(More)(Source) It won’t, not unless men get their act together, have their power taken from them and behave themselves. I mean, I would actually put them all in some kind of camp where they can all drive around in quad bikes, or bicycles, or white vans. I would give them a choice of vehicles to drive around with, give them no porn, they wouldn’t be able to fight – we would have wardens, of course! Women who want to see their sons or male loved ones would be able to go and visit, or take them out like a library book, and then bring them back.
I hope heterosexuality doesn’t survive, actually. I would like to see a truce on heterosexuality. I would like an amnesty on heterosexuality until we have sorted ourselves out. Because under patriarchy it’s sh–.And I am sick of hearing from individual women that their men are all right. Those men have been shored up by the advantages of patriarchy and they are complacent, they are not stopping other men from being sh–.
I would love to see a women’s liberation that results in women turning away from men and saying: “when you come back as human beings, then we might look again.”
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Guardian Columnist Julie Bindel Says Put All Males ‘In Some Kind of Camp’
Why are white males implicated in mass killings?
The answer is one word: Prejudice.
![]() (Elliot Rodger was not against feminism. He was not a Men's Rights Activist, He killed four men and two women and wrote a manifesto that never had any problem with feminism at all) |
(The group most disproportionately represented on the Mother Jones chart is Americans of Asian descent. While only 6 percent of the population, they have been 15 percent of the 31-year period’s last 20 mass killers, 13 percent of the last 30, and 9 percent of the last 66. This is quite interesting, too, since Americans of Asian descent have a very low crime rate in general.) Of the last 20 mass killings of that period, 9 were perpetrated by non-whites.
That would be 45 percent, which exceeds non-whites’ 37 percent share of the population.
Of the last 30 mass killings, 11 were committed by non-whites — right at the 37 percent mark.
And what if we go all the way back to 1982? We then have 66 mass killings in which the races of the perpetrators were known, and 22 of them, or one-third, were at the hands of non-whites. Note here that America’s demographics have been changing, with non-whites comprising only about 20 percent of the population in 1982; thus, if we consider an approximate average non-white population of 28.5 percent during the 31-year period in question, it appears that, again, mass murderers are slightly disproportionately non-white.
In other words, there is no evidence whatsoever that mass killings are a characteristically white phenomenon.
Hierarchical differences: Female academics less likely to cross rank in collaboration, study finds
women were supposed to be the cooperative sex... like usual the feminists were either lying or just wrong
(h/t CHSommers)Women of different social or professional “ranks” within academic departments collaborate less than men do, according to a new Harvard study, suggesting that female full professors prefer to work on academic papers with other female full professors rather than assistant professors. When the pool was narrowed to women of the same rank, collaboration was equal to that of men.
(h/t CHSommers)Women of different social or professional “ranks” within academic departments collaborate less than men do, according to a new Harvard study, suggesting that female full professors prefer to work on academic papers with other female full professors rather than assistant professors. When the pool was narrowed to women of the same rank, collaboration was equal to that of men.
The study’s authors are Joyce Benenson, an associate of Harvard’s Human Evolutionary Biology Department and a professor of psychology at Emmanuel College; Richard Wrangham, the Ruth B. Moore Professor of Human Evolutionary Biology; and Henry Markovits, a professor of psychology at the University of Quebec at Montreal. The work was described in a paper published March 3 in Current Biology.
Benenson and Wrangham have been pursuing parallel lines of research over a number of years with both children and chimpanzees. Their studies demonstrate that males are more likely to interact in large groups consisting of various ranks, whereas females form one-on-one, exclusive relationships with equals. It seemed that the findings would translate into different forms of cooperation in actual organizations, but the idea had never been tested because of the difficulty involved in establishing objective measures of cooperation.
“The question we wanted to examine was: Do men or women cooperate differently with members of their own sex?” Wrangham said. “The conventional wisdom is that women cooperate more easily, but when you look at how armies or sports teams function, there is evidence that men are better at cooperating in some ways.”
Benenson and Wrangham settled on co-authored academic papers as an objective measure of cooperation, and began by identifying 50 institutions from across the United States and Canada with at least two male and female full professors and two male and female assistant professors in their psychology departments. Researchers then identified all articles written by senior faculty from 2008 to 2012, and recorded how often within the same department senior faculty worked with other senior faculty of the same sex, and how often senior faculty worked with junior faculty of the same sex.
While the research focused on the world of higher education, lead author Benenson said she first became interested in differences between how men and women cooperate during her work with children.
“When I studied young children, I noticed that boys were typically interacting in groups, and girls tended to focus on one-on-one relationships,” said Benenson, who discusses these findings in her new book, “Warriors and Worriers.”
“There is even evidence that these differences exist in 6-month-olds — but you can see it with the naked eye by about 5 or 6 years old, where boys form these large, loose groups, and girls tend to pair off into more intense, close friendships.”
What makes the differences particularly provocative, Benenson said, is that chimpanzees organize their relationships in nearly identical ways.
“Chimpanzee males usually have another individual they’re very close with, and they may constantly battle for dominance, but they also have a larger, loose group of allies,” Benenson said. “When it comes to defeating other groups, everybody bands together. I would argue that females don’t have that biological inclination, and they don’t have the practice.”
