The Shotgun Blog
« On Aqsa Parvez | Main | Well, at least someone likes him... »
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Further thoughts on Aqsa Parvez
Yesterday, I was really hard on Christians in a post that was meant to draw attention to the fact that all religion is wrought with intolerance. But today, I'll leave the Christians alone, because there's actually a group of largely secular atheists that I want to pick on today: feminists.
Now, full disclosure: I'm married to feminist. I consider myself a feminist, and I've angered many social conservatives in the past by bringing feminist arguments to the forefront.
I do think sexism exists in our society, that it's systemic, and creates real barriers for women in society. But that's not what this article is about. It's not about feminism. It's about feminists. And not just feminists. But specifically the youthful, activist type. The feminist organizations. You know, the third-wave feminists who decided to take up the cause of anti-Islamophobia after 9/11 as one of the most pressing feminist issues. Yeah, them. Some who've actually helped organize and participated in, "Wear a Hijab Day". Seriously.
You can imagine that I've asked these atheist feminists how they could get involved so virulently with defending a sexist religious tradition like a Hijab, and the answer involves something about the "complex intersection of race, ethnicity and gender". Basically, post-modernist nonsense.
Some atheist feminists actually defer comment on matters such as the honour killing of Punjabi women and Muslim women, and instead say, that it's the responsibility of feminists "within those communities" to speak out. Once again, because of the "complex intersection" of race and gender. I'm being serious here. I'm not making this up.
The end result of this deafening silence from the feminist community, has resulted in it's shape taking on a form that largely upholds and re-enforces gender stereotypes outside of the European (white) communities.
Women's Centres at some universities are now dominated by Hijab-wearing women. Islam has become a new raison d'être for secular feminism. Because feminism isn't just about women any more. Rather it's about "all oppressions". With the oppression of greatest concern being that of Muslim women. Not by the sexist practices of their cultural import, but by the lack of acceptance for those practices, by those with liberal values.
How is it that feminists have become such walking contradictions? From burning bras, to defending a symbol of female oppression.
The frightening trend among secular, self-styled "progressives" in this regard has even been noted by outspoken atheists such as Richard Dawkins and the irrepressible Christopher Hitchens.
It is actually an area where conservatives such as Mark Steyn are on to something, hyperbolic as their statements may sometimes be. As secular "progressives" are at the forefront of tearing down the values of the Enlightenment. Even the Western value for science is under attack by these people, being dismissed as too "Occidental".
The attack on reason, science, and the embrace of medieval and mystical nonsense is not just limited to the Bible thumping Christians, or the Ayatollahs of Iran. No, it's a goal that many on the progressive left actually share. Especially among feminists. It's a troubling trend and one that cannot be ignored by those who value the power of reason, and more importantly, the value of liberty.
Posted by Mike Brock on June 17, 2010 | Permalink
Comments
The correct spelling is "Womyn's Centre".
http://www.uwsa.ca/womyns-centre/
http://umanitoba.ca/student/groups/womyns_centre/
http://womynscentre.ca/
http://www.cusaonline.com/womynscentre/
Etc...
Posted by: Anonymouse | 2010-06-17 1:11:40 PM
I always wondered why Muslim women are wearing head covers while they are in western countries. When Aqsa Parves was killed for not wearing the traditional Muslim head scarf, I got the answer. These women are wearing it because they are afraid their family will kill them if they don't wear the Muslim dresses. Will any courageous Muslim women will organize a " No Hijab Day for Muslims" at any university? We can see women covering from head to toe pushing strollers and going with men wearing western clothing in the malls. How come the men can wear western cloths while women cannot?
You have a good point to tell. Keep up the good work
Posted by: Bindu | 2010-06-17 1:36:24 PM
Mike
"How is it that feminists have become such walking contradictions? From burning bras, to defending a symbol of female oppression."
Because it's not really about womyn's rights at all but left-wing power. That should be obvious by now.
"I do think sexism exists in our society, that it's systemic, and creates real barriers for women in society."
Yes, and sexism exists in our society that creates real barriers and threats to the average male as well and some of the problems facing myn today are caused by this power grab of the left.
Divide and conquer.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2010-06-17 3:28:52 PM
Let me get this straight. Are you saying you're a lesbian?
Posted by: dp | 2010-06-17 4:02:18 PM
'Progressives', holding hands with Bible-thumpers, also gave us things like Alberta's Eugenics Law, Prohibition and the social workers' nanny-state bureaucratic empire. Then again, we got female sufferage from them, so I guess it's a wash.
