Islamic Totalitarianism

Do we have the right to label others as ‘feminists’?

ArgusEyes — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 02:20:25 GMT

This is part 2 of a continuing the discussion with a feminist who wrote me a while ago.

Well. I do agree with some of that, but I think we have different definitions of what feminism actually is, and that's the main thing causing the conflict of ideas. See, to you, feminism is a movement, but to me. It’s more like an ideology; it’s just the IDEAS that women deserve legal and social equality to men. Which would make anyone who believes that (again, including you) a feminist.

In my last reply I reproduced the dictionary definition. I insinuated then, but will confirm now, that I agree with items one and two from that definition which state that feminism is both an ideology/belief system and a movement. In fact, if you think about it, no movement can proceed without a belief system underlying it. The point is that I don’t think that very simple mission statement that you mention of ‘women achieving social equality’ covers it.

The fact of the matter is that feminism is not a simple definitional category think about the definition “the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.” What is meant by social? What realms of politics are considered worthy of feminist consideration? What measure of equality? The whole range of ambiguities in this one sentence alone can lead to many different factions of feminism. Conservative feminism, socialist feminism, anarchist feminism, yada yada yada. You know all this I’m sure. The point I’m making is that the vagueness of the definition, leading to the complexity of the field of feminism, means that stating that a ‘person who believes these things’ is a feminist is a silly statement since there is no standard definition on what is being believed. My ideas of removing quotas and affirmative action would lead most feminists to proclaim me ‘anti-woman’ on the spot.

Also, I forgot to mention a killer reply in my last email, but do you know I made a video entitled ‘I love ‘I Love ifeminists!’? I don’t know if I said it there, but I have stated that I wouldn’t mind if someone called me an ifeminist. I hope that example emphasises that I am not simplistic on this matter and when a feminist movement adopts individualist positions on those topics of social equality and political equality that I mentioned earlier, that I will be happy to adopt it as a label. I do think it is a bad idea to label other people if they do not want to be labelled. A famous evolutionary biologist like Kenneth Miller believes in a creator God, but if you labelled him a ‘Creationist’ then it would create some nasty connotations as much as one might say that he was deserving of the term. It is up to each man and woman to decide whether he or she is a feminist, it is not for others to apply the term by fiat unto others.

And if you think of it like that, you can get a better analogue to where radical feminists fit in here: if feminism is an ideology, you can compare it to another ideology: Islam. Almost all feminists are the equivalent of normal Muslims, people who have certain ideas about the world, human nature, morality etc. and stick to them, respecting them, but not going out of their way to bend everyone around them to their way of thinking. Some will have trouble getting along with people whose views are antithetical to their own, but it won’t be too serious, and they don’t really have a defined goal (not anymore, in the case of feminists) thanks to their feminism or Islam faith, they don’t really have an intended destination, it’s just a philosophy that helps define how they see the world.

Some, like me, are the imams, so to speak, trying to make others a little less opposed to us and trying to teach others about it

Radical feminists, on the other hand, are our equivalent of Al-Qaeda. They’re the ones with a defined goal, who think that any ideology other than their own must be ground under their heel. almost all of them are crazy, they follow a very extreme and hugely warped version of the original ideas, they are (sadly) usually the first thing a non-member thinks of when someone mentions "Islam" or "feminism", and their actions are doing far more harm to the people they think they represent than good.

The radical Islamists are still Muslims, and the radical imams are still imams. This idea, though not explicitly stated, that they get ousted from Islam because of their reprehensible views is the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy. Like it or not, the fundamentalists take a different reading of scripture and a different approach to how they should act, but they are not less Muslims. And no, they are not crazy.

And even though the radicals make up about ten percent of Muslims worldwide, that ten percent are the ones who cause a lot of problems. The fact that they’re radical means that the meaning of their life is the activism of promoting their vision of Islam, whereas the moderate Muslims are more concerned with getting on with their lives, jobs and families. The standard question I ask feminists who pose questions like you have, is to ask what feminist organisations they head? Which university courses they teach? Perhaps you could answer these questions as well. The answer is always that they do not do these things because like the moderate Muslims, they are not devoted to activism. In this sense, the moderates are largely irrelevant to our consideration of feminism, since they are not the ones making the impact on policy and leading the movement.