That’s not to suggest women are inherently flawed when it comes to cooperation.
In fact, Benenson said, women are often thought of as being more egalitarian than men. “But there’s a flip side no one thinks about, which is: What happens when they’re with someone who isn’t the same rank?”
While the study offers evidence that women, in some situations, may not collaborate as often as men, Wrangham made it a point to emphasize the host of unanswered questions behind those differences.
“There is cross-cultural evidence for this phenomenon, you see it in early development, and in one of our closest relatives,” said Wrangham. “That pushes us into thinking that there is a strong biological influence here, but we would never suggest this is impervious to environmental and cultural influences as well.
“Nevertheless these are the kinds of fascinating questions about fundamental sex differences in social relationships that would be tremendously important to recognize if you want to change the way in which women’s access to higher ranks happens,” he added. “What we need to know, now that we have recognized these patterns, is what can we do to ameliorate them?”
Lesbianism is the “highest state of feminism” says Dustin Hoffman Lookalike contest winner
(Roses are red, Violets are blue. The heteronormative patriarchy Is raping you.)[University of California-Santa Cruz Women's Studies] Professor Bettina Aptheker is the daughter of a famous American Communist, the late Herbert Aptheker . . . Professor Bettina Aptheker is by her own proud admission both a Communist and a self-described “lesbian activist.” . . . Aptheker’scourse syllabus describes lesbianism as the “highest state of feminism” . . . In other words, change in sexual orientation is an inevitable final stage in the development of the socially conscious individual. Allison Jaggar is professor of philosophy and a former chair of the Women’s Studies Department at the University of Colorado, Boulder . . . Integrating Marxism and feminist theory, Jaggar describes herself as a “socialist feminist” and “activist,” who seeks to combat “the male-dominant structure of everyday life.” . . . “The political economy of socialist feminism,” writes Jaggar, “establishes that, in contemporary society, women suffer a special form of exploitation and expression. . . . The distinctive social experience of women generates insights that are incompatible with men’s interpretations of reality . . . The validity of these insights . . . must be tested in political struggle . . .”(h/t Hot Furry Pussy) |
Feminists blame your penis for the NSA
![]() |
The problem with feminist criticism is that it never takes into account the libidinal nature of women. This #feminist piece written by a paranoid takes its cues from the "Gaze" criticism of the 90s.
The Male Gazed Surveillance, Power, and Gender By Kate Losse
This "Even outside the engineering floor or the NSA office, gender norms make the position of surveiller more available to men than women-- a man who doesn't post is cool and privacy-savvy; a woman who doesn't post much is considered weird and antisocial. While women smile and perform for social networks, men can use social networks in a proto-surveillant mode, avoiding the gaze that follows women so intensely online. Women have always been the subject of the gaze that demands we reveal ourselves or risk the appearance of hiding something - perhaps our deviation from patriarchal beauty norms (in sexist culture, a crime of sorts)."
This "Even outside the engineering floor or the NSA office, gender norms make the position of surveiller more available to men than women-- a man who doesn't post is cool and privacy-savvy; a woman who doesn't post much is considered weird and antisocial. While women smile and perform for social networks, men can use social networks in a proto-surveillant mode, avoiding the gaze that follows women so intensely online. Women have always been the subject of the gaze that demands we reveal ourselves or risk the appearance of hiding something - perhaps our deviation from patriarchal beauty norms (in sexist culture, a crime of sorts)."
Transgender change rooms working as planned: He was naked, had an erection. Save the #Pretendbians
|
|
Compare this ogling transgender man's disrespectful behaviour that was arguably illegal with the lesbian radical Brennan who created an anti-transgender blog called “Pretendbians,”
Brennan, a former member of the Boards of the Gay and Lesbian Community Center of Baltimore, said she has been a gay activist since 1995 but says transgendered women are male and should not have access to "female spaces."
Sweden's conflictual relationship with issues of tolerance
|
|
Explaining the ban on the baroque breasts, a source from the parliament said: "You have to think of the foreign guests, especially those from Muslim countries."
The deputy speaker of Sweden's parliament, Susanne Eberstein, also a prominent Social Democrat, added:
"I think it is more a feminist issue. It's tiresome (looking at) a bare-breasted woman when I sit at public dinners with foreign guests. I think it feels a little hard to sit there with men who look at us women."
Robin Thicke named sexist of the year 2013
Feminists feeling threatened again
All that grinding with topless ladies, twerking with Miley Cyrus and sleazy smiling has earnt US singer Robin Thicke a shiny new accolade – that of ‘sexist of the year’. |
The “Blurred Lines” chart-topper received the title from the End Violence Against Women Coalition after the lyrics to his worldwide number one were deemed ‘rapey’ by some critics.
LOL @ The Rapey Culture
Thicke tried his best to defend lines such as “I know you want it” and “I’ll give you something big enough to tear your a** in two”, but few could dispute that his choice of language came dangerously close to promoting non-consensual sex.
But I’m a "happily married" man, pleaded Thicke to deaf ears, after telling men’s magazine GQ that it was a “pleasure to degrade a woman” in his video as he had “never gotten to do that before”.
More than 60 member groups of the coalition voted in the ‘sexist of the year’ poll, which saw Prime Minister David Cameron come second – the same slot he landed in last year.