If you want to see how nutty some of the 'progressive' apologists for Salafi Islam are, look here:
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/national-news/aqsa-parvez-iii
You might also want to give the resident 'moderator' and PC/'Islamophobia' constable a piece of your mind:
I suspect that there is more to this multiculti madness than lefty xenophilia. Look closely at who funds some of these groups, and you'll find businesses and unions (i.e., pension investment funds) benefitting from mass immigration.
Posted by: Adam | 2010-06-17 5:27:37 PM
more importantly, the value of liberty.
Posted by Mike Brock on June 17, 2010 | Permalink
On this we agree for sure. Liberty, in the end, is all that matters. I don't care what anyone believes so long as my values are not infringed.
I was also thinking about how cynical you seem to be about religion and it reminds me of how I feel about things like the school system and the economy. It is the intereference by the state that is, perhaps the real problem with these and maybe also religion. The unholy alliance between the state and special interest groups, business, or religion, is where the real danger is.
Posted by: TM | 2010-06-17 7:25:25 PM
I proudly declare myself an anti-feminist! I like women but I have no respect for those that throw around the feminist label! I grew up in a very liberal area where feminism or male wimpism reigned. Many of the women I grew up with blamed sexism for almost every problem they ever suffered(a view supported by many of the ex-hippie teachers we had). In college, they would drone on for ever about the poor plight of women. They were aided in this by wimpy men who lacked the courage(or thought that they would have a better chance of scoring) by just letting them ramble on. Yet, they seemed to not understand that everybody has a difficult time at some point in their lives! It's the people with real character who don't complain but fight their way through! Some women get treated like crap. That's true! Some men get treated like crap. That's true! Some people in every race or ethnicity get treated like crap! That's life! There are people who will make a judgement about me the moment they see me! Some will make a positive judgement. Others will make a negative judgement! Welcome to the real world! What does my whining or complaining about that accomplish? My answer is simple! If you like me great! If you hate me, then the feeling is mutual so go jump in the lake. I don't need to label myself a maleist to stand up for myself! I just do it! Feminism is one more ism that our institutions of higher learning use to divide society up into aggrieved groups. Womens Studies, Black Studies, Mens Studies, etc. who cares! If you want to study something then learn about the human experience. There is no black history or white history! There is only history! Crack open several books and educate yourself. Then, hold those professors that don't teach this accountable! If the goal of feminism to promote strong women then here is an idea, point out Margaret Thatcher! Like her or hate her,
Thatcher was a strong woman who didn't use feminist rantings to explain away her problems. Could this possibly be why Thatcher's party got the votes of more young men(the gender that traditionally leaned Labour) than women(the gender that traditionally leaned Conservative)? It took me many years to come out as an anti-feminist and to challenge the incessant complainers that I encounter at certain social events. My experience has been that life is far smoother when you stand your ground and engage in the argument!
Posted by: Buddy | 2010-06-17 7:47:45 PM
How is it that feminists have become such walking contradictions? From burning bras, to defending a symbol of female oppression.
Posted by Mike Brock on June 17, 2010 | Permalink
It may be something as simple as reverse psychology. If the MEN running this country make rules affecting what woman can wear, then it is up to these feminists to defend the right of the affected woman to wear this. Logic or deep thought not required.
All the good feminist causes seem to be taken and this one was still free.
Posted by: peterj | 2010-06-17 8:05:39 PM
peterj
"If the MEN running this country make rules affecting what woman can wear, then it is up to these feminists to defend the right of the affected woman to wear this. "
The MYN running this country are voted in by the WOMYN and are therefore subject to their whyms.
Check the numbers.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2010-06-17 8:13:39 PM
Actually, H20, the WOMYN are important swing voters—their allegiance tends to be more fickle than that of men—which is why their votes are competed for fiercely. It is one of democracy's more ghastly ironies that the voters who are most faithful to a given party are the least likely to be sought after and accommodated by that party, since they can always be depended on.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-06-17 8:27:04 PM
Shane,
So you are saying that womyn voters ultimately determine the outcome of elections and therefore get the laws passed reflecting their desires.
Hence, the reality is that the gender of our politicians/representative is of minimal significance because they cater to those to whom they owe their appointments.
Thank you for your patronage. Please come again.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2010-06-17 8:39:14 PM
Why doesn't the writer of this blog blame the Canadian government? Why is this man picking on feminists? I think that's lame!
The deeper issue here is, the Canadian government doesn't value the lives of women.
The misogyny and the anti woman hatred in this country is systemic.
Why are domestic violence shelters not receiving funding?
Why aren't there more services to reach women of colour that want to flee male violence?
Why isn't the Canadian government doing more to reach South Asian and Muslim women?