Two pieties

ArgusEyes — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 22:22:09 GMT

I am currently reading Theodore Dalrymple’s book ‘Our Culture, What's Left of it: The Mandarins and the Masses’. This section near the end was powerful for me.

In fact the situation of Muslim girls in my city is even worse than Juliet’s. Every Muslim girl in my city has heard of the killing of such as she back in Pakistan, on refusal to marry her first cousin, betrothed to her by her father, all unknown to her, in the earliest years of her childhood. The girl is killed because she has impugned family honour by breaking her father’s word, and any half-hearted official inquiry into the death by the Pakistani authorities is easily and cheaply bought off. And even if she is not killed, she is expelled from the household—O sweet my mother, cast me not away!—and regarded by her ‘community’ as virtually a prostitute, fair game for any man who wants her.

This pattern of betrothal causes suffering as intense as any I know of. It has terrible consequences. One father prevented his daughter, highly intelligent and ambitious to be a journalist, from attending school, precisely to ensure her lack of Westernisation and economic independence. He then took her, aged 16, to Pakistan for the traditional forced marriage (silence, or a lack of open objection, amounts to consent in these circumstances, according to Islamic law) to a first cousin whom she disliked from the first and who forced his attentions on her. Granted a visa to come to Britain, as if the marriage were a bona fide one—the British authorities having turned a cowardly blind eye to the real nature of such marriages in order to avoid the charge of racial discrimination—he was violent toward her.

She had two children in quick succession, both of whom were so severely handicapped that they would be bedridden for the rest of their short lives and would require nursing 24 hours a day. (For fear of giving offence, the press almost never alludes to the extremely high rate of genetic illnesses among the offspring of consanguineous marriages.) Her husband, deciding that the blame for the illnesses was entirely hers, and not wishing to devote himself to looking after such useless creatures, left her, divorcing her after Islamic custom. Her family ostracised her, having concluded that a woman whose husband had left her must have been to blame and was the next thing to a whore. She threw herself off a cliff, but was saved by a ledge.

I’ve heard a hundred variations of her emblematic story. Here, for once, are instances of unadulterated female victimhood, yet the silence of the feminists is deafening. Where two pieties—feminism and multiculturalism—come into conflict, the only way of preserving both is an indecent silence.

NYT: For Afghan Wives, a Desperate, Fiery Way Out

ArgusEyes — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 11:44:31 GMT

It is shameful here to admit to troubles at home, and mental illness often goes undiagnosed or untreated. Ms. Zada, the hospital staff said, probably suffered from depression. The choices for Afghan women are extraordinarily restricted: Their family is their fate. There is little chance for education, little choice about whom a woman marries, no choice at all about her role in her own house. Her primary job is to serve her husband’s family. Outside that world, she is an outcast.

"If you run away from home, you may be raped or put in jail and then sent home and then what will happen to you?" asked Rachel Reid, a researcher for Human Rights Watch who tracks violence against women.

Returned runaways are often shot or stabbed in honor killings because the families fear they have spent time unchaperoned with a man. Women and girls are still stoned to death. Those who burn themselves but survive are often relegated to grinding Cinderella existences while their husbands marry other, untainted women.

"Violence in the lives of Afghanistan’s women comes from everywhere: from her father or brother, from her husband, from her father-in-law, from her mother-in-law and sister-in-law," said Dr. Shafiqa Eanin, a plastic surgeon at the burn hospital, which usually has at least 10 female self-immolation cases at any one time.

The most sinister burn cases are actually homicides masquerading as suicides, said doctors, nurses and human rights workers.

"We have two women here right now who were burned by their mothers-in-law and husbands," said Dr. Arif Jalali, the hospital’s senior surgeon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/08/world/asia/08burn.html?_r=3&hp=&pagewanted=all

This is Iran: Iranian Woman Sentenced To Stoning After Being Lashed

ArgusEyes — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 01:29:56 GMT

This is Iran:

Amnesty said she received flogging of 99 lashes as per her sentence but was subsequently accused of "adultery while being married" in September 2006 during the trial of a man accused of murdering her husband.