The organisers are sending Thicke a download voucher for Aretha Franklin’s “R.E.S.P.E.C.T” as a prize in a not-so-subtle attempt to transform his slippery reputation.
Thicke’s controversial video and sexist lyrics led to last summer’s “Blurred Lines” being banned in more than 20 universities up and down the UK, with students’ unions acting in an effort to “end rape culture and lad banter on campus”.
The End Violence Against Women Coalition’s Sarah Green extended her “heartfelt congratulations” to a “worthy winner”.
While attacking the pop star’s “concerted sexist efforts”, Green acknowledged that Thicke’s “Blurred Lines” video had in fact served to fuel a campaign against the objectification of women to “promote mediocre pop”.
“Sexism might be de rigeur for some music industry ‘creatives’ but the times they are a changin’,” she told ITV.The benefits of Internet porn
|
|
This link between an increase in web porn and a decrease in rape was first noted in 2006 by Clemson economist Todd Kendall. Kendall’s study, which was supported by the National Bureau of Economic Research, concluded that “Internet access appears to be a substitute for rape; in particular, the results suggest that a 10 percentage point increase in Internet access is associated with a decline in reported rape victimization of around 7.3 percent.”
Recent statistics indicate that Kendall’s research was no fluke. In fact, as Internet access — as well as the amount of cheap or free online porn — has further increased, incidences of rape and sexual assault have continued to plummet.
According to the National Crime Victimization survey, an annual report published by the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, the rape/sexual assault rate fell from 5 per 1,000 American women over age 12 in 1995 to 1.8 per 1,000 in 2011.
“Over the past two decades, as pornography has become much more easily accessible over the Internet, the rate of rape and sexual assault has declined by about 60 percent,” according to Ronald Bailey, a science correspondent at Reason magazine.
Even one 2009 Texas A&M study that began with an assumption that easy access to porn led to more rapes found that the opposite was true. The study’s authors admitted that “the increasing availability of pornography appears to be associated with a decline in rape.”
While crime rates are on the decline for all types of offenses, “it’s only rape (and sexual assault) that appears to be pegged to online connectivity,” Bailey reports.
Besides reducing the horrendous crimes of rape and sexual assault, online porn also appears to reduce several societal ills, as well. Over the last dozen years, since Internet pornography use first became widespread in the U.S., rates of divorce and teen pregnancy have also fallen.
Read more:
So I guess that book they pushed at Carnegie Mellon University by Susan Wendell was bullshit. It is a shame the school treated men so poorly based on the fraudulent data of a feminist
Recent statistics indicate that Kendall’s research was no fluke. In fact, as Internet access — as well as the amount of cheap or free online porn — has further increased, incidences of rape and sexual assault have continued to plummet.
According to the National Crime Victimization survey, an annual report published by the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, the rape/sexual assault rate fell from 5 per 1,000 American women over age 12 in 1995 to 1.8 per 1,000 in 2011.
“Over the past two decades, as pornography has become much more easily accessible over the Internet, the rate of rape and sexual assault has declined by about 60 percent,” according to Ronald Bailey, a science correspondent at Reason magazine.
Even one 2009 Texas A&M study that began with an assumption that easy access to porn led to more rapes found that the opposite was true. The study’s authors admitted that “the increasing availability of pornography appears to be associated with a decline in rape.”
While crime rates are on the decline for all types of offenses, “it’s only rape (and sexual assault) that appears to be pegged to online connectivity,” Bailey reports.
Besides reducing the horrendous crimes of rape and sexual assault, online porn also appears to reduce several societal ills, as well. Over the last dozen years, since Internet pornography use first became widespread in the U.S., rates of divorce and teen pregnancy have also fallen.
Read more:
Daniel Pipes assumes #feminism is deceit in Western society that can be used in Islam. So the assumption for not taking things as they are is to deny its core ideology
#Feminist propoganda feel good story: Woman dressed as giant #vagina stops street attack on giant penis
Eugenics was the handmaiden of the Progressive era
| They resent this country and resent the people who demand their own way rather than allow the "experts" and the ruling class dominion. So they want to import an alien people to reduce the stubbornness and independence that have traditionally characterized Americans. And it makes so much of the liberal agenda understandable: abortion, contraception, feminism, gay marriage, euthanasia, managed health care with death panels. All are aimed at reducing the number of old-time Americans. Reducing our usable land through government takeover helps, as do reductions in America's energy usage via "green" energy schemes. This agenda goes back to Paul Ehrlich and before him to Margaret Sanger and the eugenicists, and ultimately to Thomas Malthus. But a large part of why they are doing it is to breed Americans for submissiveness. (Eugenics was the handmaiden of the Progressive era.) |
Unlimited Power for the Chicken Littles of the game... the sky is not falling!
‘Color Purple’ Author’s New Virulently Anti-Semitic Book Draws Criticism
#Feminism: Importing Islamic Nightmares — While Denying Them in #Norway
(Fjordman) A report prepared by groups in the various Nordic countries has proposed instituting a legal ban on anti-Feminist “hatred,” comparing this to “racism.” Representing the left-wing coalition government in Norway, Ahmad Ghanizadeh from the Socialist Left Party (SV), the State Secretary in the Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion, was positive towards the proposal, and promised that the government would look into it.