The reason western feminists don't get involved in South Asian or muslim issues is probably because they don't understand the complexity of the issues.
The intersection if race, class, gender, sexuality, are issues that need to be explored to understand the Aqsa Parvez tragedy.
Aqsa Parvez wasn't just murdered for wearing the hijab. The media haven't properly reported the story. The root cause of Aqsa's death was because she "violated" the family honour. The belief in South Asian cultures is the father is the patriarch and the rest of the family must obey. Also, I want to point out Aqsa's family wanted to set up an arranged marriage for her. Since Aqsa was disobeying her father this was viewed as looking bad in the Pakistani community.
Posted by: Orville | 2010-06-17 8:57:22 PM
Orville
"The deeper issue here is, the Canadian government doesn't value the lives of women.
The misogyny and the anti woman hatred in this country is systemic.
Why are domestic violence shelters not receiving funding?"
Good one. Your sarcasm hilites my point. Women's shelters do receive funding. Men...not so much.
Misandry is rampant while misogyny is frowned upon.
Here, I'll prove it to you. How long before someone shows up suggesting that men's shelters are unnecessary and women's programs are being attacked by conservatives.
Perhaps, Anonymouse can explain why women's health care is such a hot topic receiving oodles of money while men's health care barely gets a mention despite women living several years longer.
What would she say if it were blacks and whites?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2010-06-17 9:08:18 PM
Orville, I guess you see women hating a lot but I don't. Why would men or the government want to do this?
Posted by: TM | 2010-06-17 9:09:30 PM
The MYN running this country are voted in by the WOMYN and are therefore subject to their whyms.
Check the numbers.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2010-06-17 8:13:39 PM
I would agree with Shane that Womyn are swing voters but a relatively small number. The majority of voters, men and woman, will vote on bread and butter issues and most politicians feed their bullshit in that direction. I truly doubt if Harper was put into power by MYN or WOMYN and it is the mainstream that has kept him there.Most of the activists would be in Laytons camp and his numbers have not changed much.
Posted by: peterj | 2010-06-17 9:42:09 PM
peterj
" The majority of voters, men and woman, will vote on bread and butter issues and most politicians feed their bullshit in that direction."
So MYN do NOT run the country. The voters do.
I am so relieved. Have you notified anonymouse?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2010-06-17 9:46:08 PM
So MYN do NOT run the country. The voters do.
I am so relieved. Have you notified anonymouse?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2010-06-17 9:46:08 PM
Just one lonely opinion h2o. I'm sure there are many more.
Posted by: peterj | 2010-06-17 9:58:19 PM
Maybe it's the fault of the Jews. They seem to be blamed for everything.
Posted by: Agha Ali Arkhan | 2010-06-17 11:33:12 PM
Yes men are victims of domestic violence but statistics prove the vast majority of victims of domestic violence are women. When will Canada stand up and help women flee violent men? The hatred men have for women is very pervasive in Canadian society. This is a woman hating country, and more needs to be done to help women flee male violence. Violence against women is a very serious issue.
Posted by: Orville | 2010-06-18 6:00:20 AM
"This is a woman hating country"
These types of statements makes you very hard to take seriously Orville.
Are you implying that the majority of men hate women in this country? Or that the majority of men beat women?
Or are you implying that the individuals in this country hate women because there aren't enough women's shelters in Canada? Perhaps this is not an issue of hate, but of lack of funds? Canadians are overtaxed and have had their savings inflated away year after year since the 1930's.
You are obviously implying that funds should be coerced from Canadians to fund women's shelters. Is stealing any better Orville?
Posted by: Charles | 2010-06-18 7:23:27 AM
I mean ... if I were to take your argument to its logical conclusion, it would mean that since cancer research is underfunded, Canadians hate cancer victims.
Posted by: Charles | 2010-06-18 7:28:15 AM
Charles, good points.
Orville, I don't know a single man that hates women. In fact every man I know like them. A lot! And they woudl give their lives to protect those of them that are closest to them.
As for statistics, women abuse about equally to men when it comes to physical abuse. The difference is in the severity. In my own experience I do know a couple of abusers and they happen to be women.
Posted by: TM | 2010-06-18 8:31:07 AM
"So MYN do NOT run the country. The voters do.
I am so relieved. Have you notified anonymouse?"
Hey, why'd ya drag me into it?
Posted by: Anonymouse | 2010-06-18 10:13:47 AM
This article just made me laugh at how IGNORANT and FACT-LESS it is.
'and the answer involves something about the "complex intersection of race, ethnicity and gender". Basically, post-modernist nonsense. '
Really, "something about"? Would you care to elaborate on that or does that weaken your own nonsense article about contradictory feminists (who for that matter are far from)?