Mostafai said his client knew the man who "killed her husband and because she was at home when the murder took place, she was accused as accomplice."

"But after her kids pardoned her in the case of murder, she now stands accused of adultery with that man."

Mostafai added that such cases involving women in Iran arise due to difficulties in getting divorces with husbands despite "having troubled marriages."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hsH_Nwq_L045KhDsWEhGeDExJ6_A

This is the UN:

Iran Wins Membership to the U.N Commission on the Status of Women

Women arrested and imprisoned for having suntans? Check. Women stoned to death for adultery? Check. Random persecution, detainment, violent arrest, and imprisonment of women's rights activists and mourning mothers? Check. Women blamed for causing earthquakes? Check. Use of makeup illegal because it makes women dishonorable? Check!

Sounds like the Islamic Republic of Iran is all set for membership to the U.N Commission on the Status of Women! Welcome, Iran, and thank you for helping to set the bar for the status of women around the world. It's exhilarating that the U.N and its member states have so clearly sent the message that women belong under the control of authoritarian governments, under the cover of dress codes and the watch of morality police, and in prison or the grave if they don't obey their male controllers.

http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/iran_wins_membership_to_the_un_commission_on_the_status_of_women

This is stoning:

Stoning is typically a punishment for adultery, although it can also be use for cases of incest and other sexual or “moral” crimes. Typically, a stoning victim is first wrapped in cloth and buried up to the waist for men, or up to the chest for females. Then the crowd is to throw stones at the victim. However, it is very important that, “… no stone should be thrown that should kill with the first or second blow, or so small as a pebble to do no injury to the condemned.” (Hulagu's Web, 64) Stoning is a unique form of punishment in that there is no single executioner. The simplistic act of gathering the victim’s peers around him creates killers out of everyone.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Fact-to-Fiction:-The-Brutal-Truth-about-the-Practice-of-Stoning&id=11574

Any questions?

I get email: 'Real Injustices'???

ArgusEyes — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 11:26:36 GMT

Okay, for some reason I could not post this in the comment section even when breaking it down into little pieces. If you can, please do in the name of free speech:-)

Feministing.com could spend their time on more important things.

But your argument seems to be that one is a coward if one does not address the biggest and most challenging problem of ones cause first. If I was to follow this line of reasoning I too could say that YOU are a coward for taking on Feministing.com as an easy target in this respect surely there are bound to be more pressing issues out there for a stern liberal conservative than a feminist video blog, or?

Feministing.com often relies on very trivial information (which is why it is not exactly respected for its academic inquiry in feminist circles), but it DOES serve the purpose of making known the day-to-day women’s issues that we otherwise don’t hear about in the media. If you are really for women’s rights then lets appreciate Feminsiting.com for what it is.

While I’m at it, why is it that you blame Feministing.com for NOT dealing with bigger women’s issues while those of us who DO devote our time to fighting the evils of for example prostitution or pornography (under which millions of women are suffering world wide) still have to suffer your stigma of ignorance?

I might as well tell YOU that being against Islam because it is oppressing to women while simultaneously being against the work of radical feminists, who spend their lives fighting for women’s rights in different battlefields is a hypocritical self-contradictory load of crap. However, I am not going to.

It is as if you believe that the Islamic world is the only world in which oppression of women is taking place? Freest does not necessarily mean free and thus saying that the western world is the freest society for women in the world does not make inequality in the western world magically disappear.

Remember: Your cause to secularise the Islamic world (I’m on your side there!) is not the ONLY topic related to women’s issues out there. And since you have not experienced what inequality really is, being a white middle class male living in a western society, I would be very cautious using the phrase real injustices.

I am almost inclined to not answer this email as it ascribes imbecility to me, but since I have far better things to do I might as well give it a shot. First of all, your email makes many claims as to what I believe that are out and out lies since I did not make these points, you made them up and then assigned them to me, in many ways this is worst than a lie. Consider this a tip on how to write decently. Address the points of your opponents only, bunch of strawman logical fallacies does not a good argument make.