My initial thought upon hearing this is that Leftism is now officially a religion, and that its proponents desire a “blasphemy statute” to ban any serious discussion of left-wing doctrines and their consequences as “hate speech.”
Writer and fellow online dissident Takuan Seiyo commented that not even George Orwell could have come up with anything that tops this scenario. Yes, there is a serious proposal afoot in Norway to ban “anti-Feminist hatred”. Yes, the ministry really has the Orwellian name of Ministry of Children, Equality and Social Inclusion. And yes, this State Secretary in Norway really is called Ahmad Ghanizadeh, originally from Iran.
In 2013, Norway’s Minister of Culture is Hadia Tajik, whose Muslim family came from Pakistan. One must assume that Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg of the Labour Party appointed her partly to remind the native population that they no longer have a culture, only “Multiculture,” but mainly in order to appeal to the Muslim and other Third World immigrant voters whose support his left-wing coalition depends upon in order to stay in power.
PM Stoltenberg in his prestigious New Year’s Speech for 2013 promised that his government would seek to ban “hateful utterances” on the Internet. The year before, Stoltenberg used his New Year’s Speech, always broadcasted on prime-time national TV and watched by a large proportion of his countrymen, to launch a frontal attack on alleged “totalitarian seducers” who use the Internet to spread unfounded “hatred.”
I was shortly afterwards contacted by the journalist Ragnhild Sleire Øyen from the state broadcaster NRK, the local equivalent of the BBC, who considered it obvious that the Prime Minister was referring to me personally. I’m sure many other citizens got the same message, and that may well have been intentional.
The PM didn’t mention any names explicitly, but then he didn’t have to, since so many others had done that dirty job for him. His right-hand man in Labour, Party Secretary Raymond Johansen, has singled me out for public attack by name several times, both before and after the Prime Minister gave this speech, as one of the individuals spreading irrational “hate” against Islam and therefore holding me partly responsible for the mental climate that allegedly created Anders Behring Breivik. I wasn’t the only name on that short list, but I usually topped it.
Norway is a small country, but I still find it unhealthy that a sitting political head of state uses his most prestigious annual speech addressing the nation to launch a thinly veiled attack on individual citizens who have done nothing criminal. An analogy for Americans would be if the President of the United States used his State of the Union speech to launch a thinly veiled attack on writers who use the Internet to publish ideas he dislikes, for instance the conservative author Michelle Malkin, or Glenn Reynolds with his major blog Instapundit. Even Obama hasn’t gone that far, at least not yet. The Social Democratic Prime Minister of Norway has.
Who gets to define “hate,” and do negative feelings always come out of nowhere? What if public anger, assuming it exists, actually has a cause that needs to be addressed? For example, being displaced in one’s own country by often hostile tribes? Should we simply ban any real discussions of this problem instead of dealing with the actual cause of public frustration? If so, what will be the long-term results of such a policy?
Elisabeth Skarsbø Moen is the debate editor and a regular columnist in VG, one of Norway’s two largest newspapers, and the largest one with a truly national readership. She writes in positive terms about Feminism, while at the same time championing the continued mass immigration of people from cultures that are extremely hostile to women. Like most other Western Feminists of her ilk, she sees no contradiction in this.
In October 2012, Skarsbø Moen wrote a deeply emotional column in VG entitled “Our children”, where she lamented that her society sometimes makes a distinction between “our” children and “other” children, that is, people born in other countries. She chastised her own country for not treating all children born anywhere on the entire planet as equally ours. The occasion concerned two young male Muslim asylum seekers from Afghanistan.
I don’t know these specific individuals, but it’s a fact that quite a few of the young asylum seekers who come to Europe from Afghanistan are actually young adults who lie about their age; so they are in fact neither children, nor are they “ours.” Skarsbø Moen thereby managed to tell two blatant falsehoods in just two words.
It also must be mentioned that these “children” usually bring with them an Islamic culture that is often violent and usually extremely hostile to women’s liberties. Yet this self-appointed Feminist does not seem to care much about that, or worry about the future consequences of allowing such a culture gain a foothold in her own country. Skarsbø Moen’s column was pure emotional pornography about how cruel and evil we are for not allowing potentially violent and generally hostile Muslims into our countries.
Neighboring Sweden has in little more than three decades metamorphosed from a safe country into being flooded by street crime and having one of the world’s highest recorded rape rates. Young blond girls in Stockholm suburbs are getting used to being called “whores” on a daily basis, and sometimes dye their hair in an attempt to avoid sexual harassment in the streets of what once was their own country.
Coincidentally, this transformation all took place at the same time as the largest wave of mass immigration in recorded history, much of it from brutal and repressive male-dominated cultures. Yet most of the left-wing or Marxist Feminist activists and journalists in Scandinavia strenuously deny that there is any connection between these two phenomena, and will aggressively attack as “racists” those who dare to suggest that the mass immigration they support has caused any of this.
In December 2011 a Swedish mother-of-two was subjected to a brutal gang-rape by perhaps a dozen young male asylum seekers from Afghanistan in a refugee camp in Mariannelund, Sweden — although only seven of them were convicted for this gruesome crime. Swedish newspapers such as Aftonbladet systematically conceal the ethnic identity of the perpetrators in cases involving immigrants, though, and only show photos featuring white criminals.