Third wave feminists are not walking contradictions but rather cautious. And that's what you need considering the sensitive state we are at right now. Women here in the West are feeling oppressed in some manner or another (one may be wage differences). However, women in Islamic countries feel oppressed by policies that force them to stay inside their home, not being able to have a job at all, and more so by not being able to speak up about these injustices.
When it comes to the Hijab, not ALL Muslim women feel they must wear to please their family, or out of fear of their father. Many Muslim women who wear the head scarf believe it liberates them from some of the other oppressions some feminists are trying to fight today, which is the objectification of women, seeing a women through her body rather than her mind and personality. For these women, a Hijad shields the body and forces men to see a woman's intelligence. I do not wear a head scarf but I know many women who do and all of them CHOSE to wear it. In many families you can see a girl who chooses to wear a Hijab and a mother who doesn't. So its not oppressive for ALL women. It may be for some, such as Aqsa, but not all.
Now my point of Third Wave feminists is that, if they were to see feminism only through the eyes of Western culture and refuse to support a hijab, forming an alliance with Middle Eastern women to abolish the other forms of oppression they face, such as the lack of jobs, would not be possible.
This really IS about the intersection of race, ethnicity and gender. If our only focus is gender, most likely our idea of what a woman should have will be the Western idea. But we must take the culture, ethnicity, religion, etc all into account to successfully in order understand where every woman is coming from and what they see as freedom and that way we can form a positive alliance and benefits most or all women.
Posted by: Nab | 2010-06-18 10:25:08 AM
Nab, that is so confusing. I will have to read it again. In a free society women can do whatever they want whenever they want so long as they don't violate the freedom of another. That is the way it should be. If I support that, which I do, then I can bring no harm at all to muslims or women even if I don't like them.
All that other stuff about being appreciated or feelings is meaningless and cannot be legislated.
Posted by: TM | 2010-06-18 10:39:09 AM
Nab,
I am a proud student of the Enlightenment, and it's schools of thought, Occidental as they may be.
While I actually do understand the reasoning you describe, I believe the reasoning is dangerous and contributory to a broad trend, not just among feminists, but society in general, towards the tolerance of ideas that deserve none.
I am an antitheist, so I am opposed to religion in all it's forms. And a strong humanist, so opposed to human oppression in all it's forms. I am not an anti-feminist, and believe it or not, I have found the social commentary, particularly in regards to the concept of consciousness raising, not only insightful but vital to my perspective on the social sphere.
I have, in fact, talked about this at length in other articles.
If I had the time, this article would have been longer, included far more groups than feminists. But it would have painted a trend among a confluence of groups, on both the left and the right, who preach distrust of science, distrust of reason and logic, the embrace of mysticism and continentalist obscurism as a better way of understanding the world.
The trend towards reaching the ultimate philosophical conclusion that nothing can be known that all ways of thinking are valid is pervasive. And it's one feminists have embraced. In most cases, without even realizing it, based on the philosophical schools of thought that they have intwined themselves with.
These philosophies give no direction to parsing morals and ethics, and would seem to undermine the very purpose of anti-oppression movements by bringing into question the validity of their own assertions. But things can be true and false simultaneously in this way of thinking, so not real consistency is required.
The cultural context is in fact an important consideration in parsing these issues. However, for better or worse, I discount cultural considerations insofar as those cultural considerations ingrain oppression. This is not limited to non-Western cultures. I hold this statement true universally.
A symbol of female oppression is a symbol whether it's in the context of women being expected/required to wear corsets, or expected to wear skirts to school/work. Or if it's a foreign society expecting women to cover their faces, their hair, or what have you.
If you think my arguments are lopsided in any way, you can check out what I had to say about Christianity yesterday.
That said, for Western feminists to rail against Judeo-Christian values for being sexist, but showing solidarity with Islamic values is a contradiction. Whether you like it or not. Whether you rationalize it within the realm of tactics, or the complex intersection of oppressions. To give harbour to oppression, or rather, to discount one over the other as a matter of tactics is simply excusing one evil for the hope of good down the road.
My wife is a third-wave feminist, and while she was an organizer at the Ryerson Women's Centre, attempted to bring in Irshad Manjii to talk. A lesbian, feminist, Muslim. And what happened?
Well, and yes I will drop names here: Denise Hammond, the organizer for the community service groups, and the local head of her CUPE local, as well as the other members of the Women Centre, and the Muslim Students Association brought down extreme grief on my wife, forcing her to stop her efforts, saying that Irshad Manjii was not an appropriate speaker given the sensitivities of Muslim students and Muslim feminists..