But your argument seems to be that one is a coward if one does not address the biggest and most challenging problem of ones cause first.

This is an accurate summary of my position. As pertaining to Feministing. However, I would not treat this as a rule to be applied to all people who meet the criteria. There are a few extra things about Feministing that makes me call them cowards. They censor opposing view, they are obtuse and fling obscenities at their opponents, they seem to deal only with trivial crap and they pretty much symbolise the modern feminist sandy vagina method of complaining about nothing legitimate. Given all this, I have no doubts about calling them cowards.

If I was to follow this line of reasoning I too could say that YOU are a coward for taking on Feministing.com as an easy target in this respect surely there are bound to be more pressing issues out there for a stern liberal conservative than a feminist video blog, or?

Only if I don’t take on any larger issues. I do. Also there is a marked difference between an individual person passing comments on youtube as compared to an organisation with the goal of (supposedly) helping women. Given this your comparison of my situation to Feministing’s doesn’t hold up. People can focus on trivialities, we cannot go at 120mph all day, but if triviality is all you do, then I look down on that. This is why I have a certain disdain for people who read trash magazines all the time and never pick up anything better.

Feministing.com often relies on very trivial information (which is why it is not exactly respected for its academic inquiry in feminist circles), but it DOES serve the purpose of making known the day-to-day women’s issues that we otherwise don’t hear about in the media. If you are really for women’s rights then lets appreciate Feminsiting.com for what it is.

We hear a lot about women in the media, if the superficial crap that Feministing peddles doesn’t appear then there is a reason for it. Perhaps you could elaborate on what these issues actually are? Anyway, I content that a lot of silly commentary like Feministing’s does appear out there all over the place.

While I’m at it, why is it that you blame Feministing.com for NOT dealing with bigger women’s issues while those of us who DO devote our time to fighting the evils of for example prostitution or pornography (under which millions of women are suffering world wide) still have to suffer your stigma of ignorance?

I cannot address reams of points of view in one video, that would make it long and unwatchable. The remit of the video was to make a point against Feministing so let it stand for what it attempts to do. I’ll make other videos on other days about some of what you said there.

Also to brand things such as pornography evil is an arrogant presumption that will not be left standing here. A man stamping on his daughter’s neck because of his religion and bigotry is inherently evil and thus I label it as such. Whereas a woman in a free society making her own decisions as to what to do with her own body and choosing to be filmed having sex and making quite a bit of money doing so.. Is not being oppressed. And to label a situation such as this “evil” is to display your real contempt for women’s choices. I, like many other MRA’s don’t want to “turn back the clock” and remove women’s rights like you apparently want to do.

I might as well tell YOU that being against Islam because it is oppressing to women while simultaneously being against the work of radical feminists, who spend their lives fighting for women’s rights in different battlefields is a hypocritical self-contradictory load of crap. However, I am not going to.

That was clever. Ooh, but I cannot complain because you didn’t tell me this apparently. I might as well tell you that you are a presumptuous unwise dishonest fool who has bought a pack of lies.. But I’m not going to. (beat that)

It is as if you believe that the Islamic world is the only world in which oppression of women is taking place? Freest does not necessarily mean free and thus saying that the western world is the freest society for women in the world does not make inequality in the western world magically disappear.

This is what I mean by ascribing imbecility to me. To believe this I would have to be an idiot, and I didn’t say this but you assume I am an idiot because I hold different beliefs to you. This is a character flaw of collectivists and you need to get it sorted.

Remember: Your cause to secularise the Islamic world (I’m on your side there!) is not the ONLY topic related to women’s issues out there. And since you have not experienced what inequality really is, being a white middle class male living in a western society, I would be very cautious using the phrase real injustices.

I wouldn’t say that I have such a cause, but more importantly your statement that “you have not experienced what inequality really is” is the most presumptuous thing you have said so far, you know nothing about me and whilst I have suffered no serious oppressions, men are certainly more oppressed than women in modern western societies. You need to watch my video “men are more oppressed than women” for this proof.