Reports stated that “The rape was oral, anal and vaginal sometimes with three rapists inside her at the same time while everybody was cheering and clapping. The gruesome rape marathon lasted for 7 hours. 11 suspects may have been involved, taking turns while drinking and getting high on drugs. The asylum seekers were cheering and clapping their hands during the rape marathon while calling the victim ‘whore’ and ‘slut’.”
The Swedish victim went into shock and has naturally become heavily traumatized. She is now subject to panic attacks and lives in a psychiatric clinic. She is also bound to a wheelchair due to the damage to her abdomen. The main perpetrator – Rafi Bahaduri, 25 – had already committed four other rapes in Sweden that we know of.
Despite this, Elina Gustafsson, a local member of the Swedish Social Democratic Youth League (SSU) who defines herself as a “proud Feminist,” thought it would be “racist” to expel these convicted Muslim criminals.
I’m reminded of another left-wing politician from Sweden. The Marxist Feminist Gudrun Schyman, then the leader of the “reformed” Communist party, in a speech in 2002 suggested that Swedish men are just like the Taliban. Fredrik Virtanen, a male columnist for the national newspaper Aftonbladet, immediately agreed with her that yes, Western men are just like the brutal Taliban regime and other Muslims from Afghanistan.
The young woman from Mariannelund, Sweden who just had her life ruined might disagree with this claim. Even native-born psychopaths rarely behave in this manner, yet such a treatment of women is unfortunately not rare in the most repressive parts of the Islamic world, whose primitive tribal cultures Western authorities insist on mass-importing to our cities.
Gang rapes and certain other types of violent crime were exceedingly rare in the Nordic countries a few decades ago, but are currently in the process of becoming routine. In Trondheim, Norway, on the 28th of May 2011, a young girl named Eva Helgetun took her own life. She was just 14 years old, and had been gang-raped by immigrants a few weeks before. Too many others share her fate.
In the 1960s when the so-called Second Wave of Feminism began, often with strong Marxist inspirations, Western women were relatively safe compared to women in other parts of the world. Half a century later, Western women have never had more Feminism, yet they and their children have also never been less safe.
Perhaps pointing out this fact constitutes “hate” in the eyes of some people, but that doesn’t make it any less true.
The problems caused by Third World mass immigration will not go away if we ban people from speaking truthfully about them. How hard can it be for members of the ruling elites to grasp this simple fact?
#Females on #Gaza aid convoy sexually assaulted in #Libya | #Feminism
It doesn't just happen in Gaza and Egypt. Three female Leftists riding a Gaza aid convoy have been sexually assaulted in Libya....just waiting to hear from Western feminists claiming that all men are like this
[Quoting from al-Guardian]:Three women who were part of an aid convoy passing through Libya on the way to Gaza have been sexually assaulted in Benghazi, after a group of five British nationals were briefly kidnapped.The three women, two of whom are sisters, were part of a large aid convoy travelling to the Gaza Strip. It is thought that they were part of a group of five people who were briefly kidnapped near Benghazi in the early hours of Tuesday and they were released some hours later. The group is currently safe in the Turkish consul in Benghazi and is expected to return to the UK.
Libyan security officials said the attacks happened in the early hours of Tuesday morning. Abdul Barghathi, commander of preventative security in the Libyan defence ministry, said the women had been sexually assaulted, but not raped. "There was no rape, just touching (sexual assault)," he said. "Because there is no British consulate here they were handed to the Turkish consulate." The three women are not badly wounded and are being attended to by consular staff from the UK, he added.The women were part of a large convoy taking vehicles and aid to the Gaza Strip on a journey that had taken them through France, Spain, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and then Libya. It had intended to cross the border with Egypt but was prevented from doing so by Egyptian authorities. The 10-vehicle convoy is still stuck at the border but the five British nationals returned to Benghazi in eastern Libya late on Monday night in order to return home.I wonder whether these do-gooders will try to make their way back to Gaza again, or maybe this will finally be a wake-up call about the 'respect' that Arab Muslims give women.
US to put 'our friends the Saudis' on trusted traveler list | #SaudiArabia #Islam #Muslims #Obama #feminism
I'm not even angry anymore. I just can't convince myself that our next government will be as hostile to American values as this one. I was wrong before. The American people were this hostile to what was good for all of us. Then again our last administration was stupid in its attempt to nation build a middle eastern country when we should of bombed the country and killed their president and left. Our goals and objectives were feminist and the end result is we convinced ourselves that women were victims. Some are... some are not... just like everyone else.