Further, the issue was escalated to the president of the Ryerson Student's Union on my wife's intransigence on te issue, and my wife was ultimately fired for losing her temper.
After my wife left, the Women's Centre and the MSA would co-host a panel on Women and the Hijab, where three members of the panel were men, and only one hijab-wearing woman. All panelists were pro-Hijab.
The Women's Centre in this case had wanted to bring in Amina Wadud, But she was vetoed by the MSA.
Sorry. But I stand by everything I said.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-06-18 11:03:17 AM
"I'm married to feminist. I consider myself a feminist"
You're going to make one hell of a conservative when your feminist wife seizes your assets and child and divorces you, then tells the police you threatened her, leading to your arrest, then forces you to pay alimony and child support for years, while restricting access to your child, as happens to thousands if not millions of Canadian men. I'm sorry, but you've got herb written all over you, fella, and it is a mathematical certainty you're going to get taken to the cleaners and then some.
No, I haven't been divorced, because I don't let my personal situation in life affect my politics, which, necessarily, aren't all about me. I'm righteous enough to be on the right side *before* it happens. You should be too.
There are now more women in the workforce than men. 65% of new cars sold last year were sold to women. Women make up a large majority of university students and a sizable majority of Law and Medicine grads. The governments in Canada and the private sector explicitly discriminate against men. For every woman incarcerated in Canada, there are 26 men. I and many other gender-aware men can't watch TV or movies anymore because men are inevitably portrayed as sniveling cowards and boobs and the women as strong, masculine...men, basically.
It is simply false to say women get a raw deal in society and you should be an anti-misandry activist rather than piling on the feminist bandwagon if you had a shred of common sense or morality, which I doubt.
You only started bashing Muslims after it affected you personally. That's selfish, dude, do the right thing *before* it bites you in the ass. For example, why not throw some money at a Fathers4Justice candidate next federal election? I did, and it felt great. You can't call yourself a libertarian while staying mum on our decidedly illiberal family law, that just doesn't fly. Don't wait until you get served with divorce papers, which is 100% certain to happen, get on the right side now.
And take a moment to educate yourself on matters of men's rights, because you are just flat out wrong to believe women are getting a raw deal in today's society; it's men who are getting shafted, and not a few feminists even concede that:
www.the-spearhead.com
Posted by: Wise Man | 2010-06-18 11:29:40 AM
Of course, the Men's Rights groups completely discount the fact that when women have children with men, it is almost always the woman who puts her career on hold, and/or ends her career completely to take care of the kids.
When they get divorced, all they can talk about is "their" hard earned money. After all, all the wife did was stay at home, take care of their kids, do the shopping, and clean the husband's shit-stained underwear. And her income potential is severely limited by the responsibility to the children, her lesser experience in the workforce by staying at home, and all assholes like you can complain about is how you get forced to pay them alimony.
Here's a word of advice to any man who wants to avoid this scenario:
1. Do not have children
2. If you have children, and you really don't want to be on the hook for alimony, don't demand that your wife stay at home, do all the household chores, change all the diapers, do your laundry. Instead, contribute equally at home, and encourage your wife to continue her career, so she has a comparable income.
I'm sorry, but this men's rights shit is just sexism in disguise.
But you wear it on your sleeve. You show your disdain for the loss of traditional gender roles. It angers you that men are not more "masculine" and women are not more "feminine". Like you have some intrinsic right to live in a society where women have their place, and men have their place.
You are oppressed, because of all this. Yes. Of course you are. *pats head*
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-06-18 11:47:53 AM
My wife is a third-wave feminist, and while she was an organizer at the Ryerson Women's Centre,.......
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-06-18 11:03:17 AM
Isn't it amusing and so very typical that Brock rails against big government and the funding of special interests when his wife (didn't you say you weren't really married?) works or did work in a government job for special interests. Bwahahahahahaha
Posted by: The Stig | 2010-06-18 12:08:42 PM
Stig,
Two things.
I've never shied away from admitting the differences of mine and my wife's politics on many counts.
Secondly, her job was not a government job.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-06-18 12:15:06 PM
The paradox of secular feminists cozying up to seventh century slave tent clad Muslim women may be related to some feminists wanting to be defined more by what they oppose than what they want. Christian women, especially pro-life women like Sarah Palin evoke pathological contempt from many self-defined feminists. In their zeal to distance themselves from this image they embrace something less feminist but truly anti-Christian? How many "secular" feminist women are actually atheist as opposed to a diluted non committed agnosticism? Perhaps they experience a sisterhood bond of belonging to something as opposed to a hollowed out multi-culti cultural nullity. Either way, how does an atheist fit in with Muslims whose prophet has instructed to kill or enslave. I really don't understand the logic if there is any and if I did I might either be rich or my head would have exploded upon enlightenment.
