wuss. Perhaps you're the exception to the rule here.
Well, my wife is definitely a feminist, and she is one of the most wonderful women I've ever met. :)
And anyone thinking I might be a wuss obviously hasn't heard my life story. :)
As for being liberal, that's OK with me but I have to wonder why, if for no other reason than that modern liberalism doesn't work, however well intentioned it might be (and even that is questionable).
My "liberalism" is more about believing in freedom (as long as it isn't infringing on other people's freedom, of course). Whether it works in politics or not is probably for a different discussion, but, regardless, I still believe that people should be able to live the way they want as long as it isn't harming others against their will.
Nonetheless, in this fight agaisnt what is arguably the most menacing totalitarian ideology of all time-----Islam----liberals, moderates and conservatives should work together to defeat a common enemy.
I can't argue with that. :)
Additionally, your differentiation of belief and action is exactly a correct reading of how the First Amendment to the US Constitution has been interpreted by courts of law. For example, if one wants to believe Satan is one's guide and guru, go ahead, be an idiot. But if that belief requires a human sacrifice once a year, sorry, that can't happen-----ever.
Are you sure you're not liberal? ;) That's exactly where I stand. Of course, I can't argue from the First Amendment up here, since I live in Toronto, Ontario, but we have our own Charter of Rights of Freedoms which also includes freedom of belief but not freedom to hurt others.
Oh, by the way, though a conservative, I'm an agnostic, a skeptic through and through. If you think being liberal and against gun control and other traditional liberal positions is lonely sometimes, you should see things through my eyes.
I can imagine, and I can't say that I envy you your position.
Well, here's to outsiders and their unique perspectives. Cheers! :)
Well, I'm not a feminist, but I've always done what I wanted or needed to do, even when people told me I couldn't or shouldn't. I can think back to times when I was told, for some dumb reason on their part, not to try, not to risk it, not to take the chance. But the thought in my mind was one of incredulity. "But don't you know, I have to do this?"
I never stopped to think that I couldn't do something because I was a woman, although I have done several things in the realm of men. I just went ahead and did it. And nothing Gloria Steinem ever did had anything to do with it.
This war against the historically debilitating effects of Islam will not be won by discussing our differences. It may or may not be won by those of us who are different here putting aside out differences and banding together. It will be won, one way or another, by those of us who have the will not only to resist it but to go after it and destroy it's effects on the poor people of the world, especially those who have suffered under it the most. I don't believe we can just stop it and go on with our lives, business as usual. I think we have to eradicate it for those who cannot do it for themselves and to protect ourselves. And that will take a force and a will that can rise above political correctness, governmental bureaucracy and self congratulatory arrogance. And it will take humble self reflection, replacing quaking cowardice.
"This war against the historically debilitating effects of Islam will not be won by discussing our differences." posted by Isabellathecrusader
I agree, Isabella. Whether Christian or non-believer, liberal or conservative, Jewish or Hindu, man or woman, black or white, etc., it's imperative we stay focused on the one goal of being deeply skeptical of Islam and acting accordingly. Islam is menacing throughout, just as Marxism and fascism are. Being Christian or agnostic, male or female, or whatever along these lines is not a threat to societies at large, not a threat to the Constitution of the United States, the Canadian Constitution and sundry other constitutions across the world that don't have a damn thing about Sharia in them and never want to, not a threat to the free exercise of speech, not a threat to the free exercise of religion (shame on a country like Saudi Arabia that disallows any religion within its borders but Islam-----deep shame) and good stuff like that that NO RELIGION BUT ISLAM hinders or threatens with a regularity that has become nauseating.
I would add, though, that it might be helpful from time to time, and without being cantankerous, to list our differences as a sign that people from all backgrounds, beliefs, ethnicities, races, both genders, etc. are united in their opposition to the one world religion that seeks world conquest, is responsible for about 99% of religious terrorist acts committed across the world and is deeply intolerant of other belief systems. (Until non-Muslims can go to Mecca and Medina in perfect freedom as Muslims can travel to any other religion's holy cities, until non-Muslims can safely preach their faiths in majority Muslim lands as Muslims can preach their religion in countries where Islam is not dominant, until non-Muslims can build their houses of worship in Muslim lands as Muslims build their mosques in non-Muslim nations, until one can leave Islam and join another religion without a threat of death hanging over such a person, I will never, ever accept the idea that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance and I will continue to denounce Islam for these uncivilized characteristics.) Yep, perhaps there's a strength in amiably recordiing our differences now and again to demonstrate just how united the non-Muslim world is that Islam will never take over the earth. Never.
"I never stopped to think that I couldn't do something because I was a woman, although I have done several things in the realm of men. I just went ahead and did it. And nothing Gloria Steinem ever did had anything to do with it".
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at December 17, 2007 1:49 PM
Agree. It's the soul. It's desire. Desire. Desire.
The Christian Heretic: I believe in freedom through and through. What made America great above all is freedom. Why, did you ever think that conservatives don't believe in freedom? Believing what you want and expressing it, without necessarily acting upon said belief, is the very essence of freedom----and conservatism. It's not conservatives who have enacted speech codes and established the thought police on college campuses across America and Canada. It's not conservatives who have subscribed to political correctness and multiculturalism. All these are entirely the product of modern liberalism. Methinks you may have succumbed to a very common mistake made by liberals and that is the inability to distinguish between conservatives and reactionaries. Methinks you may be more conservative than you realize.
