Archive for the ‘Feminism and Islam’ Category
Excellent article, however it would be nice for the Economist magazine to draw the obvious conclusion as to why middle-aged Icelandic hags are trying to ban an industry that reduces their own sexual market value, and also why they share that goal with Islamic nations that supposedly ‘oppress women’ (which leads to Western women converting to Islam at 4:1 ratio over Western men) :
ULTRA-LIBERAL Iceland wants to ban online pornography. It is just the latest step in its attempts to eliminate the sex industry entirely. In 2009 it introduced fines and jail terms for those who patronise prostitutes (whom it treats as victims). In 2010 it outlawed strip clubs. In February the government decided to take on the glut of smut online and floated the idea of banning violent or degrading pornography, which some Icelanders take to mean most of it. No country has yet wholly succeeded in controlling commercial sex, either through legalisation or criminalisation. But all over the world, particularly in rich democracies, policymakers are watching to see whether Iceland succeeds—and may follow in its footsteps if it does.
Iceland’s proposal is in its early stages and may lose momentum after an election on April 27th, which the government is expected to lose. But its plan puts it in some odd company. Saudi Arabia similarly bans strip clubs, prostitution and pornography. But it also stops women from driving, forbids them from travelling without a man’s permission and restricts their right to vote. In the World Economic Forum’s 2012 Global Gender Gap report, which compares progress in 135 countries towards sex equality, Saudi Arabia ranked 131st.
Iceland, however, is determinedly pro-women. Half the cabinet and 25 of the 63 members of Iceland’s parliament are female….
Shadow health minister Dianne Abbott has called for a purge of sexualised imagery from public spaces in the UK.
“I think it has reached a point where we need to detox our High Streets, and make Britain a family-friendly country again,” she told the Mumsnet website.
She also blamed a “disturbing” trend for online bullying of young women on a “crisis in masculinity”.
Ms Abbott, who came under fire over privately educating her teenage son, plans to make a speech on the issue.
“I think we need to clear our public spaces of worst elements of unrestrained markets – including addressing music videos that blare out at us, and our children.
“The online bullying including problems around ‘sexting’ and ‘slut-shaming’; the huge billboards that have very sexualised images of women that loom over our public spaces, and the sexualised figures of women in films that are now commonplace.
Notice how she blames bullying over slut shaming on ‘boys’, even though as I have pointed out here several times recently, 95% of slut shaming bullying that attractive teenage girls are subjected to is by other teenage girls. Actually that’s not quite correct. I shold say other teenage girls, and older jealous women such as Dianne Abbott clearly is, and who validate ‘slut shaming’ through the clever but transparent pretext of ‘protecting’ young girls from ‘potential’ slut shaming. In fact, the connection that hags like Dianne Abbot selfishly wish to draw between sexually liberal behaviour from young girls, and harmful consequences, does indeed encourage the very slut shaming that she pretends to be campaigning against.
“the sexualised figures of women in films that are now commonplace“… What the F*** is she talking about?! There wasn’t any sexualised figures of women 20 years ago? Or maybe she just didn’t
feel such internal jealous rage notice them back when she was younger and not quite as physically repulsive as she is now?
“The current issues facing boys,” commented one Mumsnet user, “are the result of constructions of masculinity and are not caused by feminism.”
Ms Abbott responded: “Absolutely. One reason I am anxious to make a big speech about men, boys and male identity is to nail the lie that feminism is somehow the cause of the problem.”
Uh oh. Can you smell some more Sexual Trade Union co-opting of the MRM in the works? I have a feeling TyphonBlue might be happy to interview her on this subject…
Angry Harry responds to objections to his previous article on the Islamification of the West :
In one of my recent pieces – Say Goodbye To Your Country – I stated that feminism was responsible for the catastrophically low birth rates in the indigenous populations of western countries – particularly those in Europe.
And I received a few emails suggesting that the low birth rates were mostly due to other factors rather than feminism – most notably stemming from the notion that the richer do people become, the less do they desire to have children.
However, I was, in fact, well aware when I wrote the piece that I was probably over-egging the case and that I would probably have to re-write parts of it upon further reflection.
And yet I find it almost impossible to believe that feminism has not caused a significant downturn on our birth rates.
After all, feminism has surely been one of the most influential ideologies on the western mind over the past three or four decades.
Furthermore, it is mostly concerned with inter-gender relationships, marriage, families, children and women in the workplace.