Sincerely,
Mark

If you’re going to protest then don’t misspell your sign

ArgusEyes — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 01:49:38 GMT

Don't you love that other guy grabbing the sign.. He's like, "Dude, get that shit out of here before someone takes a picture of it". Whoops.

Get real "Isreal". You too will soon be "exstinct".

Whatever that is.

Animals

ArgusEyes — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 01:32:48 GMT

We are still primitive apes.

More clarification on Israel and Hamas

ArgusEyes — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:10:55 GMT

I have found some more good articles on the issues between Israel and Hamas, there are two articles by Alan M. Dershowitz. The first is entitled “Israel, Hamas, and moral idiocy”:

The firing of rockets at civilians from densely populated civilian areas is the newest tactic in the war between terrorists who love death and democracies that love life. The terrorists have learned how to exploit the morality of democracies against those who do not want to kill civilians, even enemy civilians.

The attacks on Israeli citizens have little to do with what Israel does or does not do. They have everything to do with an ideology that despises – and openly seeks to destroy – the Jewish state. Consider that rocket attacks increased substantially after Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2005, and they accelerated further after Hamas seized control last year.

The second is entitled “Israel's Policy Is Perfectly 'Proportionate'”:

In a recent incident related to me by the former head of the Israeli air force, Israeli intelligence learned that a family's house in Gaza was being used to manufacture rockets. The Israeli military gave the residents 30 minutes to leave. Instead, the owner called Hamas, which sent mothers carrying babies to the house.

Hamas knew that Israel would never fire at a home with civilians in it. They also knew that if Israeli authorities did not learn there were civilians in the house and fired on it, Hamas would win a public relations victory by displaying the dead. Israel held its fire. The Hamas rockets that were protected by the human shields were then used against Israeli civilians.

These despicable tactics -- targeting Israeli civilians while hiding behind Palestinian civilians -- can only work against moral democracies that care deeply about minimizing civilian casualties. They never work against amoral nations such as Russia, whose military has few inhibitions against killing civilians among whom enemy combatants are hiding.

Clarifying the difference between Israel and Gaza

ArgusEyes — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:24:46 GMT

If you don’t read Charles Krauthammer’s articles by now, then what’s been keeping you? His latest piece is entitled “Moral Clarity in Gaza” and brings to light just what the differences between Hamas and Israel are. See this post for just how civilised Hamas is. It begins:

Some geopolitical conflicts are morally complicated. The Israel-Gaza war is not. It possesses a moral clarity not only rare but excruciating.

Israel is so scrupulous about civilian life that, risking the element of surprise, it contacts enemy noncombatants in advance to warn them of approaching danger. Hamas, which started this conflict with unrelenting rocket and mortar attacks on unarmed Israelis -- 6,464 launched from Gaza in the past three years -- deliberately places its weapons in and near the homes of its own people.

This has two purposes. First, counting on the moral scrupulousness of Israel, Hamas figures civilian proximity might help protect at least part of its arsenal. Second, knowing that Israelis have new precision weapons that may allow them to attack nonetheless, Hamas hopes that inevitable collateral damage -- or, if it is really fortunate, an errant Israeli bomb -- will kill large numbers of its own people for which, of course, the world will blame Israel.

See the rest.

A very Jihad Christmas to you too!

ArgusEyes — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 23:13:29 GMT

Via little green footballs, this article by Caroline Glick states, quote:

Both Iran and its Hamas proxy in Gaza have been busy this Christmas week showing Christendom just what they think of it. But no one seems to have noticed.

On Tuesday, Hamas legislators marked the Christmas season by passing a Shari'a criminal code for the Palestinian Authority. Among other things, it legalizes crucifixion.

Hamas's endorsement of nailing enemies of Islam to crosses came at the same time it renewed its jihad. Here, too, Hamas wanted to make sure that Christians didn't feel neglected as its fighters launched missiles at Jewish day care centers and schools. So on Wednesday, Hamas lobbed a mortar shell at the Erez crossing point into Israel just as a group of Gazan Christians were standing on line waiting to travel to Bethlehem for Christmas.