Posted by: John Chittick | 2010-06-18 12:21:38 PM
Good god, Mike. How did you manage to piss off both the feminists and the father's rights advocates at the same time? There should be an award for that.
I have a slightly different explanation for the cozy relationship between certain versions of feminism and radical Islamic ideology. My explanation is that many feminists are simply poor thinkers, and don't see the tension.
1. Many feminists seem not only ignorant of what the genetic fallacy is -- they seem to fully embrace it as the most valid form of argument.
I don't know how many times I've seen interesting points dismissed because the person making that point was straight/white/male/etc.
2. Many feminists treat question-begging slogans like great arguments. For example, telling anti-abortion folks that if they don't like abortion they shouldn't have one themselves. This assumes the conclusion it is apparently supposed to prove -- that abortion ought to be fully permissible.
(there are feminists reading this who will dismiss what I've said because of point 1.)
3. Many feminists act like they've never heard of the principle of charity. That is, the principle that you should really interpret an interlocutor's argument in its best light. Indeed, if you peruse feminist blogs, you will see that most of them seem to endorse the opposite principle.
4. The worship of bullshit (technical term: see Harry Frankfurt's "On Bullshit" for a definition.) Luce Irigaray, for example.
I could go on. The point is that ANYONE who is disposed to make the kind of errors I've just identified would be unable to mount an adequate defense of liberal ideology against radical Islam. Indeed, they'd be unable to mount a successful defense of their OWN ideology.
We do a rotten job teaching critical thinking, when critical thinking is what liberalism requires if it is to survive.
Posted by: Terrence | 2010-06-18 12:58:02 PM
*pats head*
That's some nice argumentation. I'll respond in kind.
You're a Marxist. Feminism is 100% of Marxist origin. You support socialized medicine, you support the welfare state, you support guaranteed income supplements, you are a feminist, you reject Darwin's theories of race...all Marxist. Whether you support a command economy or not is irrelevant, as the greater part of Marxism hasn't anything to do with that, but rather social issues.
"It angers you that..."
Oh, we're reading minds and putting words in mouth now? Fine, two can play that game: you're a pussy whipped herb, a beta male, whose ashamed that he's been called out as the feminized, effete, shockingly unmanly little pussy whipped bitch that he is. You actually shame me as a Canadian because immigrants come here, see guys - oops, I mean bitches - like you, and assume we're all pussies. You make Canadians look bad.
Hey, that was fun. Now go do some dishes like a good little pussy whipped bitch, bitch.
Posted by: Wise Man | 2010-06-18 1:05:52 PM
The soul of the "men's rights" movement on display for everyone to see for what it is. Nothing really needs to be said after that, Wise Man.
While feminism and Marxism have an uncanny history, your interpretation of feminisms roots are highly selective. Liberal feminism and Marxist feminism have followed two different paths, while having similar goals at times, the concept of women's suffrage is hardly a Marxist one.
John Stuart Mill was probably one of the earliest feminists, and indeed served as the inspiration for much of the suffragette movement. And Mill was certainly not a Marxist, but godfather of classical liberalism.
It's always hilarious to me how conservatives, in particular, like to group ideologies together as one meta-ideology. Atheism, communism, feminism, socialism, liberalism, homosexuality, etc. in conservative minds is all just one, giant ideology.
Indeed.
Of course, some leftists do this too; grouping capitalism, neoconservativism, fascism, neoliberalism, etc. all under one giant fabled meta-ideology.
This all just demonstrates that most lefties and most righties are completely stupid, of course.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-06-18 1:28:51 PM
"This all just demonstrates that most lefties and most righties are completely stupid, of course."
So, in other words, they're human beings.
Posted by: Anonymouse | 2010-06-18 2:07:35 PM
Feminism isn't an ideology any more than a dog drooling for a piece of steak is an ideology. It is a want, a purely greedy want. That's all.
You might say the same about the Men's movement but there is a key difference: their hand is in our pocket and we just want them to remove it. They take from us, not the other way around, and we just want them to stop that.
Feminism is a jack, in the Toronto vernacular, it's all about getting their grubby little paws on as much loot as possible. That's a jack, not an ideology.
Why are do they give Muslims a free pass? Well for starters they're politically correct and highly averse to criticizing anyone but white males.