So how could it not have had a major influence on the declining birth rates?
Has it had no effect on them?
Well, o.k, the muslim version of a slut walk, i.e. without their usual burqas on (how else am I going to get hits now that InMalaFide is closing?). Still, it was too much flesh for Egyptian men to handle, as they allegedly beat and groped the women protestors.
A mob of hundreds of men have assaulted women holding a march demanding an end to sexual harassment, with the attackers overwhelming the male guardians and groping and molesting several of the female marchers in Cairo’s Tahrir Square.
From the ferocity of Friday’s assault, some of the victims said it appeared to have been an organised attempt to drive women out of demonstrations and trample on the pro-democracy protest movement.
The attack follows smaller scale assaults on women this week in Tahrir, the epicenter of the uprising that forced Hosni Mubarak to step down last year. Thousands have been gathering in the square this week in protests over a variety of issues — mainly over worries that presidential elections this month will secure the continued rule by elements of Mubarak’s regime backed by the ruling military.
I guess the message to Egyptian feminists is this – ‘don’t forget that Islam is a contract. A beta male is tied to your aging hide for life, or, if you’re lucky and very attractive, you get to share an alpha male Sheik with some other hotties. But in return, you’re not allowed to dress or behave like a slut. Nor are you allowed to demonise men and create a sexual abuse lobby that damages the family and society‘
Steve Moxon, author of the classic anti-feminist book ‘The Woman Racket‘, was dropped as a candidate for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) in this week’s local elections over comments he made on his blog previously regarding Anders Breivik. Whilst stressing how appalling and insupportable Breivik’s actions were, Moxon had noted that his manifesto presented an accurate account of the spread of political correctness in Europe. This was picked up by a local paper in the city that Moxon was standing in (Sheffield), forcing UKIP to drop him as a candidate – despite the vast majority of UKIP supporters no doubt sharing the same anti-PC views. UKIP – an ‘alternative right’ anti-EU party – gained 14% of the vote nationally in yesterday’s vote.
The very reason – the ‘justification’ for – why Breivik behaved in the appalling way in which he did was because of the completely closed-down debate about PC. That is abundantly clear from his ‘manifesto’. To head off the possibility of more Breiviks, this has to change.
The ‘guilt by association’ usual ruse was in full swing to close down debate yet further.
The standard line on Breivik is that he is ‘beyond the pale’, and therefore any analysis of PC is also ‘beyond the pale’.
It most certainly is not.
That someone who acknowledges the researched historical analysis of the origin of PC is a mass murderer in no way makes the research into the origin of PC a doctrine itself of mass murder. It is never the case that if A is in some way coincidental with B, and B is ‘beyond the pale’; that, therefore, A is likewise ‘beyond the pale’. That would be the most elementary non-logic.
Malicious nonsense of ‘guilt by association’ as it is applied to analysis of PC requires combating. If there is no free speech even on the topic of the most deep-seated, entrenched and widespread fascism ever to afflict societies — which PC indeed is — then there is no free speech at all.
Concerns about ‘sensitivity’ are just smokescreens to cover a PC-fascist stance. Evidently, even the deepest irony is opaque to the PC-fascist.
‘You’re not fit to be a journalist, let alone a political editor’, I admonished the hapless Marsden. “I don’t think you’re fit to be a candidate”, he retorted.
But that is my point! A PC-fascist does not accept that anyone who challenges the PC hegemony can be moral; and that therefore such a challenger is ineligible to stand in any election.
That PC is itself the height of immorality — seeking to label the disadvantaged as ‘oppressors’ and the privileged as the ‘oppressed’ – completely escapes PC-fascists. They feel obliged to stick rigidly to this self-delusion rather than to admit the failure of their whole ideology. But this vehement denial inevitably cannot long survive being comprehensively found out.
Explicit music videos made by stars such as Rihanna, Beyoncé and Madonna would be given 18 certificates and subject to greater restrictions to protect children, under plans being looked at by David Cameron.
The Telegraph prints an article on a subject I was alerted to and posted on recently : the bid by feminists in France to ban beauty pageants, child models, and ‘adult’ clothing for children (children being defined as under 18 or 16).
The French report suggests restricting beauty pageants to girls aged over 16 or 18, banning advertisers from dressing under age models in adult attire or using them as brand figureheads. It also advocates the return of uniforms in primary schools phased out in 1968 and considered a curious British anachronism by many.