While Hamas joyously renewed its jihad against Jews and Christians, its overlords in Iran also basked in jihadist triumphalism. The source of Teheran's sense of ascendancy this week was Britain's Channel 4 network's decision to request that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad give a special Christmas Day address to the British people. Ahmadinejad's speech was supposed to be a response to Queen Elizabeth II's traditional Christmas Day address to her subjects. That is, Channel 4 presented his message as a reasonable counterpoint to the Christmas greetings of the head of the Church of England.

Channel 4 justified its move by proclaiming that it was providing a public service. As a spokesman told The Jerusalem Post, "We're offering [Ahmadinejad] the chance to speak for himself, which people in the West don't often get the chance to see."

it legalizes crucifixion.

In the U.K. we have had marches by Muslims complaining against Israel’s actions, apparently they should just lay down when missiles are launched at them. I have heard before, when questioned about their lack of marches against Islamic terror, that the Muslims are not a group given to having marches and complaining, this is clearly a lie and they have overtaken almost all of Europe to be comfortable enough to do this. Countries like the U.K. have lost the sense of identity to know what it stands for so that poisonous intransigent ghetto communities can take us over, this is the most pertinent problem to the day and it will only get worse.

“May you live in interesting times” seems to be more of a curse at the moment.

Also, turn to the “big picture” blog for great images, they have a section on the recent attacks.

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/12/israel_and_gaza.html

Your daily dose of Islamic evil: Stoning victim 'begged for mercy'

ArgusEyes — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 10:27:16 GMT

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7708169.stm

"Don't kill me, don't kill me," she said, according to the man who wanted to remain anonymous. A few minutes later, more than 50 men threw stones.

Human rights group Amnesty International says the victim was a 13-year-old girl who had been raped.

More hate.

ArgusEyes — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:54:15 GMT

Why is this news?

ArgusEyes — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 19:47:08 GMT

Extremists face tougher UK entry

..It should be common sense.

A society keeping out destructive and hateful bigoted fanatics? If course that doesn't solve the problem of the ones who are already here and I fear it is a bit late but it is a needed step.

Think twice before you compare American Muslims to European ones

ArgusEyes — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 20:52:37 GMT

Important

ArgusEyes — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 21:06:31 GMT

Sacred cows make the best hamburger

ArgusEyes — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 17:16:52 GMT

Your daily dose of Islamic evil

ArgusEyes — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 13:43:19 GMT

Burying of women alive defended in Senate

Balochistan Senator Sardar Israrullah Zehri stunned the upper house on Friday when he defended the recent incident of burying alive three teenage girls and two women in his province, saying it was part of "our tribal custom." Senator Bibi Yasmin Shah of the PML-Q raised the issue citing a newspaper report that the girls, three of them aged between 16 and 18 years, had been buried alive a month ago for wishing to marry of their own will. The barbaric incident took place in a remote village of Jafarabad district and a PPP minister and some other influential people were reported to have been involved. The report accused the provincial government of trying to hush up the issue. Ms Shah said that the hapless girls and the women were first shot in the name of honour and then buried while they were alive. She also said that no criminal had been arrested so far.

Burying women alive. That's fucking horrific.

There is this pervasive attitude in the politically correct portions of the western world. That multiculturalism is beautiful and we need to accept the values of these cultures as if they were no better or worse than our own.

Sorry. But that’s bullshit. The values of the western world are infinitely superior to the barbaric 7th century values of the Islamic world and we don’t need to pretend otherwise. Decent Muslims are welcome but if your aim is to change the values of this country to match your hideous theocracies then expect some resistance from me.

Taliban Murder 2 Women

ArgusEyes — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:30:16 GMT

Islamic evil seems to be a popular topic in the AP today so here's another one.

AP Stringer Stands by as Taliban Murder 2 Women, Gets Snuff Footage

Shit like this almost makes me want to become a feminist

ArgusEyes — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 04:28:13 GMT

I kid.. We know that the feminists don't fight against the real evils against women. Which, seem time and time again to be Islam.