Social engineering is what leads us to think there is nothing wrong with the most misogynist countries in the world. If we see ourselves in these cave men then we can't determine if this monstrous culture is different from our very own. If you can't come to the realization that feminism is the problem here then you need glasses. Again... let me rephrase this. We don't nation build. We don't listen to feminists. We kill our enemies for our NATIONAL interest and make no apologies for having our own interests. Allies like Israel are the only way to go... and Israel needs to get its act together and stop the ball breaking as well. Women are not victims. Women have been in power in western civilization. Queen Elizabeth, Victoria, Margaret Thatcher are not second rate historical figures of weakness. It is time to wake up. We insult our women when we tell them that they got the short end of the stick. Women oriented cultures predated Islam in Arabia itself. They weren't necessarily a good thing and it is one of the reasons the Arabs were so reactive to matriarchal power. If we can not end feminism, we will never defeat Islam. These monsters of Arabia are not equivalent to us. We have treated our women well. We have a tradition in the West of loving women.(Carl) You might recall some of the stories that came out after 9/11 about how easy it was to get a visa to the US from Saudi Arabia, the country that was the birthplace of 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers. The US is about to make the same mistake again. The Obama administration is about to put 'our friends the Saudis' on the trusted traveler program, the program that does not require a visa for entry into the United States. This is Michelle Malkin:
According to a new report released this week by the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT), President Obama’s Department of Homeland Security plans to bestow “trusted traveler” status to travelers from Saudi Arabia. Yes, the home of 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers will soon enjoy the exclusive privilege of new entry shortcuts into the U.S.Fox News points out: “Only an exclusive handful of countries enjoy inclusion in the Global Entry program: Canada, Mexico, South Korea and the Netherlands. According to the IPT, some officials are questioning why Saudi Arabia gets to reap the benefits of the program, when key U.S. allies like Germany and France are not enrolled.”Saudi suck-up Janet Napolitano, head of the Department of Homeland Security, hailed “the bond between the United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia” and pledged to work with the government to facilitate “legitimate trade and travel.”This foolish move is astonishing but not unprecedented. As I noted in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration had created its own fast-pass system for Saudi elites called “Visa Express.” Thanks to this GOP idiocy, three of the 9/11 hijackers skipped the usual consular interview process and bypassed long lines in the hot Saudi sun.Throughout the jihadist-coddling Saudi kingdom, applicants could simply file their visa paperwork through travel agencies and courier companies for a small fee — without having to appear in person or submit to extensive background checks. The U.S. embassy in Riyadh bragged before 9/11: “Applicants will no longer have to take time off from work, no longer have to wait in long lines under the hot sun and in crowded waiting rooms, and no longer be limited by any time constraints.”What could go wrong?
Read the whole thing.
#Feminism: Michelle Obama to Give Award to Anti-Semite Samira Ibrahim who said, “Today is the anniversary of 9/11. May every year come with America burning”

Obama won the election. He can do what he wants now.
(MANY FACES) Michelle Obama to Give Award to Anti-Semite Samira Ibrahim who said, “Today is the anniversary of 9/11. May every year come with America burning”HT: AnsweringMuslims.
The State Department just issued a press release stating that Secretary of State John Kerry and First Lady Michelle Obama will be honoring Samira Ibrahim with an "International Women of Courage Award." Interestingly, Samira is a Hitler-quoting anti-Semite who says she wants to see America burn.The Weekly Standard--On Friday March 8, Michelle Obama will join John Kerry at a special ceremony at the State Department to present ten women the Secretary of State’s International Women of Courage Award. The award, says the press release, is given to “women around the globe who have shown exceptional courage and leadership in advocating for women’s rights and empowerment, often at great personal risk.”
Five of these awards are being given to women from Muslim-majority countries, underscoring the unique plight of women in those countries. The only problem is that one of the women to be recognized is an anti-Semite and supports the 9/11 attacks on the United States.
Samira Ibrahim, as the State Department’s profile describes her, “was among seven women subjected by the Egyptian military to forced virginity tests in March 2011.” The press release further notes that Samira “was arrested while in high school for writing a paper that criticized Arab leaders’ insincere support to the Palestinian cause.” Apparently, the State Department is unaware of her other convictions.
On Twitter, Ibrahim is quite blunt regarding her views. On July 18 of last year, after five Israeli tourists and a Bulgarian bus driver were killed a suicide bombing attack, Ibrahim jubilantly tweeted: “An explosion on a bus carrying Israelis in Burgas airport in Bulgaria on the Black Sea. Today is a very sweet day with a lot of very sweet news.”
Ibrahim frequently uses Twitter to air her anti-Semitic views. Last August 4, commenting on demonstrations in Saudi Arabia, she described the ruling Al Saud family as “dirtier than the Jews.” Seventeen days later she tweeted in reference to Adolf Hitler: “I have discovered with the passage of days, that no act contrary to morality, no crime against society, takes place, except with the Jews having a hand in it. Hitler.”
Ibrahim holds other repellent views as well. As a mob was attacking the United States embassy in Cairo on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, pulling down the American flag and raising the flag of Al Qaeda, Ibrahim wrote on twitter: “Today is the anniversary of 9/11. May every year come with America burning.” Possibly fearing the consequences of her tweet, she deleted it a couple of hours later, but not before a screen shot was saved by an Egyptian activist.
Just today, apparently after having warned that her vicious tweets might cause her trouble during her visit to the U.S., she has written on twitter: “My account has been previously stolen and any tweet on racism and hatred is not me.” However, in the past she never made any mention of her account being “stolen.” The record of her anti-Semitic tweets is still available online.