But more specifically, for the same reason they give outrageously misogynist black hip hop "artists" a free pass: they are in solidarity against a common enemy - white males. It is collusion, at the electoral level and in day to day life, collusion against white males, and that is a matter of well documented political science.
In fact, Obama - who you folks here at the Standard seem curiously averse to criticizing despite being the most statist president in history - recently called for a coalition of latinos, women, and blacks to vote Democrat in the upcoming midterms. It's not a conspiracy theory, Mike, POTUS explicitly acknowledged and encouraged it. Collusion against white males doesn't get any more explicit than that.
But getting back to my previous point: I educate you, a self described lover of liberty, on the matter of men being incarcerated at a rate 26 times higher than women, and your response is...that I'm sexist? That's pretty dumb even for a feminist. A real liberty lover (and a true equality lover, the two are mutually exclusive, though) would be outraged. Your response is tired, cliche whinging about sexism. Weak.
Posted by: Wise Man | 2010-06-18 2:07:40 PM
This all just demonstrates that most lefties and most righties are completely stupid, of course.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-06-18 1:28:51 PM
People are not born as feminists or libertarians as far as I know, so a learning curve is reasonable to expect. For some their eyes are opened early in life and for others it takes longer. Most people, including stupid ones, mean well and some will change their thinking in time.
Some of the things you say seem to be like trying to convince someone of your point of view by kicking them in the balls.
Anyway, Philosophically we may debate things such as religion or feminism. But wouldn't the kind of freedom that libertarians seek make any real or perceived problems associated with these issues, go away?
Posted by: TM | 2010-06-18 2:22:28 PM
Wise Man,
Your argument is nothing more than a bunch of angry, disjointed, thoughts.
The incarceration rate of men versus women does not imply that men are victimized more than women. It can imply many other things, including but not limited to: men commit more crimes than women, that women are looked on as helpless and are pitied by men so that they tend to receive less punishment -- a manifestation of sexism towards women, ironically.
In any case, you've obviously never studied logic and are likely unfamiliar with the fallacy of the single cause.
Or in the case of your questions about the Western Standard and Obama, you might want to consider reading about begging the question.
I note you have simply restated your position that women are simply after mens money, unfairly, without addressing my points regarding the typical breakdown of parenting and household responsibilities.
Thus, you've fallen pray to an even weaker problem with your argument: Argumentum ad nauseam
These are all good principles to keep in mind when trying to win an argument. Just saying.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-06-18 2:26:23 PM
Some of the things you say seem to be like trying to convince someone of your point of view by kicking them in the balls.
What I find absurd about this criticism, and I apologize for the bluntness, is that people with my point of view are dragged through the mud so casually.
Atheists are trashed by religious people in the mainstream media, persistently and regularly. For one reason or another. They're trashed on conservative blogs. They're trashed in casual conversation at the dinner table.
What's completely funny, is that if you take the word "Christianity" out of my arguments and replace it with "atheist", the arguments don't seem so controversial anymore. They seem like safe, watercolor rhetoric.
I refuse to adhere to this double-standard. Which is, that religious beliefs are sacred, personal experiences that should be left untouched in public debate. But that godless people can be openly questioned over the source fo their morality, their trustworthiness for public office, etc.
We've been programmed by our culture to be sensitive to religious beliefs, but insensitive to those who lack them. They are the odd ones out, and easy targets.
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-06-18 2:33:06 PM
Mike good points. Personally I don't care what anyone thinks. But as a Christian Libertarian, I don't want to be stereotyped either.
Posted by: TM | 2010-06-18 2:40:22 PM
"The incarceration rate of men versus women does not imply that men are victimized more than women. "
At a rate of 26 to 1 it not only implies victimization of men (to use your words, although we men don't talk like that, we're not victimhood junkies; let's call it an incursion of liberty on men), it affirms it.
With all due respect, I'm not impressed by a sub-literate feminist lackey regurgitating Latin and a poor understanding of argumentation, although your grammar and spelling seemed to have improved immensely; did your wife help you/instruct you to write this?
I've nailed you as an anti-liberty Marxist, it's over, you have no credibility, you are merely a feminist lapdog. Your claim that women face barriers due to sexism has been destroyed, it's actually the other way around.
I'm the only one to have satisfactorily answered the question this post asks: why feminists give Islam a free pass, and I did so using well documented political science and original thinking and research, which you should be thanking me for and I should be charging you for.
Posted by: Wise Man | 2010-06-18 2:47:01 PM
Mike,
You've debated with this guy before ... he's pretty much insane. I'm surprised he hasn't complained about the WS not addressing the supposed immigration problem.