Titled ‘Against hyper-sexualisation, a new fight for equality’, the report was triggered by international outrage over a French Vogue magazine cover featuring a heavily made-up 10-year-old model.
I’ve added a comment below the article – please add your own :
Whilst concerns over the sexualisation of 8 year olds might have some validity, we all know this is about feminists exploiting such concerns to artificially ‘de-sexualise’ teenage girls.
First you legally define children as anyone under 18 (when throughout history, adulthood began at puberty).
Then, when most people still associate ‘childhood’ with pre-pubescents, you create a hysteria over the ‘sexualisation of childhood’.
Finally, you legally ban 17 year olds from wearing thongs or mini-skirts as part of a legislative package supposedly to protect pre-teens, which no politician chasing the female vote (every politician in a modern democracy), the family values vote, and the muslim vote, dare challenge.
This way, 40 year old feminists (not to mention 40 year old male Islamists) don’t have to be wracked with pain everytime they walk down the street, having to pass girls at the peak of their beauty displaying their flawless skin.
This is how third wave feminism operates, increasingly in conjunction with the Islamisation of society. Feminists can’t honour kill their younger sexual rivals, but they do have the power and spurious moral authority to forcibly victimise 17 year old ‘children’.
In the same newspaper, and on a closely related Islamo-feminist slut shaming theme, a British girl has become the first white victim of honour killing by the muslim community :
Joan Bakwell used to be a ‘sex positive’ feminist back in the day – when she was young and mildly attractive (and earned the tag – ‘the thinking man’s crumpet’). Now a wizened old hag, she spends most of her time trying to justify becoming a fully paid up member of the sexual trade union, slut shaming British tweens at every opportunity.
So what is there to complain about? It is the availability – indeed, the marketing – of such raunchy videos to the young and impressionable that disturbs me. Something has shifted in our culture to bring sub-teens within the orbit of suggestive sexual activity. T-shirts with cheeky, even lewd slogans – jokes that only adults can understand – are designed and sold to the under-10s. Children can hunt on a multitude of television channels for something that looks vaguely adult and vaguely transgressive. Can it be good for them? I for one would not be prepared to take the risk.
Now, there’s nothing particularly wrong with arguing that under 10′s are exposed to too much sexual imagery. The problem with the ‘sexualisation of children’ debate is twofold. Firstly, the way feminists ignore the distinction between the sexualisation of pre-pubescent children and the ‘de-sexualisation’ of post-pubescent teenagers (which is what most feminists are really after). Secondly, the infringement of liberties and sexual freedoms that any measures to end the supposed sexualisation of children inevitably entail.
But what occurred to me whilst thinking about this today is that there seems to be something amiss here with the very notion that ‘children’ can be sexualised at all. At least, it appears to me, that it is inconsistent with the idea of ‘informed consent’ that lies behind feminist statutory rape laws. The reason why feminists hold that 15 or even 17 year old girls are unable to consent to sex is that they do not know what they are doing when they get into bed, at least with an older partner. They do not understand what sex is – they do not have ‘informed consent’, this mysterious thing that a 15 or a 17 year old girl doesn’t have, but an 18 year old or a 21 year old does. This thing that is so mysterious and esoteric, that it could not possibly be written down and taught to an underage child, in order to give them the capability of informed consent. And even if it could, presumably a child’s brain is either so innocent or immature, that they simply couldn’t understand this knowledge.
Yet the viewing of a raunchy MTV video can somehow turn an innocent child into a sexually experienced whore. A 10 year old girl who sees Lady Gaga opening her legs on screen will suddenly turn into an 18 year old slut walker, eight years too early. According to Joan Bakewell, a pre-teen who overhears a comedian telling a sexy joke will have her sexual innocence corrupted.
But doesn’t a child’s supposed lack of ‘informed consent’ regarding sexual matters mean that she simply can’t understand what the joke is about, or why it is that all the men are looking at Lady Gaga when she opens her legs or wears a skimpy outfit? If that’s the case, why the fuss over the ‘sexualisation of children’? If the feminist theory of ‘informed consent’ is correct, a ‘sexualised child’ is a contradiction. If little girls are dancing ‘sexily’ in their bedrooms across the land after watching Lady Gaga, they are merely imitating their favourite pop star like parrotts. But they don’t and can’t understand what they are doing, or what Lady Gaga is doing, because they are incapable of sexual knowledge. So what exactly are feminists worried about?