P.S. Though your wife considers herself a feminist, I'm sure she's a very lovely person, as is my wife, feisty and ruggedly independent as she is, though she would never describe herself as a feminist. Go figure, eh? Again, my best to you and yours and let us concentrate on the real fight, which is preventing Mo's creed from ever making any real headway in North America and sundry other places on this planet. Merry Christmas and all that too.
Wellington & Frank,
Thanks for your kind words.
I have a double reason for not allowing Islam into the gates so it can slaughter us all. As a Catholic I am only too aware of what it would do to my kids' and grandkids' (when I get some, some day) lives and souls and what they will lose if they are forced to worship Satan and not Jesus Christ, King of Kings. Since I know there is another life besides this one, beyond this one, I know that what I do here and how I do it will affect the outcome. To live under Islam would be the ultimate act of cowardice for me, because I know that by my acquiescence I would be condoning it for my kids. But truthfully, how would I live without Jesus? I could not, so it would be better to die than live under Islam. But I have just enough spit in me to say, B.S., you'll have to take me out first because I'm not going down without a fight.
Mostly I think it would be the ultimate act of stupidity to let such a backward, hateful and unbelievably ignorant political system to dominate us. My concern is that we are so lost in our political correctness that we can't see the forest for the trees. When I see what some of the young people post for comments on You Tube I think that we must have lost our collective minds. These comments are as hateful, ugly, demeaning and full of malice and spite as the love letters Robert and Hugh get from the Muslim Dr. Dimentos of the world. Are we on the same footing as these sleazy little perverts? Dear God help us,if this is what we've come to.
Wellington, you said earlier:
"Oh, by the way, though a conservative, I'm an agnostic, a skeptic through and through. If you think being liberal and against gun control and other traditional liberal positions is lonely sometimes, you should see things through my eyes."
You don't have to be a Christian for me to love you. I like your posts; they are always thought provoking. But a friend sent me something via e-mail today and after I read your post I thought of you. Here it is and I hope it won't bother you. It makes me cry when I think of all the things Jesus did to help people and how he did things that no one else did, before or since. It blows my mind that He did everything that's talked about in the song. Enjoy, or delete. But you are one of my heroes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN70R-3ao0U
And Frank, so as not to forget you, I love your Fibrahim Hooper concoction. That makes me laugh every time I read it. (Giggle) Thanks for thinking of it. : )
Isabellathecrusader: Thanks for your comments and the youtube link. Notice I referred to myself as an agnostic, not an atheist. It's foolish to deny God exists, not even logical, but it is defensible to say one doesn't know one way or the other about a deity's existence. Of course, one can use faith to get to some Ultimate Power or Fate or what Thomas Aquinas called Id Quod Est, but that's the religious approach. I don't have faith and so God for me is a philosophical matter, an interesting philosophical problem. If such an entity does exist, hope it doesn't mind my ignorance in this regard and thinking quite highly of David Hume's assessments.
On a related matter, I would just like to say that Christians (and religous Jews) will find no better ally than me among skeptics. I greatly appreciate the enormous emphasis that Judaism and Christianity have placed upon the dignity and worth of the individual. It's not a coincidence that democracy has flourished most in a Judeo-Christian setting. No religions prize the individual more than do the two I just mentioned. No system of government extols the worth of an individual more than does democracy. Democracy can work without Judaism and Christianity; Japan is an example here and one should not forget that democracy was invented by the ancient Greeks long before Christianity existed and completely independently of the ancient Jewish world. Nonetheless, the Judeo-Christian world and democracy are made for each other I would contend.
But, of course, Islam is another problem. Big time. It is, as another skeptic, Bertrand Russell, maintained the better part of a century ago, the only major religion that is totalitarian in structure. The Islamic requirement that Sharia eventually replace all constitutions and legal systems across the earth is enough to make me dislike the religion, never mind all the other rot one can find in it. You know, there's two groups of people I won't cast a vote for, even at the lowest level of government office. The first are those who are militantly against religion. I have no time for these people. It's one thing to be privately skeptical, it's entirley another to be hostile to religion per se. Ben Franklin wasn't a very religious guy himself but that didn't stop him from observing that if man is bad with religion, imagine what he'd be without it. The second group of people I will never vote for are those who adhere to some totatlitarian idoleology. That's why no Marxist, neo-Nazi or Muslim will ever get my support when running for any office.
Well, take care, Merry Chistmas and good luck on the grandkid front. Enjoy your posts as always. So long for now.
Wellington,
I find you respectful and gracious, and thank you for being receptive to the idea that Christianity is a good thing. It's so nice to have a fellow jihad watcher who comes here and tells the truth, even when others use this forum to complain about their perceived gripes, real or imagined, against my church. Thanks for being honest. I'm glad to have you on the team.
And thanks for the well wishes about the grandkids. I'm not in any hurry though. Honestly, I'm way to young to be a grandmother. (Mentally, that is. :)