As to your other point, I think you are correct when you state that it seems to be more acceptable in society to trash atheists than to trash those who believe in some sort of deity.
Posted by: Charles | 2010-06-18 2:48:21 PM
"I'm surprised he hasn't complained about the WS not addressing the supposed immigration problem."
Good point, I almost forgot. The blood of Parvez isn't on my hands, it's on the hands of open immigration supporters who put her in this situation, a child with strict (and racist) parents living in a dystopian anti-morality Toronto, where teenyboppers whore themselves up to the max. The kid was living in a shelter at one point. It wouldn't have happened had her parents stayed where they came from.
Racism is part of the problem too, don't forget, the prohibition against Muslim women marrying non-Muslims is really a prohibition against marrying whites, while we place no such restrictions on our women, leading to an imbalance. In supply and demand terms it increases demand of white women while supply of Muslim women is artificially restricted via embargo - that's another reason why feminists - mostly white - like open immigration, it vastly increases demand for women, resulting in guys like Mike becoming shameful lapdogs to get a piece of ass.
So we see how open immigration places enormous stress on families and leads to increased violence and murder in our country.
Posted by: Wise Man | 2010-06-18 3:08:09 PM
Charles,
Feel the rage!
Posted by: Mike Brock | 2010-06-18 3:11:42 PM
Hmmm, Wise Man, do you know Zebulon Pike? Just wondering, as your take on the issues seem to stem from a hatred of Toronto.
I don't have much to input here as I had never given this issue too much thought. But I will say this. Women have every right to the same things men have every right to. If you look at history, our socialism began at the same time women where given the right to vote. That's because women needed help with caring for children, caring for the poor, caring for seniors and so on. The cultural role of women has been, for the most part, as caretakers. Men on the other hand, culturally speaking, have been the disciplinarians, the hunters, the head of the household, and so on. That's all changing. It seems like some people have a hard time grasping this.
Party on.
Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-06-18 3:29:43 PM
"Feel the rage!"
So much for rugged individualism; debate is not a team sport, chump. You are getting pwned pretty badly here; cmon, put up a fight, I LIKE IT when you struggle.
You can start by explaining how you can claim to value liberty and equality while condoning a 26 to 1 ratio of imprisoned men to women.
You want to say men are 26 times more criminal than women, right? Well, who decides what the law is? God? No. Allah? No. We do, and we need to "gender normalize" the criminal code to achieve equality in incarceration as we have done in the workplace, and if we have to arrest random women off the street and throw them in jail in order to even the numbers I would support that, and maybe then women will learn the value of liberty.
Personally I say we make gossiping in the workplace punishable by not less than 30 days in jail, that should do the trick. Or maybe we just throw feminists who, despite all data to the contrary, continue to incite hatred against men by claiming women are discriminated against in jail. That seems fair to me. Howsabout women who use smiley faces in inter-office emails? 14 days in the slammer, amirite, guyz?
Steve: "If you look at history, our socialism began at the same time women where given the right to vote."
Boy, did you ever put your finger on it, but watch out! Mike will be so mad that you're blaming socialism on womyn that he might launch a human rights complaint against you!
Feminists love launching human rights complaints. Some people - we call them libertarians - astonishingly think this massive incursion on liberty makes us more free. They misunderstand positive "rights" as rights instead of the arbitrary entitlements that they are which restrict freedom immensely.
Posted by: Wise Man | 2010-06-18 3:47:26 PM
I would be surprised if Mike gave a flying fig about that. Especially coming from me :)
Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-06-18 4:10:12 PM
I could be wrong, but isn't Mike against the HRC? At least how it functions now?
Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-06-18 4:12:31 PM
I think most if not all libertarians are against the HRC, Steve.
Wise Man has constructed a strawman libertarian. Or he's just doing a poor job of trolling. I'm thinking the latter.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2010-06-18 7:16:57 PM
Being a white middle class male these days has parallels with being Canadian. No bueprint to build on and no sense of direction. Almost all TV shows now have the woman (or black person) in charge. Womans studies as a legitimate course in post secondary education. Where are the mens studies??. Where is the Dept. for the status of men ?? Where is the male equivelant for feminism. There is funding for everything female, gay or just plain stupid with the average white male paying for most of it. Too timid and confused to object and not even knowing whom to object to. The entire education system seems geared to teaching women that they are better men....than men.
Like most experiments in social engineering this one is also doomed to crash and burn. Men are genetically programed to be "hunter/gatherers" and woman to be "nurturers". Both equals in their own right.
Eventually it will revert back to this. It took 50 years to get to this point and may take many more years to find a comfortable balance.
Posted by: peterj | 2010-06-19 12:12:59 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.