The decision to honor Ibrahim reflects poorly on the State Department, which is either incapable of doing the minimum amount of research required to find out who she is, or does not care that the secretary of state and First Lady are about to honor an anti-Semite who longs for violence against Americans. It’s understandable that now with Islamists having come to the fore after all the hope that the Egyptian uprising inspired, American policymakers are looking for the good guys, real liberal activists that deserve U.S. support. Samira Ibrahim is not one of them. Hmmm........"I will stand with my Muslim Brothers"?Read the full story here, more here.
Purim's Beauty Myth
What did you think of the question posed at the bottom of the article?
(Forward By Johnna Kaplan)Esther saved the Jewish people because, so they say, she was smart and brave. When she learned of the genocidal plot of Haman, the vizier to her husband, King Ahasueres of Persia, she revealed that she was a Jew and pleaded for her people to be spared.
Esther’s daring act of approaching the king, confessing her nationality, and requesting the Jews be saved from certain death underpins the story of Purim. But as relatable as the holiday’s heroine is meant to be, few of us would get the opportunity to act as she did. Ahasuerus had chosen Esther above all of the other girls in his harem; to put it plainly, she was able to save the Jewish people because she was the hottest woman in the room.
But the story of Purim isn’t the only reason I’ve been thinking about Jewish women, beauty and the pressure to look a certain way.
First, I read this Jewcy piece by Emily Shire (who also writes for the Sisterhood) about how Jewish girls and women have a particular preoccupation with thinness. I had never thought of the issue that way, possibly because, unlike Shire, I grew up in a town where Jews, though hardly invisible, were not the majority. In my experience, (natural) beauty and (effortless) skinniness were expected of all girls equally, as were good grades, athleticism and flawless hair.
My mom was similarly unsure about the premise, though when I read her a sentence about Jewish women being especially devoted to the diet beverage Tab, she said excitedly, “Ooh! I remember Tab!” I tried to recall whether, in my youth, Jewish girls I knew cared more about being thin than the others. I wasn’t sure.
But now, as an adult, I think perhaps we do. The other day a friend mentioned that an acquaintance, a Jewish-Hispanic woman, had “married a white dude; her kids look totally white.” I cynically said, essentially, “good for her, because Jewish guys don’t want us anyway unless we’re size zero.” My friend replied, “Exactly,” and added that the Jewish men she knew preferred “Asian girls with big boobs — another white elephant.” It’s important to clarify that my friend is a) long-married and b) neither Jewish nor Asian. Jewish women are now expected to be thinner (read: prettier) than the competition, to the point where even outside observers notice it.
While pondering this rather depressing state of affairs, I noticed Purim on my calendar, preceded by the minor fast day of Ta’anit Esther. Esther fasted for three days before approaching Ahasuerus. How many pounds, I wondered, could one lose doing that? Because if I was requesting a stay of execution for my entire community based on my attractiveness, I’d want to look as good (read: thin) as possible when doing it.
Esther is not the only Biblical woman who relied on her looks to help defeat enemies of the Jews. Judith got close enough to decapitate Holofernes because he desired her, and though it isn’t explicitly stated, it’s hard for me to believe Yael lured Sisera into her tent simply by promising him a drink. Of course, plenty of other ancient women might have had the guts to wield tent pegs against their foes; we only hear about the ones who got the opportunity.
These days, hopefully, it’s different, but for much of history a Jewish woman could only change the world by being noticed. Even today, you don’t get plucked from obscurity for your personality. The idea that looks can bring salvation runs through the Jewish female experience. If you can catch the eye of the King or even flirt with the Nazi officer, maybe you’ll change his mind. Maybe you’ll live.
I suppose every little tribe under ancient Persian rule had their would-be Esther, who hoped the king would repay her presence in his harem by lending support to her cause. But not all cultures would approve of such things. So I wonder if the celebration of women who do good by means of their beauty is particularly Jewish. I wonder if some relic of it hangs on to this day, and is expressed in the pressure to be prettier, to be thinner, to be the one who might get noticed and save us after all.
I find the "Forward" disturbing more times than not, but what struck me as odd is that the article did realize that a females sexiness is a trait that is encouraged by Judaism in a way that a man's sexiness is not... this I agree with... but I found it odd that the Forward somehow seems to think this character is unique to Judaism or at the very least is something unusual. I can't think of any culture that does not share this character. It was almost like the writer reached a conclusion she didn't like and then concluded that Jews like beautuiful women because we are inferior and then concluded that other cultures are not like this... which is a very odd conclusion. Is this the source of the Forwards progressive readers self hate and Anti-Semitism? Do feminist Jews really believe that gender traits are something that is made by Jewish law and not something that occurs naturally? I find it hard to refute the idea that feminism is in fact self hatred. I am very glad this liberal self hater allowed us a window into her warped soul.
Esther’s daring act of approaching the king, confessing her nationality, and requesting the Jews be saved from certain death underpins the story of Purim. But as relatable as the holiday’s heroine is meant to be, few of us would get the opportunity to act as she did. Ahasuerus had chosen Esther above all of the other girls in his harem; to put it plainly, she was able to save the Jewish people because she was the hottest woman in the room.
But the story of Purim isn’t the only reason I’ve been thinking about Jewish women, beauty and the pressure to look a certain way.
First, I read this Jewcy piece by Emily Shire (who also writes for the Sisterhood) about how Jewish girls and women have a particular preoccupation with thinness. I had never thought of the issue that way, possibly because, unlike Shire, I grew up in a town where Jews, though hardly invisible, were not the majority. In my experience, (natural) beauty and (effortless) skinniness were expected of all girls equally, as were good grades, athleticism and flawless hair.
My mom was similarly unsure about the premise, though when I read her a sentence about Jewish women being especially devoted to the diet beverage Tab, she said excitedly, “Ooh! I remember Tab!” I tried to recall whether, in my youth, Jewish girls I knew cared more about being thin than the others. I wasn’t sure.
But now, as an adult, I think perhaps we do. The other day a friend mentioned that an acquaintance, a Jewish-Hispanic woman, had “married a white dude; her kids look totally white.” I cynically said, essentially, “good for her, because Jewish guys don’t want us anyway unless we’re size zero.” My friend replied, “Exactly,” and added that the Jewish men she knew preferred “Asian girls with big boobs — another white elephant.” It’s important to clarify that my friend is a) long-married and b) neither Jewish nor Asian. Jewish women are now expected to be thinner (read: prettier) than the competition, to the point where even outside observers notice it.
While pondering this rather depressing state of affairs, I noticed Purim on my calendar, preceded by the minor fast day of Ta’anit Esther. Esther fasted for three days before approaching Ahasuerus. How many pounds, I wondered, could one lose doing that? Because if I was requesting a stay of execution for my entire community based on my attractiveness, I’d want to look as good (read: thin) as possible when doing it.
Esther is not the only Biblical woman who relied on her looks to help defeat enemies of the Jews. Judith got close enough to decapitate Holofernes because he desired her, and though it isn’t explicitly stated, it’s hard for me to believe Yael lured Sisera into her tent simply by promising him a drink. Of course, plenty of other ancient women might have had the guts to wield tent pegs against their foes; we only hear about the ones who got the opportunity.
These days, hopefully, it’s different, but for much of history a Jewish woman could only change the world by being noticed. Even today, you don’t get plucked from obscurity for your personality. The idea that looks can bring salvation runs through the Jewish female experience. If you can catch the eye of the King or even flirt with the Nazi officer, maybe you’ll change his mind. Maybe you’ll live.
I suppose every little tribe under ancient Persian rule had their would-be Esther, who hoped the king would repay her presence in his harem by lending support to her cause. But not all cultures would approve of such things. So I wonder if the celebration of women who do good by means of their beauty is particularly Jewish. I wonder if some relic of it hangs on to this day, and is expressed in the pressure to be prettier, to be thinner, to be the one who might get noticed and save us after all.
“Sex under the burqa” #NaomiWolf to join #AlJazeera
Politico
Wolf, a “radical feminist”, Al Goracle, a hysterical global warming shyster, and Qatar’s jihad propaganda TV in bed with al Qaeda? You ain’t seen nothing yet!
Wolf has written columns for Al Jazeera and the extreme left Guardian in the past.
Her hypocrisy is breathtaking:
“As an American who cares about civil liberties, it’s good for all of us that the Guardian and Al Jazeera are doing the work they’re doing,” she said. “It is good for civil society in America.”Here a sample of Naomi’s brainfarts:
- “Behind the veil lies a thriving Muslim sexuality”
- A tip to put her out of business: offer her vagina-shaped pasta known as “cuntini”, which gives her writer’s block for at least six months…..
Naomi Wolf, the author and activist, is in early-stage talks with the global news network Al Jazeera, POLITICO has learned.
Wolf, who currently writes a column for The Guardian, confirmed the news late Thursday night but stressed that the talks were in the earliest stages and that no job offer was on the table.
“It’s extremely informal and very, very preliminary,” she told POLITICO.
Wolf is in a non-exclusive employment with the Guardian and has written columns for Al Jazeera and other news outlets in the past. She and The Guardian recently agreed that she would scale back her column duties — from weekly to monthly — due to her thesis obligations at Oxford, where she is a graduate student. (The Huffington Post reported earlier today that she would be ending her weekly column duties, but did not specify the terms of the new arrangement.)
“Naomi will be a contributor to the Guardian, and write as her other commitments allow,” a Guardian spokesperson told POLITICO.
A spokesman with Al Jazeera did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding the talks, which is understandable given the late hour.
Al Jazeera, a Qatari-owned news network, bought Current TV from Al Gore earlier this yearin an effort to expand its reach in the American market. Al Jazeera plans to announce the launch of an American-based network, called Al Jazeera America, later this year and has set about on a hiring spree to bulk up American-based staff. Wolf would be its first high-profile hire.
In addition to her columns, Wolf is an author of books including “The Beautiful Myth,” a best-seller that established her as a spokeswoman for third-wave feminism, and “Vagina: A New Biography,” published in 2012.
Wolf described her relationship with The Guardian in glowing terms: “It’s wonderful,” she said. “I love The Guardian and Al Jazeera English. I think they’re both doing some of the best journalism out there. It’s notable and kind of sad that non-U.S. based news sites are able to run pieces of mine that don’t as easily find a home in American publications.”
“As an American who cares about civil liberties, it’s good for all of us that the Guardian and Al Jazeera are doing the work they’re doing,” she said. “It is good for civil society in America.”
This post has been updated.
via sheikyermami.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)













